Written by Maïmouna Balde BahResearch Fellow, Population Council Inc, Nairobi, Kenya
Growing up in Guinea, where FGM is widespread, dissenting voices against the practice were rare and which usually comes from “out”. By exploring the history of the fight against FGM/C, my aim is to inspire African change makers to reclaim the legacy of previous generations. Celebrating past initiatives led by Africans reinforce their legitimate role as leaders at the forefront of ongoing efforts to enable change in them communities and beyond.
The African-led Movement to End Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting is characterized as a diverse network of diverse stakeholders and activists committed to combating violence against women in their communities.[1] In my capacity as a researcher, I contribute to this movement by synthesizing existing knowledge about FGM/C, identifying gaps in knowledge and practice, and\ offering guidance for the implementation of evidence-based initiatives in collaboration with implementers, activists and manufacturers. In a similar way to the Griots in pre-colonial African kingdoms, we aspire to amplify the voices and knowledge of all individuals and ensure that their contributions are taken into account in realizing a world free of violence against women and girls.
In keeping with this legacy, this reflection seeks to delve into the historical backgrounds of the movement and its relevance in today’s globalized world, characterized by ongoing efforts to decolonize, resettle, and locate global health initiatives. Due to the lack of historical records of anti-FGM/C movements before the colonial period, this discussion will focus on campaigns to eradicate the practice that can be traced back to the 20th century.
Although FGM is practiced in various regions, it remains closely associated with the African continent, where it is believed to have originated and where the highest prevalence rates still exist today.[2] What is less widely recognized, however, is that the initial instances of resistance against FGM/C also emerged from within Africa and were led primarily by Africans. In the 1920s, the Egyptian Society of Physicians (ESP) played a pioneering role in condemning the harmful effects of FGM/C, gaining support from government officials, the media and religious scholars. [3]
It was not until the 1930s, more than three centuries after the initial European colonization of Africa, that FGM/C began to attract the attention of colonial powers. During a 1931 conference on the welfare of African children organized by the Save the Children Fund in Geneva, some European delegates criticized the passive attitude of colonial governments towards what they saw as “barbaric practices and pagan rites”, arguing the criminalization of FGM/C. [3] This marked the beginning of campaigns against FGM/C, with the Church of Scotland launching campaigns in Kenya, for example.[4] [5]
In a context where most African communities were still resisting colonial nations’ invasion of their lands, accompanied by atrocities and inhumane treatment, these paternalistic campaigns were not only met with resistance, but became central to the struggle for independence in many countries. Consequently, after legislating against FGM/C in 1956, the British colonial government later revoked all resolutions related to FGM in Kenya.
However, this legal approach did not gain widespread support among European delegates, contributing to limited action until the 1950s and 1960s. In May 1952, FGM/C reappeared in a resolution of the United Nations Economic and Social Committee of Nations (ECOSOC) which focused on violations of women’s human rights in trust and non-self-governing sectors. This resolution called for immediate action to eradicate customs detrimental to the welfare of women. In 1958, ECOSOC asked the World Health Organization (WHO) to study the persistence of rituals that harm girls and take steps to end them. However, in 1959, the WHO refused, citing the deviation of the subject from its competence/jurisdiction due to social and cultural factors. [5]
Once again, Africans played a central role in the anti-FGM/C movement as African women reiterated the request to WHO in 1960 during the UN seminar on the participation of women in public life in Addis Ababa and in 1961 through ECOSOC. However, it was not until the 1970s that the anti-FGM/C movement would really gain international attention, within the feminist movement. Framing FGM/C as a reflection of the universal and adverse effects of patriarchy, FGM/C has gained prominence at international conferences and national campaigns, with organizations in Africa raising awareness of the issue as part of wider efforts to improve the status of women . For example, during Burkina Faso’s inaugural International Women’s Day in 1975, information about the harmful effects of FGM was disseminated through popular media. [6]
Surprisingly, African pioneers encountered resistance to change not only within their own communities, but also by the international communitywhere some “international experts” supported the continuation of FGM/C. In 1975, during the Wellesley Conference on Women and Development, a contentious exchange unfolded between an Egyptian female doctor (who had lost her position for supporting the abolition of FGM) and an American expatriate anthropologist who argued that they procedures were an integral part of cultural identity. and the solidarity of the women of Sierra Leone. [7] Furthermore, in 1976, a report commissioned by the WHO to the American Dr. Robert Cook, characterized clitectomy (now defined as FGM Type 1) as a method “to treat failure to achieve orgasm” for some women and deliberately omitted to classify it as a form of FGM/C. [7]
In 1979, global efforts against FGM/C gained traction with WHO and UN agencies pledging to eradicate the practice. The WHO Seminar in Khartoum that year produced central recommendations from nine countries in Africa and the Middle East, emphasizing health education and rejecting medicalized FGM to reduce complications by performing less severe forms of FGM. Later, at a subsequent meeting in 1984, the Dakar conference led to the formation of the Inter-African Commission on Traditional Practices, which is present in 29 African countries today.
