The Tribune

POLITICAL rhetoric, specifically about women’s rights, is repetitive and devoid of meaning beyond the indication that politicians do not care about any of it enough to take a clear position and use their political power to bring action.

Since the general election of 2021, Members of Parliament have made empty comments about violence against women. They have decried the acts of violence that shocked the public and said, over and over again, that something must be done. They have not gone beyond that in their statements, and certainly have not seen fit to advance legislation, policies, or programmes to address the issue.

On Monday, the Prime Minister delivered a speech at the United Nations/ Bahamas Development Bank Sustainable Development Goals Partnership Forum. Outside the meeting room, reporters took the opportunity to ask him about the divorce ruling that made headlines last week. A judge granted a divorce, but not without stating that she could not do so on the basis of rape, but on the basis of “cruelty”.

This spurred debate, not only about the Sexual Offences Act itself, but also about the ways that laws are made and applied and what was and was not appropriate to say (and how) in the judgment. Asked about it, the Prime Minister said: “It’s curious that a judge can say that a woman who claims that she was raped by her husband cannot use that as a ground for divorce when the physical abuse could be and rape is physical abuse.”

The Prime Minister also said: “I think marital rape is descriptive, that this detracts from the substance of what rape is all about. Rape is a violation of someone’s body without their consent in circumstance where consent is necessary.”

After saying all of this, the same Prime Minister, when asked if his administration will criminalise it, said it is not included in the Progressive Liberal Party’s Blueprint for Change. This is to suggest that it is not a priority, that the party — and its leader and the now administration — did not commit to it, and that this administration will not commit to it.

As people say, “the math ain’ mathin’.” You say violence is violence. You say consent is necessary. You say rape is a violation. You say rape is a ground for divorce for this reason. How, then, do you deflect when asked if you will take a specific action — one that you have the power to take — to address the issue?

What government officials say is, obviously, not indicative of what they are prepared to do. They are consistent in disappointing us. They fail, repeatedly, to use their positions to address the issues they pretend to care about. The only things that matter to the Prime Minister are those listed in the Blueprint for Change — a document created by the PLP for the PLP, without input from the general public. This administration came with its own agenda and refuses to adapt it to respond to even the most pressing issues.

The consultation on the amendments to the Sexual Offences Act is coming up and, given the comments from government officials on marital rape, we have to wonder what the government intends to do there. What is the goal? Will stakeholders be presented with a draft and given the opportunity to give feedback? Will feedback be truly considered? Do they expect to have debate? Are they prioritising human rights in this process, or seeking to placate certain groups. Along with this, of course, is the question on next steps. What will happen after the consultation, and what is the timeline?

Marital rape needs to be criminalised. To do this effectively, the definition of rape in Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act needs to be amended, removing the words “who is not his spouse”. Those who support this need to do so loudly. Speak to Members of Parliament. Demand that they bring the amendments. Insist that it be done without delay. There has been far too much talk with no action. We cannot simply trust Members of Parliament to do what is necessary. They have proven that already. We must now exercise the power in us, the people.

PARTNERSHIPS FOR ACTION

This week, I am attending a training on partnerships for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This month marks seven years since the SDGs were adopted by Member States at the United Nations General Assembly. The 17 goals form the 2030 agenda and include ending poverty, ending hunger, good health and wellbeing, quality education, gender equality, climate action, and partnerships for the goals.

Yesterday, we talked about factors that make for good partnerships and those that impede partnerships. It is always interesting to hear people’s thoughts on the purpose and benefits of partnerships. Most people say they expect to have an exchange of some kind, but this does not necessarily mean partnerships are meant to be transactional.

In the session, facilitators made a distinction, identifying three types of partnerships — transactional, integrative, and transformative. When transactional, each parter brings something that the other can use, and it is almost like a purchase.

When integrative, partners combine their resources that complement each other, and this enables innovation or scale. When transformative, each partner brings resources to create a change in systems that one entity could not do on its own. This distinction was useful as it helps us to think about who we partner with, the purpose of the partnership, and how our perception and use of the relationship influences the outcome.

One of the most common and important elements for a useful partnership is a shared goal. The entities have to want something that they can work toward together to achieve. This could be as short term as the execution of an event and as long term as a systemic change in a particular area. A shared goal alone, however, is not enough, especially when there are different ways of working and some entities may be opposed to particular methods.

Partnerships are also formed based resources. Very few organisations, if any, have everything they need. Even the smallest organisations have resources that can be useful to others. Most partnerships involve the exchange or sharing of resources such as money, equipment, physical space, access to a particular group, and credibility. This can seem quite shallow, but is often just one part of a partnership, and is often a starting point or a building block for a partnership that can grow to have a greater purpose.

Several challenges were identified in forming partnerships. One of the most resonant factors raised is a stark difference in commitment. Partnerships are can sometimes be unbalanced with one entity investing more time and other resources into the work they undertake. No one wants to be on the “losing” end of a partnership. Everyone wants to gain something, and that does not necessarily mean simply reaching a goal together. Transparency about intentions and purpose is critical from early on.

Another common issue within partnerships that was raised is ego or prioritisation of image. Some organisations want to be known for certain areas of work, some individuals want to be personally and specifically credited for achievements, and some contributors are left out of the public narrative because they are smaller, have less resources, or are working to the exclusion of (self-) promotion. When progress and credit for the progress as misrepresented, it is insulting to those that are overlooked. The relationship further deteriorates when one entity benefits significantly from a false narrative while another’s contribution is obscured from public view. It is often assumed that everyone wants the same thing— achievement of the same goal — and that is enough, but people and organisations appreciate having their contributions appropriately acknowledged.

Considering these factors, it is clear that complementarity is key. There needs to be an assessment for potential partners to identify their capacity and how much they can commit to the work. Having a staff of 100 people does not automatically translate to 100 people contributing the shared goal. How many of those people will be a part of the project? How many hours will they spend on it? What are the skills that they will bring to it? How can we make the most of the skills we have and what do we need to do to strengthen the identified weaknesses? Who else can we bring on board? When we know what we have, we can identify and source what we need.

Trust, communication, open-mindedness, and drive all came up in the discussion about what we need in partners. When we put it to work, we saw the challenge in making decisions and negotiating. Each actor wants what they want, and to move the conversation and the partnership forward, we have to be able to listen to different perspectives and find ways to use what we hear to find common ground without compromising our own values. This is hard work. It seems easier to go it alone when faced with the need to communicate, often at length and in uncomfortable situations, in order to progress. The pace is definitely slower when we are going together, but the journey could be a bit easier when we figure out how to share the work.