South Africa


Engendered prejudice: Women lead in the voter line up, but are still under-represented in local government

Engendered prejudice: Women lead in the voter line up, but are still under-represented in local government
(Image: Adobe Stock)

Turning the lens on gender in the local government elections, an analysis of elected candidates shows that the only space where women led was in voter registration numbers. The Independent Electoral Commission has revealed that while more women than men registered to vote in every province, female councillors only made up 37% of elected councillors.

Despite moves to achieve 50/50 gender representation in local government, women continue to be underrepresented, particularly as ward councillors.

These measures include the 2008 SADC Protocol on Gender and Development – which committed member states to put measures in place to bring about 50% representation for women in decision-making positions by 2015 – and legislation such as the Municipal Structures Act – which states that every party must seek to ensure that 50% of the candidates in the party are women and that women and men candidates are evenly distributed throughout the list.

Most women in municipal councils elected as proportional representative (PR) councillors are elected by their political parties to serve on a municipal council, rather than voted for by residents. 

According to the IEC,  63% of councillors who won seats in the 2021 local elections were men, compared with 37% women.

A democratic deficit?

Women’s participation in government is important to ensure their issues are addressed. Postdoctoral researcher at the Dullah Omar Institute, Dr Michelle Maziwisa, wrote that “although having women elected into local government is not in itself a guarantee that the elected women will advance women’s issues, not having gender-balanced local governments creates a democratic deficit”.

In a recent interview, Maziwisa explained that local government has the authority to administer functions and make laws or bylaws (in the case of local councils), and some of the areas in which it has competency are especially important for women, such as childcare, electricity reticulation and water and sanitation.

“The way that women experience access to those particular services is quite different to how men experience them. If you don’t have women represented on municipal councils, then some of those issues may not necessarily make it to the table for discussion.” 

Councillor Helen Jacobs, who was elected for a second term in Ward 56 (Kensington and Maitland in Cape Town), says the implications of policies for people at grassroots level are often not taken into account because men dominate policy- and decision-making positions.  

“They don’t see the real hurt and pain that people go through because it is mostly women who get affected,” she says. “For example, when the water is cut, a man will tell a woman, ‘go see that we have water’, and that is why I would like female councillors to start interacting more, so that we can get through to our male counterparts and have more input into these things. If we are part of policymaking we can make the necessary changes.” 

Fiona Abrahams, a PR councillor in the Western Cape, says she has seen similar problems while serving on the finance portfolio.

“I hear the arguments and can see that the implications of policies for women are not understood. In the finance portfolio it’s just about raising revenue, with no thought of the actual consequences. So, when we implement the debt management policy, as an example, [it means] that when you don’t pay your water, it is deducted from your [prepaid] electricity [purchases]. They don’t have an idea that there will be an old auntie with only R50, and that when the debt is deducted, she will still sit with hardly anything. She will again be in a position where she doesn’t have electricity. Those things are not taken into consideration.”

Changing minds

Jacobs says there are many prejudices about the abilities of women ward councillors.

“There is that stigma that if you are a woman, you are not going to do that well. To them, males do it better and women can’t do it as well as [men] can, so we have to prove ourselves, which often means working much harder than men. The advantage I had was that I was brought in by a male. The community accepted me much easier because the previous [male] councillor groomed me, took me under his wing and pushed me through.”  

Abrahams, who was a ward candidate in the 2021 local government elections but was unsuccessful, says she doesn’t think residents realise the importance of having women as ward councillors.  

“What I see is that they still value the input of males over females. I see it in community meetings. Your grandmother will still listen to the male. They will take whatever males say very serious[ly], but when a female says it, it is taken very lightly. I don’t know how we’re going to change it but that is what I’ve experienced in the public meetings we’ve had. So, we still have a long way when it comes to mindset.” 

‘Too emotional’ 

Jacobs and Abrahams say that even when a woman does become a councillor there are still barriers to participation within government and to progression in the political space.

“Where I find difficulty is when it comes to electing positions,” says Jacobs. “That’s where the discrimination comes in.” Often the people who decide on these positions are all men. “I really think that we as women need to look at this and how we can get more females into positions where we can start taking initiative into policymaking.” 

Abrahams says she was once told by a colleague that “we can’t trust you women to lead us, you’re too emotional”. 

“We had a big argument about that. But you can see that men still dominate. The most dominant positions, the executive positions, still belong to males, and that is why I say that women are still being discriminated against. I think that if we had women in those positions, they would think further regarding consequences [of policies] for people on the ground.”

