Kawira: Victim of passive violence from her husband and society?

It is an open secret that women should be submissive, passive, and second in command at home after their husbands. The question, therefore, is what happens when the home follows the woman to public office? Do the level of commands change? These levels of command are set by societal expectations. Is the society flexible on these expectations depending on the prevailing setting?

Kariwa Mwangaza was elected Meru County governor on an independent ticket. She is currently on the verge being kicked out after 67 out of 69 Members of the County Assembly voted to impeach her. Her fate is now with the Senate which will either approve or dismiss the impeachment. She has been accused of nepotism, illegal appointments, and unlawful dismissals, among others.

The governor first came to the limelight after her husband refused to leave her side. Her husband, the first gentleman of Meru County Murega Mbaichu, is always by his wife's side, mostly donning kitenge clothing similar to his wife's. After the governor was sworn in, her husband was present at every official function, giving promises to the people of Meru that 'they' will deliver. This might have put the governor in an awkward situation, and she created a position for her husband to be the Meru Youth Service patron.

The governor might have thought that this would distract the husband and let her execute her official functions without interference from him. However, the husband refused to leave her side, and when there was a public outcry for Mr Mbaichu to step out of the limelight, he turned himself into the victim, and said that as he had been refused access to the governor's official car and he had opted to use a boda boda.

Mr Mbaichu even went to the extent of asking the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission to tell him the limits he was allowed to go, including whether he could access the governor's official residence.

Gender-based violence (GBV) is defined as a form of violence that is directed towards a person because of their gender. There are many forms of GBV that can be directed against a person, ranging from physical, verbal, sexual, psychological, economic, and social. According to the UNWomen, violence against women in politics is any form of violence that prevents women from exercising and realising their political rights and a range of human rights.

This violence can be perpetrated publicly or privately by fellow politicians, family members, other leaders, and even the media. GBV against women in politics prevents the women from exploring their full potential in office and it hampers the efficiency and sometimes the legitimacy of the office the woman holds. It is worse when the violence experienced is passive in private and by a close family member such as a spouse.

How then can a woman politician push away something she is required to build by telling her husband to retreat to the backstage and allow her to discharge her functions? How will the society take her? How will her voters take her? Who would listen to a domineering woman who tells off her husband? Such is the fate of Governor Kawira.

She is facing passive psychological GBV from her husband and indirect (risked) GBV from the society that is ready to frown upon her should she open her mouth to tell off her husband, who is clearly usurping her powers.

This is something the society (including the Meru MCAs) have been unable to digest, and so have decided to punish her for her husband's failure to let her to discharge her duties. She is clearly between a rock and a hard place. Kawira is facing her husband's psychologically inflicted GBV, and the society's threatened GBV should she stand against the man who has dragged family male-dominance to the political office. Kawira needs to be saved from this violence rather than be impeached.

The dilemma facing the Meru governor is not common among her male counterparts. The man is expected to control how the wife behaves, and if she refuses, the society will blame the woman for being hard-headed.

This is why it is difficult to have women interfering with the work of their husbands (elected leaders). The woman is not expected to control the behaviour of the man, otherwise, the society will frown upon her as to having 'sat' on the man.

This brings the question of how to safeguard the independence of married women politicians in the execution of their functions to prevent interference by their spouses, and without the society frowning upon them.

Should the State come in to control the behaviour of the male spouses of elected women leaders by passing a law to regulate their behaviour and to give independence to such women leaders?

It is likely that this law may still face enforcement challenges because it is the passive, submissive woman who will be expected to enforce it, bringing the initial problem of 'sitting on the man'.

Maybe, elected married female politicians deserve a hardship allowance after all!