Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A week ago, Labour leader Eamon Gilmore revealed that a bill to force political parties to select 30 per cent female candidates would be published within the year.
Ahead of a public meeting on the subject of quotas tonight, Labour’s Joanna Tuffy argues here that the legislation is discriminatory – and does a disservice to the capable women in politics.
GENDER QUOTAS ARE anti-democratic.
They are based on the idea that voters can’t be trusted. Gender quotas bypass the voter’s right to decide, and impose a conclusion on him or her. They are imposed at the expense of grassroots participation in political parties by women and men.
Gender quotas are also discriminatory – but the irony is that they are likely to be used to discriminate against both women and men. The proposed quotas will mean that candidates will be ruled out on grounds of gender, and legislation will make such discrimination mandatory. This appears to conflict with Article 16.1.3 of the Constitution, which states that no law shall be enacted placing any citizen under disability or incapacity for membership of the Dáil on grounds of gender.
A further problem is that gender quotas will give party leaders more control over candidate selection. Quotas are blunt instruments and will have unintended consequences – like the quotas found by Swedish courts to have discriminated against women applicants for college places. But even if no woman had ever lost out because of gender quotas, that would not make them right. Positive discrimination is discrimination all the same.
Those that argue for quotas claim that women don’t win selection conventions. Where is the evidence for this? Where the problem really lies is in the fact that not enough women choose to run for election. This is not confined to political parties – less than ten per cent of Independent Dáil candidates were women in 2011 – or to politics, or even to women. Quotas are not the answer to underrepresentation of any group in any walk of life.
Like many others that oppose gender quotas, I do want to see more women in politics. I just don’t agree with the mechanism. Mandatory gender quotas are not the only way. Scandinavian countries are often held up as models for gender quotas. But those countries don’t have quota legislation. In Sweden, for example, there are parties that use gender quotas and parties that don’t – with similar outcomes. In Denmark, no parties have quotas and their parliament is 37 per cent women.
In contrast, in France, where they have the type of gender quota law that is being proposed here, the percentage of women elected to the national parliament is not much higher than the Dáil.
There are other steps that can be taken to increase the numbers of women in politics. If more women were active in parties, more women candidates would emerge naturally over time. Measures should be aimed at increasing the participation of all citizens in politics. The State should do more to promote politics through the curriculum. Barriers to voting should be removed. The proceedings of all levels of Government should be televised. And the introduction of paid paternity leave would help women in politics.
Women are emerging in Irish politics. There are more women TDs, councillors, and mayors. More women are studying politics. Many are joining political parties. Even if it takes longer, is it not better to let women emerge naturally from the grassroots of political parties, rather than undermining the grassroots by the top-down imposition of gender quotas?
Gender quotas are to the participation of women in politics what the Kyoto Protocol is to climate change. A target is imposed from the top – but the reality on the ground stays the same because the issue is not tackled from the bottom up.
Quotas treat women as if they can’t hack it a party’s selection convention, like a man can. They decree that women must be selected on the basis of their gender, and this does them a disservice. Women, just like men, should be chosen on the basis of their qualities as individuals and their ability to persuade voters.
When it comes to democracy, the ends do not justify the means. Gender quotas subvert democracy by making the ends more important than the means.
Joanna Tuffy is a Labour TD for Dublin Mid West.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
She’s absolutely right. Such a Bill should be seen as nothing less than patronising to women. By making laws like this, we only reinforce traditional stereotypes like that which says women can’t make it in politics. As soon as a law like this is passed, government will have officially declared that women and men are fundamentally different which is, if nothing else, ridiculous, old-fashioned, ill-informed, and, yes, undemocratic.
The imposition of a gender quota is an attempt to cure the symptom rather than the illness and flies in the face of democracy. The lack of female candidates isn’t itself the root of the problem. The question that needs to be addressed is why so few women seem to wish to go into politics in the first place. Candidates should be selected strictly according to merit (I’m not suggesting that they always are, of course). What we need in the legislature is high-quality men and women. A gender quota would skew the selection process in favour of SOME less able women at the expense of SOME more able men.
I think that quotas will do more harm than good I would like to have the choice to vote on merit not because she is put on the ballot papers to fill a quota. if they intrudce quotas for women then we need to do it for travellers, multinationals and young td just to cover all the bases
Do you really believe that candidates are all selected on merit as it is?
