Lusaka — On April 1, 2006, President Levy Patrick Mwanawasa created the Ministry of women's affairs and appointed a UNIP defector, Rosemary Banda, as cabinet minister in this ministry. The decision provoked a nationwide debate on the necessity for such a ministry and the appropriateness of Rose Banda to head it. Initially I was reluctant to participate in the debate given its emotional nature and the fact that most of those raising objections from civil society are people I know very well - good friends - and I feared being misunderstood. However, I am compelled to comment on this matter as I consider the struggle for and protection of women's rights as of utmost importance to Zambia's social and economic development.'

The objection to the creation of a ministry of women's affairs was spearheaded by members of women's organisation, who are part of the women's movement. Their arguments were three-fold: a ministry of women's affairs may have been created to reward a cadre - Rose Banda - for having helped the ruling party have a token presence in Eastern Province; the idea of a ministry of women's affairs had long been opposed by the women's movement and should not have been re-established without prior consultation with the women's movement and that the ministry would not be able to design, co-ordinate and enforce policies and strategies that enhance the status of women. Instead it was suggested that if Levy Mwanawasa is serious about enhancing the rights of women, government should establish a commission for gender equality as is the case in the United Kingdom and South Africa. The debate which ensued was acrimonious and highly emotional.

Government ministers fell over each other defending the decision to create the ministry of women's affairs and the appointment of Rose Banda as its minister.

Government spokesperson, Vernon Mwaanga, indicated that the functions of a ministry of women affairs were already been performed by the Gender in Development Division (GIDD) in the Office of the President. Health minister, Sylvia Masebo and science and technology minister Judith Kapijimpanga appealed to fellow women to support the new ministry and to avoid being "confrontational". However, the women's movement has been categorical in its refusal of the new ministry describing it as - an empty shell, which should be disbanded". It is important to soberly consider both the decision by Levy Mwanawasa to create the ministry and the reactions of gender activists.

Anyone familiar with the circumstances that led to the Milanzi January by-election will know that President Mwanawasa enticed Rose Banda to defect to the ruling party and that she would subsequently be appointed cabinet minister. Levy repeatedly told the people of Eastern province that if they gave him an MP he would ensure such a person was appointed as cabinet minister. As it turned out the gamble worked and to his good fortune Levy's MMD won not just one but two seats in Eastern province.

However, it took slightly more than two months for Levy to honour that promise. In the end he appointed both new MMD MPs as ministers, with Rose taking up the controversial new ministry for women, supposedly created for her.

What is the debate really about? Is the ministry really necessary or is the manner in which it was created the bone of contention? From the way the debate has progressed so far, I get the impression that the women?s movement is not impressed with two things - the appointment of Rose Banda as minister of women's affairs and the unilateral manner in which Levy handled the issue. But I thought that five years on, Levy's style of political management is now almost predictable.

Consultation is not one of his strong points. As a lawyer, he is only concerned with the constitutionality of his actions. If he finds that his planned actions are not at variance with the constitution, regardless of how immoral and unacceptable he will take them as he knows he can defend himself. The case of the appointment of Nevers Sekwila Mumba as republican vice-president comes to mind. Levy even won a confidence motion in parliament when the UPND and other opposition parties attempted to impeach him in 2003. While I agree with the argument that the manner in which the ministry of women's affairs was created is questionable and that Rose Banda may not be the suitable person to head it, I have problems understanding why the women?s movement in this country can be opposed to a ministry for women. In my view women's rights are human rights and like for all other rights they can not be won without a protracted struggle. The creation of a ministry for women's affairs should b e embraced as an important concession in favour of women. In rights struggles, concessions are important and should be accepted as better than nothing. Concessions can form a basis to lobby for more and better things. In my view, the rejection of the ministry of women?s affairs by leaders of women's organisations has potential to being misunderstood and may not receive endorsement from a cross-section of women in this country. Arguments advanced to reject the new ministry are simply unconvincing. It should be acknowledged that despite Zambia being a signatory to the 1984 Beijing Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the status of women in this country is still far behind that of men. Zambia is doing extremely badly on the UN Human Development Index where at 154 we are among the lowest in the world. I do not think that GIDD has been effective in initiating, co-ordinating and enforcing policies aimed at promoting gender equality. Surely, t he institutional mechanism for enforcing women's rights conventions and instruments does not seem to exist in this country. Until the creation of the new ministry, women?s issues were marginalised and did not find expression in the Cabinet. I am aware that there are several countries that have ministries of women's affairs.

These include Afghanistan, Belize, Cambodia, Ghana, Mauritius, New Zealand and Nigeria. An examination of mission statements and functions of these ministries suggests that their primary purpose is to exclusively deal with the design, co-ordination and enforcement of strategies that promote the status of women. There is no doubt that in other countries, such as Afghanistan and New Zealand, women's ministries were preceded by nation-wide debates on the need for institutional mechanisms to promote and safeguard women's rights. That this was not done here should not be used to discredit the initiative. Women activists should engage the government in how a ministry for women could be organised so as to be effective in redressing gender imbalances and sexual discrimination that pervade our social, political and economic system.

It is a sad fact that there is no real policy debate on strategies for the enhancement of women's rights in this country. The women's movement is dominated by an educated elite which, with the help of donors, has become so entrenched and arrogant about its role in society. There is a kind of amnesia about where the struggle for women's rights has come from and how far it has gone. I can vividly remember in the early 1990s women demanding more involvement in government, including a specific demand for a ministry for women's affairs. The lack of self-criticism within the women's movement in this country has been responsible for a cadre of leaders who mistakenly regard themselves as the only champions of the women's cause.

There is a mistaken notion that the fight for women's rights is the exclusive preserve of women's organisations. The struggle for women's rights should be undertaken by all interested stakeholders, including political parties, government and donor agencies. Women activists should have the integrity and courage to acknowledge that they are confusing two different things. Their opposition to Levy Mwanawasa's government and his appointment of Rose Banda on one hand, and the relevance of a ministry specifically created to advance women's interests, on the other. I believe that history will judge them harshly for opposing an initiative that forms part of the struggle for the enhancement of women's rights.

It is my view that a ministry for women's affairs is necessary and relevant to our country, regardless of how it was introduced. The issue of who heads it is a different matter, which can be addressed by lobbying and advocacy. Let women accept concessions when they are on offer. Women activists should soberly examine the implications of their opposition to the ministry for women's affairs, as they may just be shooting themselves in the foot. Given the enormity of the problems facing women in our country today leaders of the women's movement will need to be less arrogant, but instead explore all strategies that will help uplift the status of women.