Engendering Course of Actions
Evaluating Fourth World Conference on Women: Through the lens of VAWIP
Camena Guneratne
South Asian countries have historically witnessed women’s participation in politics, in the colonial era, in the struggles for independence and in the postcolonial period. In the latter period four of these countries, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have had women Heads of State and women in high positions in government. Nevertheless, the achievements of these women are the exception rather than the norm, and the region has not achieved parity between men and women in regard to access to political and decision-making processes across the board. While there are many and complex reasons for women being marginalised in political processes, violence is also a reason. Gender based violence in all forms and in all spheres, ranging from the domestic to the public, is endemic across the South Asian region. Violence in electoral processes is also a common problem in many of these countries. The combination of all these factors has given rise to concerns of Violence Against Women In Politics (VAWIP) and their implications for women’s participation in all aspects of political life.
The Strengths and Weaknesses of CEDAW from the Perspective of VAWIP
CEDAW sets out the substantive provisions on achieving equality for women in all spheres and aspects of life, and also establishes procedures by which countries’ progress in this regard is monitored. Its text does not contain provisions on violence against women in general, or specifically in politics. However, this issue was subsequently addressed by way of General Recommendations and violence against women is now considered an intrinsic aspect of discrimination against women and thus of the CEDAW processes. CEDAW does deal with women’s political participation. Its provisions are reinforced by General Recommendations issued by the CEDAW Committee. Both the provisions and the General Recommendations can be creatively used to enforce States’ obligations to address VAWIP.
While CEDAW, in its provisions and General Recommendations, does deal with both women’s political participation on the one hand and violence against women on the other, it does not establish a link between the two issues in the context of VAWIP. General Recommendation 23 deals with women in political and public life rather than in electoral politics specifically. Similarly General Recommendations 12 and 19 on gender based violence emphasise violence in the private sphere rather than in the public sphere and do not mention violence in politics. Nevertheless, all these provisions and General Recommendations can be used as a basis of a more specific General Recommendation on VAWIP. Both the substantive provisions of CEDAW and the General Recommendations contain provisions which could reinforce women’s rights to political participation free of violence.
Amending CEDAW
Since CEDAW does not contain specific provisions on VAWIP, it is necessary to find strategies by which it can be used to address the issue. Amending CEDAW to include provisions on VAWIP would be a cumbersome process and it requires a General Assembly Resolution to do so. After the Resolution is passed, a certain number of States Parties must ratify it for it to enter into force. States Parties are not bound to ratify the amendment. To date there has been only one instance of an amendment to CEDAW, namely Article 20(1). In addition, the Optional Protocol was also adopted. In both instances the above process was followed.
Therefore a more practical and quicker strategy would be to call for a General Recommendation on VAWIP which could be used as a catalyst to bring this problem into focus. The fact that CEDAW does not contain provisions on VAWIP would not be a bar to doing so. Since it has already addressed the issues of women in politics as well as gender based violence, what is required is a new General Recommendation linking the two in the context of VAWIP.
