the imposition of international political gender quotas: addressing the “q-word
TRANSCRIPT
The Imposition of International Political Gender Quotas: Addressing the “Q-word.”
By Maria Lungu
Maria Lungu I am a third year law student at
the University of Tennessee College of Law.
I am from Zambia.This paper was completed as part
of my thesis in a “Sex, Gender, and Justice” course.
So what is the issue? Women are severely underrepresented
in political schemes, and different countries around the world adopt initiatives to address this problem.
My theory is that the countries that use gender quotas, although in good faith, adopt a flawed system.
FACTS Women constitute only 22% of the members
of parliaments around the world In fact, half of the countries in the world
today use some type of electoral quota for their parliament
Women in parliaments has doubled in the last 20 years.
A Brief History
By 1994 women had obtained the right to vote in 96% of the countries in the world.
These developments have been followed by an increase in the female share of registered voters across the globe.
Yet, improvements in education attainment, professional development, and political participation have not translated into significant increases in female leadership in politics and business.
In 2013, the European Parliament issued a public report supporting gender quotas legislation requiring companies to have at least 40 percent women on their boards of directors by 2020.
While some women have risen to the pinnacle of political power like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and Judge Silvia Fernandez de Gurmendi of Argentina as the first woman president of the International Criminal Court, less than 19% of legislators in the world today are women.
What are Gender Quotas and what is their justification? Gender quotas are a means to recruit women into
political positions and to ensure that women are not only a few tokens in political life.
TYPES OF METHODS USED: Reserved seats (constitutional and/or legislative),
legal candidate quotas (constitutional and/or legislative), and political party quotas (voluntary).
While reserved seats regulate the number of women elected, the other two forms set a minimum for the share of women on the candidate lists, either as a legal requirement (no. 2) or a measure written into the statutes of individual political parties (no. 3)
Justifications Quotas for women do not discriminate, but compensate for actual
barriers that prevent women from their fair share of the political seats.
Several internationally recognized conventions on gender equality have set targets for women’s political representation, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) which 179 countries are now party to.
Quotas imply that there are several women together in a committee or assembly, thus minimizing the stress often experienced by the only woman.
Women have the right as citizens to equal representation. Women are just as qualified as men, but women’s qualifications
are downgraded and minimized in a male-dominated political system.
Quotas do not discriminate against individual men. Rather quota rules limit the tendency of political parties to nominate only men. For the voters, the opportunities are expanded, since it now becomes possible to vote for women candidates.
How can it be justified that men occupy more than 80 percent of the parliamentary seats in the world?
Criticisms on Gender Quotas • Political representation should be a choice between
ideas and party platforms, not between social categories.
• Quotas are undemocratic, because voters should be able to decide who is elected.
• Quotas imply that politicians are elected because of their gender, not because of their qualifications, and that better-qualified candidates are pushed aside.
• Many women do not want to get elected just because they are women.
• Introducing quotas creates significant conflicts within the party organization.
• Quotas for women will be followed by demands for quotas for other groups, which will result in a politics of sheer group-interest representation.
The Tide Turns Afghanistan adopts quotas The USA would find quotas
unconstitutional.
Afghanistan Afghanistan presents a few methods for combatting gender
inequality using political gender quotas. In Afghanistan there is a legal mandate to offer women
political seats; this was a key country to analyze considering its notoriety for machismo.
In Afghanistan, the constitution specifies that the Wolesi Jirga shall include 64 women members.Despite the advances in female representation in political parties, violence against women is still a problem, with beatings, forced marriage and lack of economic support being listed as the top three offences reported by police.In theory women have the same rights as men, however, there are cases of women who are still fearful of stepping out of their perceived roles as home makers into political spheres.
Unconstitutionality of Gender Quotas in the United States of America It is an established rule of U.S. constitutional law that the
state cannot impose or pursue race or gender quotas In the private sector, an employer’s pursuit of numerically
fixed race or gender balance is suspect under Title VII. Under both bodies of antidiscrimination law, quotas are regarded as discrimination. If a civil rights initiative can be portrayed as encouraging employers to adopt quotas, its political demise is nearly certain in the United States.
Quotas are widely regarded as legally, politically, and morally repugnant that they are taboo, often referred to as the “q-word,” yet the “q-word” is rarely the subject of any serious debate in the USA, even by those who favor stronger civil rights protections for women and minorities.
Propositions to Gender Quotas?- What can we use instead? Parity democracy- equal representation of women and
men in decision-making positions. Parity democracy –50-50 male-female representation in all
organizations exercising power in a democratic society – is not primarily aimed at enhancing women’s opportunities as individuals or even as a group.
Its primary purpose is to legitimize the exercise of political, economic, and social power between both sexes.
Parity democracy embraces gender balance as a collective democratic goal rather than equal opportunity for a minority group. This system is more favorable. Parity democracy is a permanent goal, therefore gender balance would be required forever, and not just temporarily until women’s opportunities were sufficiently fulfilled. The constitutional amendments that pave the way for parity quotas are framed as “equal access.
ConclusionsQuotas for women do not discriminate, but compensate for
actual barriers that prevent women from their fair share of the political seats.
Quotas need to be specific about mandating merit along with gender as reasons for voting a person into a position. The application of quotas can be seen as part of a necessary strategy directed towards attaining substantive equality between women and men in the public and political spheres.
The purpose of quotas is to ensure the continuing diverse representation of the two sexes in these areas. On their face, gender quotas are beneficial especially considering the history behind gender inequalities; however their implementation also presents some issues. Essentially, they are a flawed system.
THANK YOU AND ENJOY THE CONFERENCE.
Please direct any inquiries to Maria Lungu at: