Women Members of Parliament (MPs) in Uganda are the most egregious discrimination against men in Uganda
Women Members of Parliament in Uganda are the most egregious discrimination against men in Uganda. It’s vital that all groups are represented in decision making and the legislature is meant to express the will of the people. It is admirable to take positive action to ensure that the view points of all groups in society are represented and we concede that Parliament should always put in place measures to break barriers that prevent participation of any group in the political process. What we oppose is granting certain groups special treatment in the name of affirmative action. Special treatment to any group equals to discrimination against the less favourably treated groups and should be condemned by every individual in society.
In the eleventh Parliament there are 189 Women MPs (including 14 Ex officio Members) constituting 34% of the members of Parliament . There are 14 Women Cabinet Ministers constituting 45% out of 31 Cabinet Ministers and 24 Women State Ministers constituting 48% out of 50 Ministers of State. The breakdown of the women members of Parliament is as follows:
- District Women Representatives – 146
- Directly Elected Constituency Representatives – 16
- Female Army (UPDF) Rep.- 03
- Female Workers Rep. – 02
- Female Youth Rep. – 02
- Persons with Disabilities (PWDS) – 03
- Older Persons Rep. – 3
- Ex Officio Members – 14
The relevant statistic in the numbers above is that there are only 16 directly elected women members of Parliament out of 189 members of Parliament. This means that only sixteen women were elected on their merits. They contested in an open election against their male counterparts and the electorate consisting of both females and males were convinced of their platform and agenda and voted to represent their will in Parliament. The remaining 173 women represent women as a biological sex just because they are women. They didn’t compete with men and they are in Parliament to represent women while all the other members of Parliament represent both men and women in their constituency. So while a man gets one representative to represent him, a woman gets two representatives.
Women representatives in the Parliament of Uganda.
Initially it was that only women could vote the women representatives in Parliament but it was realized that it meant that it was being openly admitted that women represent fellow women in Parliament. It was changed so that even men vote for the woman member of Parliament so that they could claim that even though the representative is female, she represents both men and women of her constituency in Parliament. They reasoned that since few women can win a seat when in open competition against a man as the numbers seem to indicate, there is need to create a special category of members of Parliament reserved for only women so that there could be a substantial number of women representatives in Parliament. The government created a quota of one woman per district to represent women in Parliament. We assert that this amounts to special treatment in favor of women and therefore amounts to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex. The only qualification I need to represent women in Parliament is a vagina and if am unlucky enough to be born with a penis I have to compete with both fellow men and women to be a member of Parliament. The special treatment is not given on the basis of any other characteristics but merely because a person is a woman.
It is legitimate to encourage women to be represented in Parliament and its legitimate for Parliament to put in place reasonable accommodations to overcome barriers that make women less competitive in open races against both men and women. What Parliament has no power to do is give women blanket special treatment merely on the basis of their sex. Parliament can not create quotas reserved for one group in the name of affirmative action.
What is wrong with having seats in Parliament reserved for women
We support the observation of Chief Justice Roberts in striking down a racial quota in Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 748 that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” We believe that the way to stop sex or gender discrimination in Uganda is to stop discriminating on the basis of gender or sex in Uganda.
When positions are reserved for a disadvantaged or under represented group in society, it is referred to as a quota. In Uganda 173 seats in Parliament are reserved for women. It’s justified on the basis that In Uganda Women were historically discriminated against by cultural norms and considered as a lesser sex in Society. Many of these discriminatory practices and stereotypes still exist in Uganda and there are substantial barriers against women in employment and acquisition of property. However substantial oppression and discrimination against men has taken root in Ugandan society such that men are openly demonized and discriminated in favor women.
In many jurisdictions around the world, women’s past and current disadvantage is regarded as an injustice that must be corrected by various measures, including anti discrimination law, affirmative action, and even gender quotas. In Europe quotas are lawful if they are flexible and do not automatically require that a woman be chosen over a man. In the United States and the UK the use of quotas is unlawful discrimination. Per the US Supreme Court, accepting racial balancing as a compelling state interest would justify the imposition of racial proportionality throughout American society, contrary to our repeated recognition that “[a]t the heart of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the Government must treat citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual or national class.” Miller v. Johnson,
In Students for Fair Admission v Harvard Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the Equal Protection Clause applies “without regard to any difference of race, of color, or of nationality” and thus must apply to every person. He wrote, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it”, “For ‘[t]he guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.’ ” In agreement with Chief Justice Roberts we maintain that equality when applied to a man can not mean one thing and mean something else when applied to a woman.
