Remobilising civil society for sexual rights: The establishment of SHARISA

abstract

This Profile focuses on a consultation process that began in 2010 and has resulted in the establishment of a new organisation, the Sexual Health and Rights Initiative – South Africa (SHARISA) in 2011. The aim of the consultation was to explore why civil society mobilisation around sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) has declined in the last decade. A total of 53 organisations were interviewed nationally and two consultative meetings were held to review the findings of the interviews and options to take forward recommendations of those interviewed. What surfaced was many different groups, each working on different aspects of SRHR (violence, abortion, sexuality education, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender relations), but no mechanisms to bring them together around shared goals to hold government accountable, and to build a new generation of activists, in a context of declining quality of services, and little effort to shift public opinion in favour of SRHR, except in relation to HIV. The consultations resulted in a decision to establish a new organisation, SHARISA to promote sexual health and rights in South Africa. This Profile describes the process of consultation and the issues which emerged regarding current weaknesses of the SRHR movement that motivated the decisions to launch SHARISA.

Keywords:

• Civil society
• reproductive rights
• sexual rights
• advocacy
• South Africa

Notes

1. We were supported in the first phase of this process by Mathabo Molobi and in the second by Melody Emmett.

2. Current information and analysis regarding sexual and reproductive status, policies and services can be found in Department of Health (2011), from which this information has been drawn.

3. The proposal required pregnant women seeking abortions to have ultrasound pictures taken of the foetus with an explanation of its development and counselling on risks involved in abortion and alternatives such as adoption. The Private Members’ Legislative Proposals Committee which debated the motion voted not to support the proposal (Parliamentary Monitoring Group, 2010).