Patriarchy princess in Parliament

It is quite nauseating to witness members of parliament, who ought to be progressive lawmakers in our country, sanction and condone rape as it relates to marriages. Not only does it erode the principles for equality and the right to safety in the constitution, but it begs the question on whether Namibian parliamentarians, from across all party lines, are committed enough to uphold and protect the bodily autonomy, integrity and dignity of rape victims and survivors.

Namibian parliamentarians are currently in the process of debating the Combating of Rape Amendment Bill, which was tabled in the National Assembly by the Minister of Justice.

This was strongly influenced by nationwide protests that erupted under the banner #Shut It All Down Namibia to radically address the scourge of sexual and genderbased violence (SGBV) in Namibia. An article in The Namibian highlighted the sentiments of the Minister in response to the protests and the amendments to the Combating of Rape Act of 2000.

“We must welcome the #ShutItAllDown protest as a stern reminder that we cannot stand by and watch our women and girls, and in some instances young men and boys, subjected to rape,” the article extrapolated.

In light of the above, with the ongoing debates on the review of this new amendment Bill, a member of parliament, Elma Dienda, from the official opposition political party, the Popular Democratic Movement (PDM), violently stated that rape does not exist in marriages.

In fact, her exact words read: “I’m talking about husbands and wives, not boyfriends and girlfriends. You are told you cannot deny your partner his right,” as written in The Namibian. She further established harmful bigotry in the same article by saying: “I mean, why must I deny my husband his right? It is his right. But to say it is rape within my marriage? I mean, which husband will accept that?”.

The same MP, in commemoration of International Women’s Day in March this year, was quoted in a Windhoek Observer article stating: “Namibia should ensure that all forms of discrimination against women and girls are fought and done away with, in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 5 (SDGs). Dienda said women have walked long and fought hard in achieving gender equality, both at home and in the workplace.”

A pinnacle part of upholding gender equality is protecting the bodily integrity of women, even in their domestic settings. That includes preventive measures against domestic violence, which constitutes rape and other forms of abuse.

Circling back to the current Combating of Rape Act of 2000, rape is progressively, clearly and unequivocally defined. The Act states: “Any person shall be guilty of the offence of rape who intentionally under coercive circumstances:

(a) commits or continues to commit a sexual act with another person; or

(b) causes another person to commit a sexual act with the perpetrator or with a third person.’

With the above, it is worth mentioning that the Act does not infer that only a specific gender can commit the crime of rape but ‘any person’, which means in a marriage, any person can be a perpetrator. Subsequently, the Act explicitly outlines the coercive circumstances under which rape may occur as it speaks to consent. Through a lucid but limited definition by the Planned Parenthood, consent ‘means actively agreeing to be sexual with someone.’ In other words, consent may be withdrawn at any time during a sexual activity, even within a formalised structure such as a marriage. So, Dienda’s claims that sex is a husband’s right is not only ludicrous, but it perpetuates rape culture, panders to victim-blaming, dismisses married rape victims and survivors, and reeks of a patriarchy princess syndrome where ‘a female is comfortable with the world remaining a patriarchal society.’ It also inadvertently implores us to unpack her remarks with much more empathy; that while we do not fully know whether or not Dienda or her husband may be victims in their own marriage, we can confirm that they (and Namibians in every society) are both socialised victims of a patriarchal system that sanctions and institutional is ed this sort of behaviour.

The PDM rushed to publish a colourful but hollow statement against the abhorrent statements of Dienda, citing ‘Leader of the Official Opposition Hon McHenry Venaani says it is outrageous to interpret the marriage vows as an agreement to sexual intercourse at any time, under any circumstances, for years to come – regardless of whether the husband is drunk, violent or abusive.’ Whilst the leader reacted against those harmful statements, rape culture and the scourge of rape cannot be changed with a single statement, let alone with a short think-piece published on a Facebook page. It takes more than lip service, which may be rendered and even concluded as insufficient, tongue-in-cheek reactions, to reform an entire societal behaviour that believes in ‘not denying husbands their rights’.

What is clearly missing from their statement is how PDM (and the outlying party lines), are adopting internal cohesive strategies to unlearn rape culture, which may otherwise enable the kind of behaviour displayed by Dienda and admittedly, a considerable amount of female parliamentarians also flying high the flag of patriarchy.

I refuse to believe that we have a long way to go to combat the scourge of SGBV primarily because it is the lawmakers who have prolonged this journey.

Lawmakers such as Dienda do not have ‘controversial’ views but corrosive views which must be dealt with timely, seriously and without favour, lest the country perhaps relies on patriarchy princesses (in parliament) in order for abuse, violence and gender inequalities to continue to thrive in society.