The article is interesting,why is it when woman get into any type of power they seem to turn against their gender,Margaret Thatcher was another example
Have you ever considered that many of these women know what it takes to get to the top and realise it’s not gender quotas?
Nice article. Spot on with paternity leave. Transferrable maternity /paternity leave is a fair option, of zero cost, and would do wonders.
My husband would be more than able and more than happy to look after his own children. In some circumstances, like when the woman is self-employed, or in a profession where it is difficult to take leave without it damaging her career it makes much more sense to allow it. Children have two parents, we should be able to choose which of them gets the leave.
Make it happen please!
+1
P – Labour policy was to do so. Unfortunately it wasn’t highlighed in our present manifesto but hopefully over the time of this Government there will be progress and I will raise it more than I have been doing so of late although it has been an issue I would have raised previously.
“And the introduction of paid paternity leave would help women in politics.”
I don’t know why, but there’s something amusing about the idea of bringing in equality for fathers in this area because it benefits women. Heaven forbid it’s done because it’s just the right thing to do.
I wonder do the people who support quotas also demand a number for homosexuals, ethnic minorities etc.. There is a larg proportion of agnostics and atheists in this country too. Oh and what about baldies and vertically challenged people. Have to be fair and have a quota too.
Joanna. I was really disappointed with the stance you took to the woman only meeting and the call for gender quotas as I always admired the fact you were a bit of a maverick.
I think quotas should be introduced but I’m not going to start men bashing, I don’t think Irish men judge a person by their sex. I believe this even more after reading all the male anti quota voices over past few weeks. The men really don’t believe gender is an issue and for them, I agree, it isn’t.
I think it’s the women, including yourself, need to think about it and challenge ourselves regarding this issue. Read the comments on the threads yesterday re Nessa Childers and Aung San Suu Kyi. For the men the girls’ sex is not an issue!
I think that more female representation in the Dáil would lead to more balance ie thinking with the heart not only the head. I am not saying the male view of rational thinking is wrong, it’s necessary too. But there is no balance at the moment. I think quotas would force parties to look outside the usual suspects and “push to the front” tough ole birds. And no more talk about Thatcher and Harney. I can’t bear to think about them!!!
Its naive to pretend the battle of the sexes has been put to bed – the women are too busy pretending we’re all the same. We’re not, we’re all different, that’s what I love.
Wake up ladies. Reading the journal ye all have opinions. With the help of a temporary quota ye just might get to express them in the Dáil where they just might be heard.
Reada,
That point you make re temporary quotas. Those that sought them would never agree to them being dropped. They want 50 50 and anytime it dropped back they’d want them back in. I don’t agree with temporary quotas in any case. The thing is women are emerging anyway of their own accord and voters like them and so do party members. In Sweden the biggest increase happened in the 1970s before there had ever been quotas because there was a climate for it (more women interested that is) and that climate is here too if you look at the fact that many parties ran higher percentages of women than they had in the past. The party with the best record for running women in Sweden has never had a quota because they are ideologically opposed. The history of the use of quotas or otherwise is a lot more complex than is painted by those seeking a quota law. The most progressive of countries have increased women over time and without quotas and that can happen here too.
My main thoughts on this are to do with the greater good. I do admire women who push against quotas, and I agree entirely that they are unfair to men. But it is, in my view, a “course correct” to combat the inherent inequality that handicaps women in today’s society (still).
The individuals like Joanna Tuffy who don’t want this sort of “leg-up” are commended for their desire to play on an equal footing, but their individual feelings on the matter are somewhat inconsequential. We are talking about representation, not individual fairness. If Joanna Tuffy agrees that more women in power is a good thing, she shouldn’t be concerned if the methods by which this is achieved affect her personally. We are talking about the personal feelings of the hundreds of people who take part in the political process at that level, versus the representation of 50% of the Irish population.
It may seem like an act of weakness to accept gender quotas, but it is an act of strength – to swallow one’s pride for the common good.
Alan,
Thanks for commenting from Torronto! The thing is it does not effect me personally. That is important. I just have an inbuilt drive to protect the principle of voters being allowed to decide for themselves and that those that want voters to vote in a particular way should use their powers of persuasion rather than electoral engineering.
This is a well written article and says all the things I’d have liked to have said, but says it far better. If I’m going to elect a politician I’d prefer to elect one I want, hopefully the best of the bunch, and not someone who’s forced onto the ballot sheet ahead of another , maybe better, candidate because of their gender. I elect politicians, not male or female politicians.
