Still against quotas
Posted on September 24, 2010 at 03:55 PM
I had an article published yesterday in the Irish Daily Mail on the calls for gender quotas. In the piece published Susan O'Keefe, a journalist and Labour candidate for the next election argued for gender quotas and I, Labour TD, argued against. This is the article as submitted to the Daily Mail below prior to editing, the with-the-kitchen-sink-thrown-in version, on why I oppose gender quotas, which by the way are not Labour Policy, in respect of candidate selection for Dail elections:
The recent announcements by Olwyn Enright, Liz McManus and Mary Upton that they have decided to retire from the Dail at the next election has given a new lease of life to the debate that took place about gender quotas at the beginning of the summer when a survey of women TDs revealed that a majority opposed gender quotas.
I was one of those women TDs that opposed gender quotas and I remain convinced that gender quotas are a bad idea.
I think it is a red herring to point to the retirement of women TDs as being evidence that gender quotas are needed. It is nothing new for TDs to retire. 19 TDs made this choice before the last election. 30 more had the choice made for them by the voters at the ballot box. Those 49 TDs were of both genders, came from across the political spectrum and represented constituencies throughout the country. Where was the handwringing about work life balance when George Lee and Martin Cullen recently retired from the Dail? Other men have made similar decisions without much fanfare and they, like women TDs, have given as reasons their personal and family commitments.
Much of the commentary regarding Olwyn Enright’s choice not to run for election when this Dail term ends has focused on the fact that she is a mother of a young child and is expecting a baby. The suggestion has been made that being a TD is incompatible with being a mother. But as Olwyn herself pointed out other women have combined the role of mother of young children and being a TD. I have been in this position myself since I was elected to the Dail and before that as a Senator. Women TDs that have had young families while in the Dail include TDs representing rural constituencies. TDs do not have the monopoly on this dilemma of achieving a work life balance, and nor do women and nor do parents. If anything women Oireachtas members get far more sympathy and support from their colleagues than their male counterparts do when the baby is born, with Parliamentary colleagues standing in for the new mothers in the Chamber and at meetings.
There is a need to stop stereotyping the roles of women and men in this debate and remember that fathers too expect and are expected to raise their children. The lack of paid paternity leave for fathers is relevant to the debate about how to get more women in the Dail. Paid paternity would help women TDs, and would help women in general who wish to return early to work. It needs to be acknowledged too that being a TD has advantages in that when the Dail is not sitting you are your own boss in terms of how you organise your time. Of course TDs are expected to go to local meetings in the evening and at weekends but it must be remembered that the TDs constituents that attend those meetings also do so after a day’s toil.
While we need to encourage more women to run for election, what we don’t need is gender quotas to achieve that outcome. Gender quotas are an affront to democracy because they are an attempt to engineer an outcome. The whole point of elections is that the candidate must persuade the voter to vote for them. Gender quotas interfere with that process. Men that want to run for election will be ruled out on the basis that they are men and women that have no commitment to politics will be selected on the basis that they are women. Gender quotas treat women as if they need to be wrapped in cotton wool and protected from the vagaries of having to run against their fellow human beings, men, for selection.
With our PR STV electoral system, there are no guarantees, no quotas, and no bar on men or women running. The reality is that we are unlikely to abandon PR STV considering that the Irish people have twice voted to retain our electoral system. To get more women elected under PR STV we need women candidates that are prepared to campaign for each and every vote on the basis of drive, commitment and passion, rather than their gender. Gender quotas won’t achieve that type of candidate because that candidate best emerges from the grass roots of political participation. Gender quotas undermine grassroots participation in political parties because they involve top down decision making and are based on a distrust of voters making up their own minds who to vote for. Gender quotas are open to abuse by Party leaderships to stop particular male candidates from being selected. The most important step to achieve more women TDs is to take steps to encourage more women to join political parties. It is no coincidence that my Party, Labour, has 35 per cent women TDs. We do not have a gender quota, but we have 35 per cent women members. There are many things political parties can do to encourage more women to join up.
Some commentators speak of the contribution of Deputies Olwyn Enright, Liz McManus and Mary Upton in the past tense, as if they do not realise these women are still TDs. These 3 hard working representatives will continue their work until the next election and each have had relatively long political careers. There are other ways to contribute to politics and public life besides being a member of Dail Eireann and each of the three women TDs have indicated a desire to continue to be active in politics after they retire. We should respect their decision and move on in the knowledge that new TDs will take their place ensuring a mix of new and more experienced TDs in the next Dail. There is however a challenge to ensure that men and women continue, in an age of growing cynicism about politics, to see being an elected representative of the people as a worthwhile option
Comments
Joanna,
I agree that the lifestyle stuff which infects this debate is sexist nonsense.
It strikes me that the overriding reason why Labour’s position in this regard is rather better than other parties is the influence of socialist feminism and feminists.
I don’t get your point about PRSTV; the same could be said about any electoral system. However, PRSTV offers parties who run multiple candidates a remarkable opportunity to effect change by adopting a quota.
I’d like to comment on some of your reasons for opposing quotas.
“Gender quotas are an affront to democracy because they are an attempt to engineer an outcome.” This could be said of all pre-selection including the elite who decide who will represent the party in an election.
“The whole point of elections is that the candidate must persuade the voter to vote for them. Gender quotas interfere with that process.” This could only be true at candidate selection where the number of women nominees matches the quota. It is not the case in the public election itself.
“Men that want to run for election will be ruled out on the basis that they are men and women that have no commitment to politics will be selected on the basis that they are women.” This presupposes that unwilling women would be somehow forced to stand and/or that the women volunteering to stand would be of a lesser quality than the men.
