Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

Domestic Violence is not a Eurocentric Malady: The Domestic Violence Bill and ignorant "educated" columnists
Catherine Makoni
May 08, 2006

View the index of articles on the debate around the Domestic Violence Bill

A lot has been said about the proposed Domestic Violence Bill, not all of it complementary. Of note have been the worrying comments made by Ken Mufuka in his Letter from America column published in the Financial Gazette. Reading his column, one cannot help but marvel at the chauvinism that is masked as culture nor at the ignorance that is masked as analysis. This article is both a response to Ken Mufuka’s column as well as an attempt to educate readers about the Domestic Violence Bill so that they can understand what it is, why it appears to have provoked the ire of people such as Ken Mufuka and why it so vital that this is enacted into law.

The full title of the Bill in contention is the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Protection of Victims of Domestic Violence Bill of 2005. The title of the Bill itself is telling. It is the recognition that there is domestic violence and that there are survivors of domestic violence who need protection.

What is the Purpose of the Bill?
The purpose of the Bill is to "provide for protection and relief to victims of domestic violence…" It is important to pause here and ask whether anyone has an argument with this. My guess is that no right thinking person would find anything wrong with the stated purpose of the Bill. The Bill is aimed at protecting all victims of domestic violence men, women and children. No apologies should be made for the fact that women and children will be the major beneficiaries of the Bill because we know experientially and research affirms this, that they constitute the majority of the victims of violent acts.

What does the Bill do?
The Bill is an acknowledgement that existing systems for dealing with domestic violence need to be strengthened. Anyone who has ever tried obtaining a peace order will know this. One way in which the Bill seeks to do this is to define domestic violence and to define it in such a way that all those other acts that women and children are subjected to but which hitherto have been classed as "domestic" are recognized for what they are, crimes. The Bill therefore, lists the following among some of the acts that will result in prosecution of the offender; physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional, verbal and psychological abuse, economic abuse, stalking, harassment, intimidation and damage to property. Yes, the Bill also recognizes some of our traditional practices as being offences that should be prosecuted and these include: forced marriages, child marriages, pledging of women and girls for purposes of appeasements of spirits and forced wife inheritance, among others. The Bill therefore is an attempt to respond to all the different types of violence that people experience in the domestic sphere. The identification of these types of violence is based on the experiences of people in Zimbabwe who have gone to the police, NGOs, hospitals and churches among others, seeking assistance. They are NOT based on some theory dreamed up by a professor; nor are they the result of "eurocentric missionary Propaganda" as Ken Mufuka puts it.

The Bill further provides for Protection Orders. A Protection Order is an order given by a Magistrate Court against a person causing domestic violence in any of the forms provided for in the Bill. It also places specific responsibility on the police to act to make sure that the victim of domestic violence receives the necessary assistance. This may involve arresting the offender, providing the victim or survivor with information of where they can find temporary shelter or making sure that the victim receives medical attention.

But do we really need the Bill?
There are many l am sure who will tempted to ask, but aren’t the police acting on this already? To some extent, the police are already providing some of this assistance. The problem has been that whether or not one receives appropriate assistance has largely been a case of luck of the draw. It has depended largely on the type of officer to which a victim presents himself. One victim, battered and bruised has been told to go back home and bring the offender to the police! Yet another victim has been told that that their case is not an issue for the police to involve themselves in because it is "domestic". For every arrest that has been made, there have been countless of offenders who have walked scot-free and gone on to murder their spouses, children or intimate partners. Our history as a country is littered with stories of women, men and children who have died as a result of domestic violence. The Bill is one attempt to address this situation. When one man beats another man at a beer drink, it is assault, if in doing so he uses a weapon and injures his opponent; it is assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The police in both instances will act and act swiftly. On the other hand, if a man beats up his wife, it is ‘domestic’. If in beating her up he uses a weapon and seriously injures her, it may still be classed as "domestic", depending on who takes charge of the case. Even where they want to act decisively, the legal framework is weak. Consider this. On Wednesday B is arrested by the police for assaulting his girlfriend. He pays a fine of Z$250 000(US$2.47) and is released on the same day. On Friday barely two days later at about 6.45 am, B goes to his girlfriend’s place of work where he stabs his girlfriend 7 times with a kitchen knife. Twice on the forehead, four times above the right ear and once in the rib cage. He kills her. Some readers may recognize this story, which appeared in the Herald, Saturday 6^th May 2006. The accused Bekhinkosi Ndaba is expected to appear in court soon facing murder charges. But we have a problem as a society if we have to wait for a woman to die before we see it fit to act on violence. Is this justifiable? Do we have to wait for women, men and children to die before we acknowledge that as a society we have a serious problem? The Bekhinkosi murder illustrates the tragedy of our society. While we are busy engaging in futile intellectual debates on theories of violence, woman are being killed. We can be sure that before the Bill is passed, many more women will have died. Is this the culture that we want?