I would prefer to see a Bill for “None of the above” being considered so that if there is no best of the bunch on the ballot sheet I can choose “None of the above” and if the majority happen to do the same and “None of the above is “elected” then another election is required but all the previous candidates are barred from going forward.
Joanna Tuffy did a lot of good work around Lucan before she was elected I must say but she may be ignoring the start she got when her father Eamon Tuffy, a local prominent councillor and activist did a massive amount of work for her. I stand to be corrected on this but it also strikes me that Labour is probably the most female-friendly party in the Dáil.
Given that the entire point of the legislation is to give other women a start, not an automatic seat in the Dáil, it’s rather disingenuous for her to adopt a drawbridge mentality now.
Colin you have used the same point thrown at Joanna by Gemma Hussey this morning….she is a woman who “inherited” a seat from father.
I want to put the record straight – Joanna was the first in her family to be elected. As her sister I am witness to the fact that it was Joanna’s hard graft that got her elected and might I add it took her 2 runs to get to the dail and it was in fact a pure stroke of luck when her name was pulled from a hat that she got to run the second time.
Besides that the “dynasty” head-start that you incorrectly suggest was Joanna’s way in to the dail is totally irrelevant in the debate.
@ Rachel. Do you support your sister’s views? Do you not think that temporary quotas would be a good idea. Just to make parties look around their members beyond the obvious.
I know Joanna is very forward thinking but don’t think the rest of them have caught up with her. I don’t want her getting too PC.
Hi Rachel,
I think you should read what I actually wrote. I never said that Joanna wasn’t the first person elected, and I know that her hard graft got her elected, I voted for her in her first election (I would have since if I was still living in Ireland).
What I said was that she had a previous link with the prominent local Labour party member who worked incredibly hard for her too. It didn’t get her elected but you surely can’t deny that it gave her an introduction into politics that a lot of women (or men) simply don’t have.
Quotas are being considered to force political parties to ensure that the current structural issues that women face (read Clare McGing’s work on the topic) are addressed. I don’t for one second think that quotas are a perfect instrument, for example I wonder if they may have a negative effect on a candidate’s popular support when the other candidates bait them with it. However given that soft inducements have utterly failed to redress the balance, I don’t blame people who advocate this as the only alternative. For this reason, I’d like to see Joanna consider alternatives instead of merely reflexively rejecting a proposal that she feels devalues her work.
When I mentioned a drawbridge mentality, I don’t think it’s crazy to imagine that somebody who has spilled blood (figuratively speaking, I hope) to get elected would feel somewhat irked by others getting an easier ride, that’s a normal human reaction, however the problem should not be personalised, the question is not “Is this fair to Joanna?” but “How do we get more like her in the Dáil?”
Rachel and Joanna. Colin makes a very good point (helps that he proves mine, no doubt). Is it not time for women to accept the situation won’t be sorted by wringing our hands and wishing for a brighter day. A temporary quota will be s step in the right direction.
Colin, with respect I did read your ccomment and it implies that Joanna as a female politician got a necessary leg-up. Her election was neither because of or inspite of her gender.
Women do not put themselves forward for election as much as men. That is the fact of the matter and not because they are less interested in politics but because of family. It is policies that relates to supporting women in their careers that will bring about genuine change – this has been the trend in countries with more equal representation. There is already a natural upward curve in women putting themselves forward and getting elected, you only have to look at the recent local elections to see this.
You say that Joanna is irked by someone getting an easier ride. I know my sister and can say that her opinions are never based on persional feelings but on what she believes to be fair and democratic – you should maybe read what she actually wrote above.
In my opinion there is no easy ride and gender quotas for candidates will not lead to a gender quota in the dail. People will vote for the strongest candidates as they have done to date (we have 2 female TDs out of 4 in DMW and 3 out of 4 of our constituency councillors are women – no imposed quota needed) .
All election gender quotas will do is create discrimation. Example: If we had gender quotas in the last elections Kevin Humphreys would not be a TD. What a crime that would be :)
Hi Rachel,
I really want to emphasise that I’m not saying that Joanna was elected due to a leg up or that there is no way that she would have entered politics or in any way impune her good work and motivations. (I also appreciate you taking the time to discuss this – it’s an important subject generally.)