Jacobs says she too was told that women are too emotional. “But remember, policymaking is not necessarily emotionless. You need to have emotions because you need to understand where the people you are making the policies for come from.” 

About the importance of 50/50 representation, Maziwisa said the numbers matter. 

“Women are not one homogenous group, [but] are all different with different life experiences. That’s why it’s not enough to have one or two women; we need to have more women represented so that the different types of experiences of women actually make it into council and into decision-making roles, so that it could be truly representative of the people and therefore achieve more effective democracy.” DM

ParlyBeat is published by the Womxn and Democracy Initiative, in collaboration with ParlyWatch, but is editorially independent.

Read the original article here.

[hearken id=”daily-maverick/8835″]


Comments - Please in order to comment.

  • Stephen T says:

    What a load of horse excrement. Just because an inequality exists does not automatically mean an injustice has occurred. Has it ever occurred to the “Womxn and Democracy Initiative” that most “womxn” may simply not be interested in a political career?

    I suppose we shouldn’t really be surprised at articles like this even exist. It’s nothing special if you consider that one can spend a great deal of time fishing for arbitrary gender-based privilege and then actually be able to call it legitimate and productive employment. What a F’ed up world we live in. Thanks Karl.

    • Coen Gous says:

      Let us call it what you’ve said: Horse excrement?…why not just horse shit! What an absolutely pathetic comment! And I’ll say it it so you can understand, “what a fucked-up comment”.

      • Stephen T says:

        @ Coen
        The first and last sentences are easy. Please explain what you disagree with in all the other sentences of my comment, and why. Thank you.

        • Coen Gous says:

          Mr. T, to you and your friend, Karl, whomever he might be. You ask me to explain why I disagree with all your other sentences. But first, apart from the fact I could have used a much worse language than that afforded to you, the fact that you posted this in the first place is…well, lets leave it like that. Firstly, you make the question mark sentence that women might not be interested in a political career. Have you got any proof of such? And if so, can you share such with readers.
          Your second paragraph however is an absolute beaut! Leaving semantics aside, but apart from insulting the author of the article, presumably a women with the nickname ParlyBeat, in the 1st sentence, the second sentence is an insult to all women, regardless of what their career(s) might be. The article explained in detail the reason why there still is discrimination against women in the political field (as in many other fields), but you simply failed to read it in the context it was written. Simply launching a tirade of words like “horse excrement”, and “F’ed” to try and give more impetus in your comment. If you are happy with your comment, so be it, we have up to now at least free press. Me, however, think you, and tour friend Karl, are chauvinist male pigs

          • Stephen T says:

            At the risk of feeding a troll, here goes…

            No, Mr Gous, the article does not “explain in detail why there is still discrimination against women”. All it does is impose an arbitrary 50/50 split as the only ideal available and it does so without any evidence that it would make a system work better. That which can be asserted without evidence can also be refuted without evidence.

            When I offer a possible alternative that women simply might not be interested in politics, it is an instance of broad common sense. Does one normally need to cite research articles when suggesting common sense? Your critical thinking skills need a bit of work.

            ParlyBeat is not a person. It is a collaborative publication. If you had read the fine print you would know this. Whether the original author is a woman or not is completely irrelevant to my comment because I was addressing the content of the article only. If anyone gets offended by common sense then it is because they choose to be offended.

            I would hazard a guess that English is not your first language so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But I urge you to read more. When talking about arbitrary authoritarian socialist agendas such as what this article propagates, you should know that tongue-in-cheek references to ‘Karl’ can mean only one person. I’ll leave you to figure out for yourself who that is since spoon-feeding tends to cultivate the opposite of critical thinking.

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted


This article is free to read.

Sign up for free or sign in to continue reading.

Unlike our competitors, we don’t force you to pay to read the news but we do need your email address to make your experience better.

Nearly there! Create a password to finish signing up with us:

Please enter your password or get a sign in link if you’ve forgotten

Open Sesame! Thanks for signing up.

We would like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick...

…but we are not going to force you to. Over 10 million users come to us each month for the news. We have not put it behind a paywall because the truth should not be a luxury.

Instead we ask our readers who can afford to contribute, even a small amount each month, to do so.

If you appreciate it and want to see us keep going then please consider contributing whatever you can.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Daily Maverick Elections Toolbox

Feeling powerless in politics?

Equip yourself with the tools you need for an informed decision this election. Get the Elections Toolbox with shareable party manifesto guide.