OPINION: The Nigerian Senate: 35 Percent And The Rest Of Us.

By Kainene CJN

Of all the four bills which failed to gain the Senate's approval three days ago, none gladden my heart like the failure of the bill which sought to reserve 35% of political offices for women.

I was happy not for myself or for the men. I was happy for my daughter. That failure saved her from a fog of confusion which the promoters of that bill tried to impose on her and all other young girls.

Imagine I have two kids: Victoria and Michael. Imagine again that the Senate had characteristically played to the gallery and passed the bill to reserve 35% of political offices for the women. So, I'm back from work and I wanted to explain to my two kids, Victoria and Michael what transpired at the Senate.

It will kind of go like this:

I will stoop down, look into their eyes and with all seriousness, explain. "Darling, the Senate has just reserved 35% slot for you. None was given to Mike". And she will ask, "dad, why was I given 35% and none was given to Mike". Then, I will stammer a bit before saying, "well, because you have a vagina and Mike doesn't". She is still trying to process this unearned privilege when I spouted out, "honey, believe me. Don't ever let anyone treat you like an inferior. We all have equal rights before the law." Now her confusion has just been magnified. On one hand, some people deemed her to be so weak that a meagre 35% had to be reserved for her irrespective of her ability. On the other hand, the same people seek to tell her that she has equal rights with Mike.

The real enemies of women are the promoters of that failed bill. Had that bill passed, it would have 'delegitimized' and cheapened all the achievements of women in politics. It's kinder hard to respect someone whose position was gifted without merit but by luck - the luck of having a vagina. Imagine, if that Bill had passed, some bloke would look at the achievements of Late Akunyili, for instance, and claim, "she wouldn't even have been in Nafdac had she been a man". So insulting! So untrue!

I know obeying the constitution is not a biggy here. But it's worth remembering that the constitution provides that no citizen of Nigeria will be treated differently because of religious beliefs, gender or tribe. Do please explain to me why I should protest against the prescription of lower cut off marks for students from the Northern states and not protest against this bill. Is there any difference between the two? Both treat equals unequally.

Moreover, what is really demeaning is when you ask by what cateria was the paltry 35% reached. For a people who could win 70% or even 90% of the  political offices, the peg at 35% is very insulting. In America, Hillary Clinton almost became the President. In Germany, Merkel is the Chancellor and one of the most powerful politicians in Europe. In Britain, you have Prime Minister Theresa May. In France, Le Pen lost the  Presidential election. In the most populous black nation, we are discussing 35%. It's instructive to note that none of these nations have this sort of discriminating law we sought to pass.

The proponents of this discriminatory Bill argue that they want to fight against patriarchy. But they are not fighting against  patriarchy. Rather, they are being controlled by it. At the background of this bill, is the idea that a woman can't achieve anything through hard work. Whatever she has, money, clothes, marriage, office, position, must be given to her. So, if you happen to see a new clothe on her, or a new phone or a new car, the first question you ask is: "who bought it for you"? But this ideology is barbaric. Women are not helpless. They want to engage in politics but not as subordinates whose positions can only be gifted.

Senator Olujimi argued that the aim of the bill is to encourage women to take part in politics. But bestowing unearned privileges will not encourage women any more than gifting students unearned marks encourage them to study harder. For decades, we had lowered the cut off marks for students from the Northern states. Has that made the North to be at par with the rest of the country in terms of education? If anything, this bill would have discouraged women participation in politics because nobody struggles for what is given.

I believe the funniest argument I have heard in support of this bill is that women are a great managers and that had it been that we have more women in leadership positions, then, Nigeria would not be in this political and economic quicksand. Women, this argument goes, would have provided a different and all conquering solution to all our nation's problems.

I do not doubt the intellectual capabilities of women. But I believe that the failures of our nation owe more to the lack of honesty and ideas among our leaders. And this lack is not gender sensitivity. If you doubt it, then permit me to drop two names: Patricia Etteh and Allison Madueke.

What need is the pulling down of any law, whether statutory or customary or religious which discriminates against women participation in politics. What we don't need is the enactment of novel discriminating laws that will hinder or  cheapen women participation in politics. What we need is continuous enlightenment and constantly reminding young girls of what Beyonce once sang; WHO RUN THE WORLD? GIRLS! GIRLS! GIRLS!