The reason I bring up the personal side of this is that I’ve seen quite a few female politicians object to quotas and it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that they don’t appreciate the difficulties some women experience trying to get into politics purely because they’re the ones who’ve succeeded. I’m sure Joanna sees this attitude regularly from successful people in other spheres who support a mode of operation that regularly discriminates against new entrants from the same social class, sex, ethnicity, or whatever.
I’d be very curious to know Joanna’s experience of talking to women that felt that participating in politics is far too difficult. I’d also be very curious to know why you seem to think that you can ignore your father’s contribution to your sister’s drive to enter politics. It seems bizarre to imagine that he *in no way at all* smoothed her path into politics. Would you have considered it controversial if I had made the point in the context of Brian Cowen entering politics, for example? (Before you say it, I do acknowledge that he was following an elected TD for a father but the point is the same.)
Regarding your point about family, it strikes me that making all laws relating to children-rearing more sex-neutral would address some of the issues, however with *fewer* women in the current Dáil than the previous one, who is going to prioritise this? Not that the male politicians can’t be trusted whatsoever to implement female-friendly legislation but it’s easy at the moment to prioritise quite a lot else.
Bear in mind, though, that the fact of there being fewer women in the Dáil also *by itself* creates an atmosphere where fewer women participate because the barriers being received wisdom, even when they’ve been addressed. To this end, incentivising parties to specifically address the lack of women selected for election seems absolutely required and I’ve not seen a single suggestion from anybody, apart from quotas, to deal with this.
Colin,
You are raising a red herring. The vast majority of people elected are the first in their families elected., male and female. What smooth’s the path is how active you are in your community, the fact that you are integrated in your community, the fact that you are known from dropping your child to school, or shopping in the local chemist or coaching the local football team. If you are the local postman, teacher, your family (apolitical and all) are well thought of in the area helps too. And then on top of that you do the work, knocking on doors, going to meetings, dropping leaflets, getting involved in the local residents association. And you put forward your ideas and you use your powers of persuasion. There are women who are the daugher, wife, cousin of a former TD that favour quotas. I don’t and don’t knock me for what I am, just debate the issue with me. And by the way I do give alternatives, such as the introduction of paternity leave. Have another look at my article and demolish my arguments if you can but don’t question my motiviation. It’s just my point of view that I am expressing and I respect yours.
Hi Joanna,
I really appreciate the response. I’m not knocking you or your achievements. I’ve voted for you and would again if I were back in the constituency.
I know this comes across as an ad hominem argument, however my point is not an attack on you, it’s about the fact that there are always circumstances that help a person into politics and you need to be mindful of the environment you were in *as well as* the considerable effort you put into getting elected.
It doesn’t seem crazy to me that a successful politician doesn’t necessarily understand a lot of the issues faced by people that don’t participate in politics but who otherwise would. Is that genuinely nuts?
With respect to your arguments, I would say the following:
1) Gender quotas are only anti-democratic if we live in a society that otherwise has no impediment to a reasonable representation of its citizens. A society that already has structural impediments is not fully democratic in the first place since specific people are already preferred for selection.
2) Gender quotas *are* discriminatory. However they are attempting to address what appears to be a more pervasive example of discrimination. I’m not convinced either that two wrongs make a right, but I’m willing to consider that there’s a bigger picture involved. (I’m not trying to say you’re narrow minded, I don’t know how else to phrase that)
3) Associating political funding and candidate selection does appear problematic, even though it’s being done in a non-political way. However I don’t see why it’s unconstitutional since anyone can still run for parliament and still be elected.
4) Regarding not enough women running for selection, read the following paragraph by Clare McGing:
A recent survey by Buckley and McGing (2011, forthcoming) of female party membership shows that women constitute 42% of Fine Gael party members, 34% of Fianna Fáil, 37% of Labour and 24% of Sinn Féin. The dearth between the percentage of female party members and candidates suggests that women are more reluctant about putting themselves forward for a nomination.
Can you explain why it is that so few women put themselves forward? Is it really exclusively about families? Are there no single women in these parties?
5) Quotas do not say “women can’t hack it”, they say “the current political environment needs to be bashed around the head until it cops on and fairly represents the population”
6) You bring up Scandanavian countries and their lack of quotas. If Ireland were similarly equal, there would be no clamour for quotas. You make a strong point about France but I would consider it utterly moronic if quotas were considered the solution *by themselves*. I would see them as a means of ensuring that rolemodels exist for other women to be inspired by while longer term issues can be addressed. You talk about “top-down” solutions but you’re making a false dichotomy if you present the situation as strictly either “top-down” or “bottom-up”.