Further, in the 1990s, women’s rights movements reframed campaigns against FGM, labeling it as a violation of human rights and violence against women. This approach is aligned with international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, CEDAW and the Banjul Charter.[8]
Three decades later, efforts to end FGM/C continuefacilitated by various interconnected networks that have emerged both on the African continent and in its diasporic communities. In particular, the African-led movement to end FGM/C, bolstered by the support of the United Kingdom (UK) government, is a case in point. However, despite remarkable transformative efforts, the decline in FGM/C prevalence has been gradual and has occurred alongside the alarming emergence of medicalization* in some nations. In this context, the African-led movement provides an avenue for reasserting indigenous principles in global campaigns against FGM/C. This could include leveraging African legal instruments and harnessing the inherent dynamics of African social structures to facilitate sustainable change. Additional efforts are needed from donors, implementers and activists to invest in Africa-led initiatives and help redefine its modern role.
Acknowledgments: Thanks to Chi-Chi Undie (Population Council Inc.) and Stella Muthuri (Population Council Inc.) for their insightful criticism and feedback to improve this piece.
* “Medicalization” of FGM/C refers to situations in which FGM is performed by any category of health care provider, whether in a public or private clinic, at home or elsewhere. It is considered a mitigating factor strategy by some communities (to reduce health risks). This phenomenon is particularly widespread in Sudan, Egypt, Guinea and Kenya.
REFERENCES
[1] Optionsdefinition of joint venture. This consortium is the Technical Support arm of FCDO’s ‘Supporting African-led Movements to End FGM’ programme.
[2] UNICEF global databases, 2022, based on DHS, MICS and other national surveys, 2004-2020.
[3] Berer, M. (2015). The history and role of criminal law in campaigns against FGM: Is criminal law what is needed, at least in countries like Great Britain? Reproductive Health Issues, 23(46), 145-157.
[4] Pentcheva, Ralitza (2009). Les mutilations sexuelles féminines sur la scène internationale: vers un discours universaliste?, pp.185. Université du Québec, Montreal
[5] ALDEEB Abu-Sahlieh, Sami A. (2001). Circumcision male, circoncision feminine: débat religieux, médical, social et juridique, L’Harmattan, Paris,
[6] Boyle, Elizabeth Heger et Corl, Amelia Cotton. (2010). Law and Culture in a Global Context: Interventions to Eliminate Female Genital Cutting. Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences. 6(1), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102209-152822.
[7] Hey, Margaret Jean. (1981). Work under review: The Hosken Report: Genital and Sexual Mutation of Females by Fran P. Hosken. The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 14(3), 523–526. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/217712.
[8] Shell-Duncan, Bettina. (2008). From Health to Human Rights: Female Genital Cutting and Intervention Policies. American Anthropologist 110(2), 225-36.
