CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1       Background to the Study
Women’s aspiration to fully participate in the governance of Nigeria dates back to the pre-colonial era when women contributions to the anti colonial struggle were visible and pronounced in their resistance to the draconian tax policy of the colonial administration.
As pointed out by Akinyode-Afolabi (2006:1), in spite of the significant roles of women before and after independence, the ascendancy of socio-cultural prejudices and inadequate laws had consistently militated against women’s rights, especially political rights. However, the challenge of women’s participation in the political process in Nigeria has gained additional significance, since the return of democratic rule in 1999. The renewed vibrancy and vigour of the women folks and their sympathizers in agitating for an appreciable participatory role for women in the current democratic dispensation has its roots in the many international norms and institutions designed to advance the cause of women.
This aspiration is premised on the grounds that women in Nigeria represent close to half of the population and therefore should be allowed a fair share in decision-making and governance of the country. Added to this is the widely acceptable belief that all human beings are equal and women possess same right as men to participate in governance and public life (Oluajo, 2003).
For the records, in all of Nigeria’s political history including the previous attempts at democratic rule, women were severely side-lined and neglected in terms of representation in government. Although they constitute about 50 percent of the population and 51 percent of voters in elections, women have never had more than three percent representation in national government. With military governments, women have been virtually non-existent in governance of the country (Nwankwo, 2006:19; 1996:7).
Although the Nigerian state is beginning to appreciate the importance of gender mainstreaming in national planning, affirmative action as a means of closing the gap in sectoral development remains a largely contentious issue (Agina-Ude, 2003:22). For example, among the opponents of Affirmative Action in politics and public life are those who question the basis for 30% minimum representation and call for higher or lower targets. They argued that special measure such as the affirmative action, apart from being a patronage, will lead to a lowering of standards and even jettisoning of merit in favour of subjective issue of gender equity.
Such is the level of misgivings about Affirmative Action even among its proponents that there is a preference for reservation of appointive positions over elective offices which tends to reflect the notion that certain types of affirmative action are unfair, unjust and even discriminatory especially in the light of the principle of equality before the law.