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.