Thanks for engaging.
Hi Colin,
I have no general expertese on what influences women politicans who oppose gender quotas but I don’t think it is anything to do with “not appreciating how hard it is” and more to do with effectiveness and fairness.
Being a public representative is difficult for anyone. It requires a huge amount of commitment and personal sacrifices that most people are not prepared to take on. I can only relate to my personal experience and I am witness to the fact that women don’t put themselves forward for election because of family and it is only social and political changes that support women in their careers an family life that will make it less difficult for them.
I feel reluctant to make observations on why Joanna chose to go into politics but I think that all my family has been influenced by my fathers dedication to achieving a fairer more equal society. It is this passion that is the main driver. As for smoothing the path…sorry but that made me laugh. You referred to “Prominent Labour Councillor” helping get his daughter elected – he was not a councillor, even the unprominent type until ten years after his daughter got elected -hence my misunderstnding of what your point was.
Of course my father and her family has helped and supported Joanna but without going to much into the long and tedious detail, when Joanna put first herself forward for election it was argued by those opposing her that she was not well known enough. She was selected anyway and she drew more support in areas outside of old Lucan where there was little to no familiarity.
Yes, I would have thought it odd for you to mention Brian Cowen as again I presumed your point was that a woman candidate who got a fathers leg-up should not begrudge other women a leg-up of some kind. As for the FF dynasties they ARE based on seat inheritence – which you say was not your point.
As far as I’m concerned parties don’t need an incentive to select women candidates. The Labour Party delberately chose to run female candidates in most constuencies where a new candidate was added. It was an election tactic but not a hard rule – to avoid the sillyness of rejecting good candidates that had slogged their guts out for years.
It should be left up to the parties to choose. The ones who are smart and gender balanced enough will work out how to use it effectivelyto gain more seats.
As for your final point, candidate quotas will not lead to a gender quota in government but it will lead to token female candidates. People vote for the strongest candidate and women don’t automatically vote for women.
Hi Rachel,
I didn’t mean to imply this was the only objection that elected women have, rather that it isn’t an implausible one, nor is it necessarily conscious on the part of the objection holder (I’d be lying if I said I’d never rationalised an opinion I held for reasons that are arguably more self-serving than I’d like to admit.)
We agree that finding ways of removing the presumptive carer role on women will help in many areas. I wouldn’t argue for one second that we shouldn’t attempt to do this. I don’t know that this necessarily addresses what seems to me to be a chicken-and-egg issue of women being inspired by other women to become politicians and the more bread-and-butter issue of the opportunities a lot of men have in social circles to build up a name for themselves before going forward for selection (think of the influence the local GAA club has for a quick example.)
You’re right that I was inaccurate about your father. I recognised his name when I lived in Lucan and first heard of Joanna as his daughter. I made an inference from that I shouldn’t have. Point absolutely taken.
Regarding incentivising political parties, it strikes me that it’s considerably more enlightened on this issue that the other major parties. I don’t believe you can extrapolate and say that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael show the same tendencies.
Regarding tokenism, given that women constitute 50% of the population, I don’t remotely believe that we would end up with token candidates. The increased participation by women who believed their chances were improved would more than make up the slack. There is an major assumption that the men that are picked now are the cream of the crop…given some of the more colourful members of the last government in particular, I would beg to differ :)
Colin, Thank you too.
@Rachel. I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence. Women certainly don’t automatically vote for women candidates, nor evidently, do they bother replying to them. Which further proves the point I’ve been making since this issue has come onto this forum.
I also noticed the tone of your answers to Colin and feel sure that you’ll notice mine.
Be sure to let Joanna know that I feel her frustration that it was a woman, Gemma Hussy, who wrongly criticised her.
Nothing more to say except that the lack of irony to the point I’ve been making has been noted. Sorely.
Colin,
Just come come back on the whole career choice thing and why women might not be “attracted” to running for election. There are many careers that women and men are unequally attracted to. I’ve worked in 2 of them at opposite ends in terms of gender balance. I started out as and architectural technician and ended up in fashion and textile design.