But what is the Fuss all About?
The Bill has been a long time coming. It has taken interested stakeholders who include, judges, magistrates, lawyers, churches, traditional leaders, parliamentarians, NGOs, the Police and ordinary men and women, a lot of work and effort to get the Bill to the point where the Minister of Justice has finally agreed to table it in Parliament. There has been some resistance. While this is unfortunate, it is to be expected. I will attempt to examine some of the objections to the Bill.

The very obvious opposers will be people who are afraid of the law coming into effect because they know they are abusers and that should the law come into effect, they might find themselves in trouble. While these are the very obvious ones, they will not come out and state their reasons for opposing the Bill so honestly. Most will seek to hide behind other arguments, which depending on the person, can be "traditional, Christian/religious, or cultural" in complexion.

Ken Mufuka in his column has attacked the Bill as being the creation of "Eurocentric Missionary propaganda". He seems to take offence at the obviously mistaken perception that the people who are advocating for the Bill are saying that African culture is oppressive of women, that the Bill will somehow destroy our culture. I am always wary when a person who obviously knows better tries to act stupid/ignorant as Ken Mufuka is evidently doing. He knows that we are not saying everything about our culture, such as it is, is bad. There are some good aspects of our traditions, beliefs and practices, like "hunhu" ,"ubuntu" which we should preserve-nay honour, just as there are some aspects that are clearly objectionable. I should not be repeating this for Mr. Mufuka’s benefit. He knows this. Which then begs the question, why then does he seek to create the impression, evidently erroneous, that this is what women’s organisations are saying? I am tempted to say that Ken is being mischievous, but l fear it is something more sinister. Misinformation is dangerous, especially when you have a platform, such as a column in a "respected" newspaper like the Financial Gazette.

At a superficial level, a lot of factors contribute to domestic violence. Some men have been verbally abused for not bringing their salaries home to their wives, while some women are routinely compelled to hand over their earnings to their partners. A woman has been assaulted by her husband for asking why he came home late, while another has been beaten to within an inch of her life because she did NOT ask him why he came home late. Another has been abused because she was promoted at work, while yet another has been denied the opportunity to work and earn a living. Ken Mufuka advances the "important theory" that domestic violence is a result of ‘loss of community relationships between the younger generation and their elders", really? For those of us who have delved in some depth into these issues, we know that at the root of violence lie issues of power and control. The woman whose story was reported in the Herald and which l make reference to above, was killed presumably because she had the audacity to leave her boyfriend. For Bekhinkosi, her alleged murderer, it was probably a case of "if l cannot have you, no one else will". Like l said, power and control. Our collective experience working with thousands of survivors of domestic violence has only served to cement this knowledge. This is not a theory, it is a lived reality.

I am not sure what people opposed to the Bill are proposing as an option. What I do know is that the Bill is seeking to do something concrete about domestic violence; that is to provide legal mechanisms for the protection of victims of domestic violence. It is not the panacea, but it is a start and a very important one at that.

Finally, l am astounded that Ken Mufuka should make comparisons between the issue of domestic violence and black American men who want to marry white women. The beliefs which permeate the article reveal tendencies that are almost misogynistic, extremely chauvinistic and gender insensitive. For instance, he says, "the woman makes babies first then she looks for somebody to care and love her and her child". Was the child a result of Immaculate Conception? Are we to believe that black women are having children by themselves? Conflating such a serious issue as domestic violence with the issue of African-American men marrying across the racial divide is an attempt to trivialize issues- notwithstanding that his ‘analysis’ of the factors why this is happening is superficial and simplistic in the extreme. We can see through it! Isn’t it ironic that in the first instance Ken says people calling for enactment of the Bill are influenced by "eurocentric missionary propaganda" then in the next breath he calls on church leaders to help quash the Bill? (An unholy alliance or a marriage of convenience?) In one breath he says that black women have been penetrated by "eurocentric maladies" but in the next sentence he is full of envy as he relates how "black brothers" are marrying white women. Make up your mind Ken. Is this not "sleeping with the enemy?" It appears to me that if anyone has been penetrated by "eurocentric maladies" it is people such as Ken Mufuka.

*Catherine Makoni is a lawyer and human rights activist. She is a member of the Zimbabwe Women Lawyers Association. She writes in her private capacity.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP