Missing an opportunity to end hate
A flawed appointment process for the Commission on Gender Equality raises key questions about how best to create an effective gender equality watchdog, write Jenni Williams, Maryam Ahmad and Chris Oxtoby
WOULD you be prepared to hire someone for a job without asking them a question about something on their CV? Most employers would doubtless say no. But the ad hoc parliamentary portfolio committee for the Commission on Gender Equality (CGE) seems to take a different view.
Recently the committee spent two days interviewing shortlisted candidates to fill nine vacancies in the commission, a Chapter 9 institution that has been beset by criticism for failing to fulfil its mandate, by allegations of maladministration, and for failing to build relationships with civil society and other Chapter 9 institutions.
Last year, however, the commission appeared to show signs of progress when it conducted strategic consultations with civil society and received an unqualified audit for 2009/10. Through the appointment of nine new commissioners, the parliamentary committee had a critical opportunity to rejuvenate the organisation and to determine whether these positive developments should continue.
Given the importance of the commission’s functions to the public and civil society stakeholders a number of submissions were made to the parliamentary committee regarding the interview process.
A joint submission by the Women’s Legal Centre and UCT’S Democratic Governance and Rights Unit sought to highlight the legal criteria for the selection of commissioners and provide an accessible breakdown of the constitutional requirements in order to assist the panel in their questioning of candidates.
Unfortunately, the chair of the committee, Ruth Bengu, declared that the submission was “undermining” the committee and no account was therefore taken of its contents during the interview process.
The skills, experience and attributes required by the constitution and by legislation and laid out in the submission include a record of commitment to gender equality, possession of applicable knowledge or experience, and the ability to perform their functions in good faith and without fear, favour, bias or prejudice.
The consequence of the committee’s refusal to acknowledge these standards reflected in the questions that were asked of candidates which did not deal with these crucial issues.
The committee asked candidates for their understanding of the role of the CGE, and the role of the CGE in relation to the Ministry for Women, Youth, Children and Persons with Disabilities – these are akin to asking: “Do you know what the CGE is?”
They also asked candidates for the reasons the CGE had been unable to discharge its mandate effectively; what changes were needed to make the CGE more effective in fulfilling its mandate; challenges in society that the CGE needs to respond to; any duplication between the CGE and other Chapter 9 institutions; perceptions that the CGE had failed and was a “feminist organisation”; and what value the candidate would bring to the CGE if appointed.
The questions were largely knowledge-based, in that they asked candidates to talk about the specific roles and challenges of the CGE, but little was asked to enable candidates to show a deeper knowledge of, or commitment to, gender issues, relevant policies, legislation, or the statutory framework that governs the commission.
Some candidates struggled to answer even the basic questions that were asked of them. Several were unable to discuss their relevant experience and how it would be used on the CGE, while some showed a lack of knowledge about the commission’s basic structure and functions.
Several issues which should also have been covered were omitted. The questions made no direct mention of candidates’ record of commitment to gender equality, and in some cases this did not come through during the interviews at all. Nor was the question of the ability to act without fear, favour or bias canvassed.
Given that these are criteria specifically identified in the Commission on Gender Equality Act, and the maladministration that the CGE has experienced at the hands of former commissioners, these omissions glossed over crucial information. Current commissioners who were being interviewed for a second term were asked the same questions as candidates seeking a first term, a cause for concern especially when the sitting commissioners are being asked about the basic functions of the CGE.
The questioning was thus often inflexible and was not adapted to meet different aptitudes of different candidates.
There was a disappointing failure to probe and engage candidates on the substantive issues and how to turn the CGE around.
It was surprising to see a line of questioning based on a candidate’s CV being disallowed. The chair disallowed questioning of one candidate, where it was put that the candidate’s CV expressed “bitterness and anger”, on the basis that no other candidate had been asked a question based on their CV, and it would therefore be unfair to subject the candidate to such questioning.
It is hard to see how the committee could assess whether a candidate was “fit and proper”, by the constitution, or whether they possessed the necessary knowledge and experience, as required by the legislation, without allowing questions to be asked about a candidate’s CV.
The legal criteria suggests that we may expect commissioners to possess a proven track record of commitment to gender equality; to understand the intersecting issues of HIV, Aids and poverty, and their cumulative impact on equality; to have knowledge of constitutional, legislative and international obligations for the promotion and establishment of gender equality and understand their requirements.
The nomination of some commissioners who, during their interviews were unable to demonstrate how their past experience was relevant to the post of commissioner or how they would contribute to improving the CGE’S performance, may be indicative of a flawed process of appointment.
Time will tell how the new commissioners perform, but the interviews may be looked back on as an opportunity missed, and a disappointing setback in the establishment of an effective and fully functioning gender equality watchdog.
Jenni Williams is the director of the Women’s Legal Centre and Maryam Ahmad is a legal intern at the centre. Chris Oxtoby is a researcher at the Democratic Governance and Rights Unit at the Department of Public Law at UCT.