Image credit: UJ News

As National Women’s Month comes to a close, a point can be made about the use of the term “Women Empowerment.”

I fully understand that “Women Empowerment” is well-established institutional terminology, particularly within the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 5, which calls to “achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.” It drives global policy, and quite rightly so.

But I dare say that the phrase itself can carry some unintended connotations.

It can frame the issue, perhaps unintentionally, as though women’s progress depends primarily on power being granted to them. Yet history and practical experience demonstrate that women have always had the capacity to shape their own circumstances and contribute meaningfully to society.

The 1956 Women’s March is one example from our own history. More than 20,000 women marched to the Union Buildings to challenge the apartheid government’s pass laws. They organised, mobilised and confronted the structures of power directly.

Our present-day experience provides further practical examples. The many women who lead companies, employ people and contribute to economic growth – the capability has never been the problem.

I acknowledge, however, that the patriarchal systems maintained over generations have placed women at a structural disadvantage. Addressing that reality requires historical redress to advance equal participation and opportunity.

Perhaps, instead of speaking about empowerment, we should speak about historical redress.

For instance, the recent South Africa–Zimbabwe Bi-National Commission agreement on Women Empowerment and Gender Equality brought this point to mind. The agreement seeks to advance women’s participation, economic empowerment and equal opportunities.

I support the objective. But I think it is worth having a broader conversation about the language we use to describe the objective.

A woman does not suddenly become capable because a policy seeks to empower her. She may already have the education, experience, resilience, leadership and entrepreneurial ability required to succeed. What she may not have is an institutional environment in which those attributes receive the same recognition and opportunities afforded to ‘others’.

That changes the policy question I am respectfully challenging. Perhaps the question is not whether women need to be empowered, but whether we have created a fair enough playing field for their existing capabilities to count.

Ultimately, human beings need a fair playing field to thrive. This is no different from the objective of Goal 5: closing the gender gap and ensuring equal opportunities for all.