Tag Archives: stereotypes

Why I’ve changed my mind about Gender Quotas – by Ken Curtin Fianna Fáil

Posted on by
11

I have always believed candidates for all parties should be chosen solely on the basis of merit – regardless of gender or any other factor.

I also believe ordinary grassroots members of political parties should be the ones who pick candidates to represent them.

For both these reasons – for many years – I’ve been a vocal opponent of gender quotas being imposed on Irish political parties (also against any other type of quota  being imposed on parties).

I was wrong…
I now firmly believe I was wrong in thinking you couldn’t have one while maintaining the other. It’s very possible to have quotas and, at the same time, let ordinary members choose their candidates on basis of merit.

My political life
I’ve been involved in politics off & on for most of my life.  Much of that time I have been, and still am, a member of Fianna Fáil.

I’m delighted my parliamentary party are fully supportive of the gender quotas legislation that came before Seanad Eireann today.

I hope their Amendment  – proposing gender quotas also apply to Local Elections –  is taken on board.  (If parties thought about it, this makes complete sense for blooding new candidates ahead of next General Election).

I’m very conscious in supporting my parliamentary party on this.  I’m in a minority among my party’s ordinary members. Many Fianna Fáil members are understandably opposed to the introduction of quotas – for a variety of reasons:

  • grass-roots opposition to this Gender Quotas legislation is a common theme among members of all parties (from talking to friends in other parties)
  • the most common reason I’ve heard for opposition is  – Quotas are “undemocratic” & will result in “token women” candidates being imposed by HQ.
  • the other usual argument is:  Why stop with women, should there not be quotas for every other type of minority to make our Dáil truly representative?

Dealing with these issues in reverse order…

  • gender is different because circa 50% of population is female & 50% male – women are not a minority & should not be regarded as such.  (Also, 50% of all other sub-categories would also be female.)
  • Calling any candidate a “token candidate” is unfair on both the process & individual. No one – regardless of gender – should be labelled as “token”.

Selection Conventions
I’ve attended multiple selection conventions. Anyone who can say (“hand on their heart”) all candidates have been picked on the basis of merit alone should consider politics themselves. They have  obvious ability to lie with a straight face – either that or they are clearly delusional!

What now needs to happen is …
all parties should select candidates democratically at local level, u sing the rules that apply.

Contrary to popular belief one member, one vote (OMOV) selection and Quotas are not mutually exclusive.

People need to just operate within the constraints that apply when choosing candidates.

Quotas of type (for example, geographic) have been used for years without ever being called “quotas”.  Grassroots members just need to adapt to the new circumstances.

In the case of my party, Fianna Fáil, this will probably mean that, for 2014 ‘locals’, we’ll operate two new types of quota – gender & younger-than-30s.

But neither should conflict with candidates still being selected on merit at local level by the local membership.

Temporary quotas
 (they should become obsolete within 4 General Election cycles) are one small but important part of the overall solution to get more women involved in politics.

Temporary quotas should never be considered in isolation – instead they should be seen as a key part of the overall solution.

Where quotas will come into their own is in terms of changing the culture internally in parties.   No matter how much we’d like to deny it, the culture in parties is still mildly misogynistic.  This culture has filtered through to our elected chambers, where we still have just 15% female representation in Dáil – & only 100 women have ever held a Dáil seat.

This mildly misogynistic culture was never more evident than in the 2012 budget which is possibly the most misogynistic in years – possibly reflecting the fact we only have 2 women out of 15 in cabinet (both in stereotypical female ministries).

Quotas are going to come in – that is a certainty.  My suspicion is (despite being long overdue) their imminent arrival has come far too fast for many ordinary party members.

To overcome this – hand-in-hand with measures now being put in place to get more women involved

  • existing members (regardless of gender) need to be educated & consulted on quota implementation within parties to ensure such concerns can be addressed.

Most importantly of all…

  • it’s vital that selection conventions still happen – democratically choosing the best possible candidates based on ability – cognisant of new rules that apply, including quotas.

Making the arguments for quotas

Posted on by
1

If you accept the argument that the status quo of the under-representation of women in politics is not acceptable – then are quotas a necessary tactic?

The case for quotas is a complex question – as I discovered after reading some background articles.

Descriptive representation, which is what we in The 50/50 Group are looking for, is not necessarily mandated by democratic theory. So there is often the criticism that redheads should have a quota or left handers etc. I enjoyed the example of should morons be represented by morons? Therefore the argument in favour of descriptive representation involves something else.

The answer is as follows.
Whenever interests conflict, real democracy mandates that those interests, in proportion, need to be represented.

Secondly, whenever different perspectives might significantly improve a deliberation, real democracy mandates that these perspectives should be represented.

Yet neither the equal representation of interests in moments of conflict, nor relevant perspectives, necessarily requires representation by actual members of the represented group.
However, in at least two circumstances, the interests & perspectives of members of a group cannot be adequately represented by others :

1. when representatives, who are members of a group, tend to respond to group relevant issues with greater concern than non members.
2. when representatives who themselves are members of a group can communicate better among themselves, with other representatives & with constituents from that group. Uncrystallised interests & issues, mistrust, physical presence of representatives induce other representatives to make greater efforts to understand that group’s interests.

These are not easy ideas to get to grips with, but it goes some way to rebutting the critics of descriptive representation for women.

The essentialism argument against quotas is that quotas serve to reinforce stereotypes. Therefore, the argument that men cannot represent women, for example, suggests that women cannot represent men. The argument that only women can represent women suggests that any woman can represent all women.

I think this argument is one that we need to be clear about ourselves. I think a man can represent the views of some women, and, similarly, I think a woman can represent the views of some men.

So what is the case for quotas & what type of quotas will guard against the stereotype difficulty?

I think the Government’s proposals on gender quotas at candidate selection is the best option. While it doesn’t guarantee that descriptive representation will follow, in countries that have tried them, they have led to dramatic change in a short period of time.

As Mansbridge writes
‘descriptive representation by gender improves substantive outcomes for women in every polity for which we have a measure. …significant representation by gender cannot be achieved in any existing polity without some form of quota.’ Go forth and make the arguments…[1]

1. Mansbridge, J., Quota problems: Combating the Dangers of Essentialism.  American Political Science Association, 2005.