Teaching in NCAD over 60% of our students are female, selected from numbered porfolios. This is not a reflection of women being better at art and design but that they are more likely to want to follow careers in these fields. At the same time the numbers in industrial design at NCAD are male dominated – female students in this male dominated area excel to the same degree as their male counterparts. Introducing gender quotas would automatically lower the standards in the college because strong applicants would be overlooked to achieve gender balance,
We are speculating here on why women don’t go forward for election and how we address the issue. To me the demands of the job and it’s incompatabilty with family life are a major factor but I forgot an obvious answe – Could it be that women just are not as interested in a political career path as men. Pure and simple.
Three points occur to me here.
1) If women were generally not predisposed to politics, they wouldn’t get involved in greater numbers in other countries.
2) Representation in our nation’s decision-making bodies is not really a valid comparison with different professions.
Lastly (3), the question of women preferring certain professions can happen for a multitude of reasons, not all of which denote freedom to choose profession for which they are most suited but could just as easily denote perceived limited choices, friendlier environment and so on.
In countries where there is more equal gender participation it is not because of inforced election quotas but political policies that support woment in areas like childcare that have brought about the natural balance (that will never reult in 50/50. (BTW, we are going in circles with this one.)
You have posed the question of why women are not putting themselves forwards for election. I am responding by making the point that women may not drawn to politics for reasons other that the practicalities, and historic/culture: they are not as interested as men in the same way that men are more interested in engineering.
Colin, See my reply to Reada above as it addresses some of your points.
Hi Rachel,
I don’t think the facts bear you out. In The Netherlands where I live now, a list system is used and each party chooses their list directly (i.e. no selection conventions.) Given that the parties don’t want to be considered “anti-women”, they are under social pressure to make the lists representative of the population as a whole in terms of sex, if not in terms of ethnic backgrounds, sexual preference, and so on. Essentially, they have to have a quota of female candidates or they will alienate voters. Irish parties are insulated from this by virtue of their selection conventions.
Given that there are countries with even representation, I don’t think it’s tenable that women as a whole are less inclined to become politicians. What is entirely plausible to me is that the Irish political system is confrontational in a way that puts women off. I think it puts a fair few men off too :)
Hey Colin,
Just to say I’m posing questions not stating what I see as fact. I would like more answers before there is sweeping legislation.
Thanks for the debate…..tiredy and going to bed.
Rachel
Hi Joanna
One thing that’s been mentioned here that I would really eagerly support is the model of sharable maternity leave.
I think it would transform at a single stroke the notion that young women are a liability to a company because of the presumption is that they will disappear for half a year a number of times over a certain period.
If the burden was more easily shared, we might become a more family-friendly country generally and I would strongly encourage you to convince your party and cabinet to introduce the measure.
I think it would have a positive effect on political participation too…
You too Rachel- g’night :)
Great Article by Joanna Tuffy. I’m in complete agreement with her that Gender Quotas are damaging to grassroots democracy.
Yes, we heard you the first time. Is she (or you) a spokesperson for womankind? I’m guessing both males and females voted for her. playing the ‘us and them’ game is no answer to what was a very reasonably written column.
Reada, apologies. I did feel more compelled to answer Colin directl, you echoed some of each others points as I felt he was making unfair assumptions on Joanna’s part. You clearly weren’t pressing my defence buttons.
I stand corrected but can I say that I could place your name as male or female (I admit I’m terrible with Irish names) – reading back I can see it now.
I acknowledge that you have respect for Joanna’s opinion and are very open in the discussion.
I don’t see Joanna as being conciously radical just thoughful and not afraid to speak her mind. There have been many very patrinising responses to Joanna’s stance and in some ways a kind of reverse sexism. It’s this knid of thing gets me going not reasonable remarks.. Even though she seems to be going against the grain of political activists many commenters and readers seem to share her view. Do you think the majority are men?
Thanks Donncha. I agree with you that point. Women have different points of view as do men and when you are a TD you are a representative of the people not your gender
Thanks Donncha, I agree with you re ‘us and them’ and also that a TD is a representative of the people not their gender.
Excellent piece Joanna, I totally agree with your views on the matter.
If gender quotas are to be introduced in politics, should they then be introduced in every other profession? I think most people would say no. Why then should politics be any different?
Thanks to all who’ve commented for your feedback
Great article. Gender quotas are a bad idea, and are discriminatory to both males and females. It also produces a ‘nanny state’ effect, assuming that people aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions. When I vote, the gender of the candidate is never a factor, and I am only too happy to support the person that I feel will best represent my views.
Joanne, I agree with a lot of what you say, and I certainly agree that paid paternity leave would do far more for women’s representation at every level than any other single measure.
