Dec 30 2011

On Quotas

Throughout my career, I have worked for several female politicians. In fact, my first political internship was for then-Senator Hillary Clinton. Like all of us, I am a product of my environment and, as such, after spending many years seeing first hand the value of having a wider base of representation in politics, I am vehemently in favour of getting more women into politics. However, quotas are not the best way of doing it.

Politicians are elected to represent the population, not to reflect the population. If there is one thing we’ve learned from the Darren Scully affair, it’s that politicians at all levels are expected to represent 100% of people in that area. Not just one gender, not just one race, not just one political affiliation, but all people.

A Dail comprised of a perfect cross-sample of society would comprise of slightly more women than men, and a shift downwards in the average age of 15 years. All good things, certainly. It would also mean the addition of several people of different races, nationalities, sexualities – again, all good things. But there comes a point when you realise that 4 million into 166 doesn’t go: our differences are too complex to be neatly labelled and reflected in a chamber. Hence, we choose people who we believe can represent us, not merely reflect us. Women can represent men, Catholics can represent Presbyterians, immigrants can represent Irish people – and vice versa in all three cases. Common views and beliefs are what we are supposed to vote for, that’s the point.

Make no mistake, I want to see more women in politics: there is no question that the broader the pool of experience in Dail Eireann, the better we are for it, and it’s clear that we have a long way to go before we reach that level. But a quota isn’t the way to fix it. The barriers to women being involved in politics are commonly referred to as the four Cs. The four Cs are: Childcare, Cash, Confidence and Culture.

One of the things I note from working in Leinster House is how genuinely hard it is for rural deputies to combine a family life with political life: arguably, society makes this harder for women than men (even though this should not be so), and as such childcare and the provision of it are vital for any parliamentarian, as well as for those seeking election.

For those of you not familiar, Dail Eireann recently concluded one of its longest terms since the beginning of the state: sitting time has been up by 50% which, for many deputies, means spending 3 nights and 4 days in Dublin each week. This isn’t to mention functions, events etc that they would be expected to attend on a regular basis right across a constituency, or indeed a county. In Dublin, it is somewhat easier, or so it seems to me.

Yet, while this isn’t an article that says that deputies work too hard, it is one that says that you can instantly see how a career in politics is very difficult to combine with motherhood or fatherhood in its current format, and we need to look at making that easier. Frankly, I want to see more people with children in the Dail; it encourages us to think beyond the short term. That’s step one: childcare.

Step two is confidence: as it stands, this is considered to be one of the biggest barriers for women to get involved in electoral politics. A quota will improve confidence of getting onto a ticket – this is true. However, a quota will shatter confidence after the first election when, inevitably, women are shoehorned onto the bottom of tickets in various areas in order for parties to race up to the 30% target.

Consider a constituency where a party has 3 out of 5 seats, and all three seats are held by men. This could be illustrated by either Wicklow or Carlow-Kilkenny. In these instances, it’s probable that, in order for Fine Gael to maintain a 30% quota, they will have to add a woman as a fourth candidate to this ticket. This will, when the results are counted, damage women more than help them and – of those who make it over the line, by virtue of their own hard work indeed, many – both male and female – will perceive their position to be the consequence of a system that is tilted in their favour: this isn’t fair to the women we expect to compete.

We need to find a way to improve confidence without quotas. I would suggest that groups like the 50:50 group or Women For Election, a network that is designed for cross-party support and resources for female candidates, is a brilliant step in the right direction. An increase in confidence in this regard will also, I believe, solve the third ‘C’ – that of cash.

In 2007, the Power Commission did an independent assessment of the condition of democracy in the United Kingdom. They addressed the lack of women in parliament, but pointed out the limitations of a quota-based system. The Commission believed they will help the women who are already involved in politics, not necessarily encourage people to enter the field: “Both campaigns of active encouragement and a quota-based system will achieve success only to the extent that they encourage candidacy by active members from the shrinking pool of the main parties’ grassroots.”

John F Kennedy said “I’m always rather nervous about how you talk about women who are active in politics, whether they want to be talked about as women or as politicians.” That comment might initially seem ignorant in the 21st century, but I believe it still has resonance. As long as female politicians’ existence and presence in parliament is directly associated with their gender, we haven’t moved on that much. Quotas are a step backwards – I believe the only way true gender equality can be a reality is for gender to not even be an issue. Ginsborg wrote that: “Parliaments have always been men’s clubs. Today they are men’s clubs that admit women” (2009 p98). I think she has a point.

Gender is one issue, but for many, ethnicity may be what they’d prefer to see represented. Similarly, being a member of a minority religion that needs protecting could be someone’s priority, whereas someone else could decide that their sexuality is what they want to define them and represent them in parliament. Placing gender above all these things and giving it more weight is just as foolish a thought as Mill’s suggestion to giving the better-educated more than one vote. How can a democratic system remain credible if its citizens’ legislative rights regarding elections are determined by gender or education? Citizens – men and women – are all independent entities, and should remain equal in the eyes of the State.

A successful career in democratic politics is based so much on public support and faith in your competency – giving women a ‘helping hand’ (through quotas) only fuels the idea that they can’t be successful themselves. While some propose that “there will be a change in the reactions to women as politicians once their numbers reach a critical mass”, I don’t think this change will come unless they are elected through the same exact same means that men are.

In the Eurobarometer research into “gender equality in the EU in 2009”, only one in five people thought the introduction of quota systems was a best way of increasing female representation – 22% of women, and 20% of men. If the public support for quotas is not out there, then the scepticism will trickle through to when more females are elected with the quota system, the four ‘C’s will continue to go unfixed, and the cycle of inequality will continue while we further break an already imperfect system.

The end needs to be changed, but the means to it have to be fair too. This system is counterintuitive: it belittles the achievements of women who have toiled for years to make it in politics, while at the same time doing nothing about any of the four real barriers that confront women – if anything, it arguably reinforces those barriers and, as such, I believe we should tear this plan up and start again.

By noel • Uncategorized • 0 • Tags: equality, gender, women