The Sunday Mail
Maggie Mzumara
There is rhyme and reason to the continual clamour for the inclusion of more and more women in decision-making ranks.
The arguments for this are compelling.
Women know best what other women want.
They know best their journey and what those journeys entail. There are far too many women amongst our population for their gender-specific needs not to be factored in.
Women are too large a number to sidestep, ignore or relegate to the periphery (52 percent of the population).
Women are no less than men in importance, significance and humanity and so should not be treated as less. Even the Constitution recognises that.
After all, women’s rights are human rights and when you do right by a woman, in the long run, in the grand scheme of things you do right by a community, by a people and by a country. This is reality.
As if that’s not enough, the economic case for women’s inclusion at the very highest of tables has been repeatedly underlined in this column and elsewhere on other pages, in this publication and other publications as well as on plenty other fora by various proponents and advocates of the same.
Voices have gone shrill around this.
Currently, because of the strides that have been made already (and we have to admit there have been numerous strides), many women have landed some leadership posts, but these have however, resulted in women advancing mostly up to first and middle management levels, with a considerably few at the apex executive levels of uppermost responsibilities where decisions are crafted. Therein lies the anomaly.
Sure, women are in large numbers in the workplace. Preferences in their employment has been effected in considerable instances.
Sure, women have landed some leadership positions and flooded the lower ranks of leadership.
Point is: sadly, such levels are not decision-making enough.
To be many at levels that are not influential enough or that do not make a dent in decisions, does not cut it. It does not deliver fully for women. That is the central argument here.
More needs to happen. Higher ground of more responsibility and more decision power needs to be claimed and occupied by women if various decisions and policies can be influenced in their favour.
Having women in decision-making positions helps with the greater articulation of issues and concerns that affect them or are of importance to them.
This is critical.
Women know best what other women need or what is of particular significance to their gender and their numbers.
As such, this strengthens the case for their advancement to apex levels of leadership and decision-making.
The argument that women in decision making positions can make a difference for women can never be over-emphasised.
And it has been proven.
One of the most visible, global examples of this was sharply and clearly illustrated by Sheryl Sandberg who is Facebook’s chief operating officer.
In her book Lean In, she describes her difficult walk from the end of the parking lot at Google (where she was working at the time) when she was uncomfortably pregnant.
She cited this as a notable disadvantage and took the matter up.
She complained to Google founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who shortly afterwards created parking spots for pregnant women close to the office building.
Sandberg had not thought of this consideration until she actually went through the experience of being pregnant herself, and she would not have been able to influence such a swift change if she had not been in the senior position she was.
Supposing women had an equal voice in all decisions from a position of executive leadership, you can see how much easier it would be to influence policy and meet the needs of more and more women in the world, on matters more important than a front row parking spot.
Imagine the difference we could see if women populated 50 percent of every leadership rank in government, academia, and corporations.
This becomes even more critical when you think about the incredible influence corporations have on Government policies, social policies and others touching critical areas of people’s lives.
Perhaps some may be inclined to dismiss the Sandberg example above as minor.
But that is just the point, levels of comfort of women should not be downplayed. In the grand scheme of things, these translate into levelling the playing field for all.
If a woman is going to be disadvantaged because of some conditions or situations specific to her gender to the detriment of her performance, her delivery then is an issue worth addressing.
By expending her much-needed energy on what some could consider peripheral concerns, this takes away from the energy she needs to expend on her other work.
Let’s face it: as far as levelling the playing field is concerned, this would not affect male counterparts.
It’s about levelling the playing field. It’s about removing any obstacles large and small in the paths of women who would rather be concentrating on, expending and devoting their energies to tasks at hand.
And it’s about women being able to voice their concerns, large and small, in a manner and at levels that can actually be heard.
How many of women’s concerns have been aired out, shared, tabled and discussed time and time again at various conferences and fora, but they end there?
Some issues have been unheard or heard but without any due action. At worst, some issues have been ignored, over looked and unactioned.
It’s plain to see.
There is compelling need for political willingness that can only be effected via executive power from the highest rungs of decision-making.
And it’s not like women are asking for out of the blue non-existent things. The 50-50 provision is in the Constitution.
Let us just implement the Constitution. Period!