But I think you paint an unrealistically rosy picture of candidate selection within political parties as it is. I would love to believe that it is the candidates who come up through the grassroots who are selected, on the basis of their commitment and links to the community, but that is simply not the case far too often. The ‘old boys club’ of who knows who, and who plays golf with who, still holds huge influence over who is selected in the end. And of course, this excludes men as well as women, but as in every other sector of society, business, etc., any area ruled by the old boys club is more difficult for women to access. If for no other reason than that women haven’t had time to establish themselves in that club yet – and I don’t think they should try.
I am not 100% convinced that quotas are a good move. My own biggest concern would be around the exclusion of other underrepresented groups, people from diverse backgrounds, minorities, being disadvantaged as a result. But it doesn’t make sense to argue that what goes on in selecting candidates in political parties is a bastion of democracy. Regardless of votes being cast by members, there is huge potential for party networks to favour one candidate and push for their selection, both within constituencies and outside it. This undermines people not willing to ‘play the game,’ and that, in any industry, tends to mean a lot of women.
Eilis,
I agree re parties not being bastions of democracy and there is a tension between members who want more say and leaderships (and spin doctors) that want more control. Think more democracy within parties is one of the keys to more diversity too.
I am a former councillor and would definetly not be happy to feel I only got through because of gender quotas. Women are quite capable of getting through the system if they so wish. What women with a family might need is support when they do get through the system.
But you wouldn’t have been elected because of gender quotas Teresa. You’d have been available for election thanks to gender quotas. But you’d have been elected by the electorate who would have just had a better choice.
Reada They had that choice anyway. Teresa was selected and ran. The more women put themselves forward the more will run. The percentages of women that ran in 2011 was skewed by fact that less than 10 per cent women run as independents. Most parties ran more than 20 per cent, some higher than that. The low numbers of women independents is then dragging the overall percentage down. So evidence is in fact opposite to what gender quota proponents claim – parties are actually selecting women, once they put themselves forward. So let that process happen naturally rather than imposing quotas from the top and undermining the participation of women and men members of political parties.
It would be interesting to see what percentage of women who put themselves forward for election get elected, with a similar comparison for men. I think women do quite well on that comparison. I agree more women should be elected, but the danger here is that if not enough women apply for positions do the number sod men have to be cut to a promotional number in order to comply with the quota? For example, if we have 100 spaces to fill with 50 men and 50 women, but 75 men and 35 women apply for position, if the 50/50 quota were in place, all 35 women must be given the position regardless of ability and 35 men. This is a dangerous precedent to set as it could eventually move into job applications etc. so before anyone starts giving out to me for being sexist, I must clarify that I wholly agree that women should,be represented in equality with men for EVERYTHING, but in proportion to applicants not positions to avoid the problem given in my example above.
Damien spell check……promotional should obviously read proportional!
Whether or not gender quotas are a good thing or not, I imagine that any man who perceives himself to have been passed over for a party’s nomination in favour of a woman (to make up the quota) will simply leave, and run as an independent.
While gender quotas may put more women on the ballot paper, there will probably be more disgruntled male independents on it too, who will possibly bring a faithful team with them.
Hence, while 30% of the party candidates will be female (although how this will pan out across constituencies has not been made clear), it is almost certain that more than 70% of the candidates overall will be male.
But, most importantly, putting more women on the ballot paper is by no means a guarantee that more women will get elected.
The fact remains that an elective body with c. 15% women is simply shocking and until something is done to change it women will continue to be greatly underrepresented in public affairs and the pervasive prejudice (which manifests in unconscious gender biases in the perceptions of both men and women) against women’s place in the political arena will remain.
As I see it, your central arguments against quotas are (1) candidates should be selected on merit and quotas are paternalistic toward women, (2) the main barrier to the participation of women is not at the level of candidate selection but rather the low number of women putting their names forward, and that quotas do not address this issue, and (3) women are gradually becoming more present in politics and therefore it would be better to allow this to continue to improve naturally.
In regards to (1), if you believe (and I shall give you the credit of assuming you do) that women are just as capable as men and that there is no natural disinclination toward political participation among women (as opposed to any disinclination fostered by social and cultural prejudices), then the fact that women make up only 15% of an elected body means that we do not currently have a system where political power is got purely on the basis of merit. Simple logic tells us that there must be many women who would be better legislators than men that currently have the positions.