“Gender quotas treat women as if they need to be wrapped in cotton wool and protected from the vagaries of having to run against their fellow human beings, men, for selection.” This rests on the assumption that those who make the selection are neutral when it comes to gender. I wish this were true!
“Gender quotas undermine grassroots participation in political parties because they involve top down decision making and are based on a distrust of voters making up their own minds who to vote for.” There are two points to answer here. Firstly, a gender quota could not be an imposition if it were democratically decided to have one. Secondly, there is a grain of truth in your assertion that a decision to be in favour of gender quotas is based on distrust of what selectors might do but that distrust is based on experience of ingrained attitudes. The problem is relatively rare among Labour Party members but many people still don’t accept gender equality. Anyway, there is a far more important reason why people resort to quotas: They are fed up waiting for change! I’ve been arguing about this for more than 40 years.
“Gender quotas are open to abuse by Party leaderships to stop particular male candidates from being selected.” This is a strange assertion. Surely a gender quota would make it harder for dodgy leaders to stop particular women?
http://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/on-gender-quotas/
Colum
Thanks for your post. Do you subscribe to the attached from some of the gender quota lobby
this - women played no part in our banking crisis (former Minister 2002-2007 Liz O'Donnell):
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/women-not-to-blame-for-our-bank-debacle-2344827.html
Or this - gender quotas would lead to women TDs of a higher intellect:
http://www.universityobserver.ie/2010/09/21/enforcing-a-fairer-playing-field
Just to go through your points:
On PRSTV - multi seat constituencies are fertile ground for women and lots of other diversity, but women need to want to run in the first place (and I don't mean want to run on the basis of special treatment but rather because of drive and a committment and love of political activism that they have gained by being active in party grassroots).
"This could be said of all pre-selection including the elite who decide who will represent the party in an election."
- But the more people that can have a say (in political parties the members) and the less prescription as to how they have that say, the more democratic the process. In my view the means in democracy is the important thing. It is actually more important than the end. Gender quotas make the outcome more important than the means.
"This could only be true at candidate selection where the number of women nominees matches the quota. It is not the case in the public election itself."
- The process in political parties matters as much as in the general election itself. Either you leave to the voters or you leave it to the leaders to dictate the outcome. Leaders dictating the outcome, even on gender quotas, is top down decision making and bad for democracy which should be about the voters making their own decision even if you don't like their decision.
"This presupposes that unwilling women would be somehow forced to stand and/or that the women volunteering to stand would be of a lesser quality than the men."
- If there are willing women let them stand of their own volition. Quotas are an attempt to force unwilling (or indifferent women) from standing. The issue is women are not volunteering to stand but even more significant they are choosing not to join. Labour has 35 per cent women TDs and 35 per cent women members. Start with the grass roots and get more women in. I don't have much time for women that only a quota will persuade them to run, as if standing against men is something to be afraid of and that they must be protected against the big bad men who apparently are all members of "a boys club" some not even being aware of that fact and many of whom are perfectly willing to vote for women. I also object to this idea that women candidates would be "headhunted" Head hunted candidates I recall like George Lee or Adi Roche don't stick around in the parties they are headhunted for and many seem like they could be headhunted by any party.. Women are choosing not to run, just like they choose not to study engineering. There are alternatives to gender quotas to solving this problem of women's participation in parties in elections and Labour has shown that at least some of those alternatives work, hence the 35 percent women TDS and all of us women TDs did it of our own volition and without gender quotas.
"This rests on the assumption that those who make the selection are neutral when it comes to gender. I wish this were true!"
- But it is true. Men vote for women and women vote for men and vice versa. In wicklow do you think that the majority of members that selected Liz McManus were women? Far from it. The problem is at the grassroots. It is not women or men not voting for women, it is that there are not enough of us active in the first place and then out of that pool only so many women members actually want to run for election (just like only so many men of the pool of men members actually want to run).
"There are two po ints to answer here. Firstly, a gender quota could not be an imposition if it were democratically decided to have one. Secondly, there is a grain of truth in your assertion that a decision to be in favour of gender quotas is based on distrust of what selectors might do but that distrust is based on experience of ingrained attitudes. The problem is relatively rare among Labour Party members but many people still don’t accept gender equality."
- What is being called for are quotas that would be enforced by legislation so there would be no democratic decision to have one (probably unconstitutional anyway). I doubt the members of the Labour Party would vote for gender quotas. They would want anyone to be able to put their name forward of their own free will and that they could vote for whichever of those candidates they were most persuaded to vote for, irrespective of their gender, although for women especially that can be an advantage when voters are making up their minds because nobody thinks before voting "we need more men" but they do think "we need more women". I think you are wrong about ingrained attitudes. It's not my experience and according to academic studies voters (and party members are voters too) are just as likely to vote for a woman candidate as a man.
As I have said before the political researchers need to start at the bottom to find out why there are not more women at the top. Labour has 35 per cent women TDs and 35 per cent women members. What is the betting that FF and FG do not have anywhere near as high a percentage of women members as Labour. You won't get more women members by top down decision making such as quotas, rather the way to get members into parties is to give them a say and allow them to have that say even if you don't like what they have to say.
“Gender quotas are open to abuse by Party leaderships to stop particular male candidates from being selected.” This is a strange assertion. Surely a gender quota would make it harder for dodgy leaders to stop particular women?"
- The fact is party leaderships want to be seen to run women. Any method by which the leadership can restrict who goes on the ballot box is open to abuse. There is no proposal for gender quotas for men. Back to the most important point. Labour has 35 per cent women TDs, it does not have a quota but what it does have is 35 per cent women members (and all that leads to 35 of our membership being women TDs). I am glad I am a woman TD in a party that has encouraged women like me withou ever having to treat me as different to my fellow human beings, men, when I choose to put my name forward for election.
Post a comment
If you want to post comments on this site you must sign up to have your say and be logged in.