Barriers to equality imposed by the Supreme Court of Uganda
In Madrama v Attorney General, Constitutional Appeal 1 of 2016, the Supreme Court accepted that different treatment between women who leave public service and men who do the same before attaining forty five years complies with article 43 of the Constitution. The court blessed a lower court ruling which held that the state can allow women who resign or otherwise leave public service to start a family or due to marriage to retain their public service pension even though they have not attained forty five years whereas men who do so for the same reason can not because of the role of women as mothers and care givers. The Court decision is absurd and wrong because if traditional roles of men are sufficient to justify more favorable treatment for men then all discrimination against women on the basis of these roles also is constitutionally justified. Consider for example, the traditional roles of men such as building a house, paying school fees, paying dowry, paying for dates, giving money to a woman, military service and many more. Given the unique contribution of men in the mentioned aspects of life we can use the Supreme Court reasoning to argue that it is Constitutional to pay men high wages, charge them lower taxes and interest rates and to allow them to inherit more land given their predominant role in building the physical home, meeting the financial needs of the family especially the children and feeding the family.
As equality absolutists we assert that discrimination of any kind whether in favor or against men is unlawful and unconstitutional. Madrama v AG as far as it suggests that all favourable treatment in favor of women is justified due to their role as mothers and as affirmative action is a black stain on the jurisprudence of Uganda that needs to be immediately overruled. It misunderstandings the meaning of affirmative action and the need to reconcile affirmative action policies with the prohibition against discrimination. The fact that the Constitution allows affirmative action it doesn’t mean that every policy implemented in the name of affirmative action is not unconstitutional discrimination.
Affirmative action is sometimes referred to as alternative access, positive discrimination or positive action. It refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to address systemic discrimination. In Uganda it is authorized by Article 32(1) of the Constitution. It provides that: “ Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the state shall take affirmative action in favor of groups marginalized on the basis of gender, age, disability or any other reason created by history, tradition or custom, for the purpose of redressing imbalances which
exist against them.” The Constitution goes further to provide for affirmative action for women in Article 33 as follows:
- Women shall be accorded full and equal dignity of the person with men.
- The State shall provide the facilities and opportunities necessary to enhance the welfare of women to enable them to realize their full potential and advancement.
- The State shall protect women and their rights, taking into account their unique status and natural maternal functions in society.
- Women shall have the rights to equal treatment with men and that right shall include equal opportunities in political, economic, and social activities.
The word affirmative action when it was used in 1995 did not mean provide women with special or more favourable treatment and as recognized by Article 33 in case of men and women the right to equal treatment applies regardless of affirmative action. Article 33 after providing for affirmative action provides that women shall have the rights to equal treatment with men and that right shall include equal opportunities in political, economic, and social activities. Affirmative action as understood in 1995 meant policies that remedy systemic discrimination, eliminate stereotypes and prejudice against women and other disadvantaged groups and, reduce or remove barriers to equal opportunities for them. Affirmative action did not mean imposition of quotas or discriminatory practices against men. Like any restriction to constitutional rights it’s subject to Article 43 of the Constitution. This means that the policies put in place as affirmative action must be tested for reasonableness, effectiveness and the burden that they impose on other groups and their rights. It’s not correct that whatever policy that government dreams up as affirmative action is constitutionally permitted.
Read More
- If Magistrates Courts in Uganda are less competent and more prone to corruption does it mean that the poor deserve inferior justice to the rich.
- Women Members of Parliament (MPs) in Uganda are the most egregious discrimination against men in Uganda
- The UPDF Amendment Bill 2025. A proposed compromise that could protect political opponents of the ruling party.
- How to enforce Court Orders in Uganda and by pass the Illegal Interference by RDCs and Politicians. Strengthening Judicial Independence in Uganda
- Insulting the modesty of a woman in Uganda is an unconstitutionally vague and discriminatory offense