You repeatedly refer to quotas being anti-democratic, but this is simply not the case. Democracy is about equal political power, and the unrepresentative nature of the legislature demonstrates that political power is not equal. If there were no unfair obstacles to women’s involvement in politics then how do you explain the imbalance? A quota system does not give women an unfair advantage, rather it is a way of levelling the playing field in the same way that positive discrimination is not intended to give a minority group an unfair advantage but compensate for their already disadvantaged position.
This brings us to (2). You continue to point out that not enough women are putting their names forward to be considered as candidates, the implication being that quotas do not deal with this issue. I believe that that is a mistake. The point of quotas is to get more women in the legislature. As well as the obvious consequence that women will be better represented, the presence of women in politics will help make progress to dispelling any social and cultural prejudices that are discouraging women’s involvement. Furthermore, if significant system changes are necessary for real equality then these are much more likely to come about if the views of women are being properly represented.
In all honestly I’m not sure that (3) justifies much of a response. The proportion of women representatives is gradually increasing but nowhere near fast enough to think that this means we do not need to act to change the imbalance. Perhaps at this rate it will be 25% in another 20 years, but that’s another 20 years of the suppression of women’s interests and 25% still amounts to significant underrepresentation.
If I have been rather abrupt in any of my arguments then I sincerely apologise, please take it as a sign that I consider you a worthy opponent for a substantive debate. I hope the ‘I respect your views but . .’ is taken to be implicit.
Nicola,
I appreciate that last point. Just to make what I think is an important point that many of the very informed proponents of quotas neglect to mention- the Scandanavian countries never legislated for quotas. Some parties have them, most don’t and they all have achieved a high percentage of women. A Swedish feminist academic has pointed out that the greatest progress made in Sweden was before any party introduced quotas there, in the 1970s, and the party with the best record over the years in Sweden has never had quotas, and is in fact, not unlike me, ideologically oppposed to them.
The issue is women are being facilitiated in Ireland by parties. The percentage of women that ran for many parties in this year’s election was greater than the percentage of women that ran as independents, showing that there is a societal issue as to why women don’t run, but generally parties are doing something about it, and are positively encouraging women to go forward, and members to vote for women.
The logic that it will take 20 years to get to 25 per cent ignores that an increase can accelerate without quotas when there is a climate for it. That is what happened in Sweden in the 1970s. I believe that climate is here in Ireland right now and that is why we are having this debate about the need to improve women’s participation in politics, it’s why parties are trying to run more women and it is why voters when surveyed (as in the National Voter survey February 2011) are also favourable to women candidates. So all the ingredients are in place for voters, including party members, to vote for women in increasing numbers, as more women emerge of their own volition, without having the matter forced on them by the use of quotas.
As regards merit I am not someone who uses that term when it comes to elections, as I think it gives the wrong idea of what elections and selection conventions, are about, as if its do with how well qualified a person is. Rather what is involved is one person persuading another to vote for them through their powers of persuasion, and what they have to say about the issues that matter to people.
Hi Joanna. I know when I’m not going to change someone’s mind. But seeing as I’ve discovered a line to one of the parties in power – could you do me a favour?
I’ve been a Labour voter all my life – and it’s been a tough road at times, especially when ye team up with FG but I’ve remained so as I believe it’s Ireland’s best chance of having a solid left voice.
Any chance of having a word with some of the lads down the back of the class and reminding them of the Labour ethos. If ye don’t speak up before all these education, child allowance, medical card charges budget leaks come true Labour’s going to be obliterated at the next election. And then what? Back to FF? I really couldn’t bear it. I’ll let you away with your anti quota stance and won’t argue with you again. Promise….
Reada, I’ll do my best.
I don`t know Joanna Tuffy and if ì`m honest was indifferent to her until the last election and the formation of the new Gov, Ms Tuffy has proved to be ahead of the curve on how this Gov would behave and i am certain that Ms Tuffy will be the next deputy overboard on wed/thurs this week of budget, Lab has sold out for a shot at power and are being bullied and humiliated by FG and this Gov will be over within the next 18 months. I fully agree with Ms Tuffy on woman quotas too, actually politicians like Joanna who stand up for whats right and who keep their moral compass intact wont need quotas to be elected. Gilmore failed during the election campagin when he had his Labour/Frankfurt embarrassing meltdown and never recovered his mojo after that and eventually his party will come and politically take his head off, maybe not next time but we could be looking at a future Labour leader in Joanna Tuffy.
have your say