Why campaign against Gender based violence remains ineffective

While several legal instruments and policies have been passed with intent to make Uganda violence - free society, women and girls continue to statistically make up the majority of the victims of gender-based violence (GBV) countrywide. A 2014 report on the final evaluation of GBV actually names Uganda as one of the countries in Africa where Gender Based Violence is very high. The Uganda Demographic Health Survey (UDHS) results of 2011 revealed that, 56 per cent of women (or about one in every two women and/or girls) in Uganda have ever experienced physical violence at some point since the age of 15 years; 28 per cent of women aged 15-49 (i.e. approximately one in every four of them) have ever suffered sexual violence; 16 per cent (or one in every six of these) have endured violence during pregnancy; and approximately 24 per cent (i.e. nearly one in every four women and/or girls) disclosed that, their first sexual encounter was a forced one.

But why is this so? What are the missing links? There are several possible explanations. First, is the fact that GBV is still a grossly misunderstood concept. To a vast majority of us, GBV is nothing more than wife beating/battering. And, this is to miss the point! From a more holistic human rights perspective, GBV is an overarching reference to any harmful act that is perpetrated against a person’s will on the basis of gender or socially ascribed differences between males and females. It includes acts that inflict physical, socio-economic, mental, emotional/psychological, and sexual harm or suffering, threat of such acts, coercion and deprivation of liberty. A lot of effort needs to be invested into making the policy makers, service providers, the community and community leaders to fully grasp this more embracive interpretation of GBV. Remember, it is the misunderstanding of the true nature and scope of GBV problem which often leads to improper diagnosis, wanting policy prescriptions, weak implementation/enforcement arrangements, superficial monitoring and evaluation measures and therefore ineffectual results.

Secondly and as a corollary to the preceding point, our interventionist programs appear to be premised on faulty understanding of the most commonly operative GBV referral system. Who are the people consulted most by the GBV survivors?
Quite often, a wife who gets clobbered by her beastly husband or a teenage girl who gets sexually molested by her predatory “uncle” first chooses to confide with her most trusted friend, elder, clan head, religious leader and perhaps her LC 1 chairperson. The main thrust of any GBV sensitisation programme thus ought to focus more on these “key de facto “points of reference”. But in actual practice however, it is mainly the “service providers” (police, judiciary, health, local government officials, etc.) who get prioritised in such interventions! It is because they are the ones who are most visible, assertive and articulate. The others are present but invisible, uninformed and yet loudly silent! This makes us to miss out on the potential benefits of grassroots empowerment, community buy-in and “cascade training” that would have accrued from selective targeting of our pro-poor awareness raising programs.

Above all, the fight against GBV is complicated by its being perpetrated by a wide range of people including those who are supposed to be the lead combat personnel – family members, teachers, policy makers, legislators, government bureaucrats, police, judicial personnel, health workers and local community leadership. Within the context of existent resource shortages, lukewarm political will, institutional weaknesses, defective legal/policy framework and pervasive corruption in the country, it has become a sad tale of asking a thief to chase a fellow thief!

Mr Okurut Kedi,

[email protected]