Positive Discrimination for Women in Politics

~ irigitte fardot , 5/04/2009 1:24 ÖÖ

Irem Hacialioglu
Murray State University
Writing for Social Sciences
Poisiton Paper - April 2009

Running head: WOMEN’S QUOTA

Positive Discrimination for Women in Politics


The Issue

While social and economic position of women has improved in many countries over years, and female enrollment in higher education and labor force participation has risen, women empowerment in elected office is still far behind. Majority of the women in the world today are still suffering from not being able to be represented equally as men, in the decision-making mechanisms of all kinds. Particularly in politics, women’s representation is very low since statistics (Inter-Parliamentary Union, Women in National Parliaments, 2005) show that eight and a half out of ten members of national parliaments worldwide are men.

This issue brings out the problematic side about how values like human rights, democracy and equality are practiced. If women in the world today constitute the half of the population and still cannot get a chance to be equally represented as men in politics, then democracy and equality become ‘so called’. This also leads to the suspension of the ‘common good’. This problem can only be solved by implementing quotas – in other words, positive discrimination, favoring women. The implementation should last to some extent and should be restricted in time. Whenever the goal of using quotas is reached, namely when the women are finally represented equally as men, it should be called off to avoid any further inequalities from occuring.


Why and How to Increase Women’s Representation?

There are several reasons why an extra effort is vital to help increase the representation of women in politics. First of all, it is essential for the practice of an effective democracy. By definition, democracy requires countries with democratic administrations to treat every single individual equally; providing them equality of opportunity. Thus, a democratic country cannot afford to let one of the genders involve more in the decision-making, since participation in the management or in government is a human right according to the 21st Article of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations (UN) (1948).

Equal representation is also needed to improve the status of women. Without setting a gender approach into the decision-making process, countries cannot develop in terms of modernity. Because, it is parliament’s, government’s and any other public bodies’s task to decide on how the distribution of social opportunities to the different segments of the society should take place. Thus, it is very important to have women as well as men, in such mechanisms to make sure the distribution takes place more equally.

All of these taken into consideration, many countries in the world today are setting policies and taking actions towards the issue. Equal participation of women and men in public life and in politics is one of the cornerstones of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 1979 and is in force since 1981. Countries that signed the convention are bound to take measures to promote women’s participation in decision-making and leadership positions. Most of these countries adopted the quota system to stick to the convention. In 1995, the UN 4th World Conference on Women in Beijing, named “the Beijing Platform for Action”, renewed the pressure for the implementation of the provisions of CEDAW. Even the former UN Seceretary-General Kofi Annan stated that “Peace is inextricably linked to equality between women and men. Maintaining and promoting peace and security requires equal participation in decision-making.”

Soon, positive discrimination, namely setting quotas favoring women in politics became a joint resolution for most of the countries, both the ones that had taken part in CEDAW and the ones that had not. In sum, positive discrimination for women is regarded as a political action taken to better the opportunities of a disadvantageous group, in other words; a step taken to make sure every group starts the race at the same level.

Why Quota? Pros and Cons

Tan, Ecevit, Usur, and Acuner (2008), the authors of the publication named “Gender Inequality in Turkey: Problems, Priorities and Solution Overtures” argue that setting gender quotas is an intervention not to the decision of the voter, but to the process of determining the candidates. This argument is very just not only because it makes a rightful definition of the term but also it answers some of the questions of the opponents of quota system.

Academics and activists who oppose to the system hold that setting gender quotas is undemocratic because it prevents voters from deciding who is going to be elected and it encumbers the equality of opportunity. This point of view is a little biased and defective; because a recent research of Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) (2007) show that, in most of the existing election systems in the world today, candidates are determined beforehand, by the elector bodies of the political parties and presented to the people, afterwards; which means people elect their own candidate of choice, freely. Moreover, it is again proven by the same institute that, in countries which practice quota systems, setting quotas is a step taken towards to be more democratic as it actually paves the way to a society where equality of opportunity is practiced more – with the help of special measures.

Another opposed view argues that what important in politics is the individual qualifications and not the gender, therefore; politicians should not be elected just because they are women. This view lacks the fact that women are also as qualified as men, but their qualifications are often disregarded because they are seen as to be in the secondary roles in a society. Furthermore, quotas imply that a number of women together in a committee can minimize the stress experienced by the women in the society.

Another negative argument is that, introducing quotas may cause conflicts within the organization of political parties and may lead to a bigger conflict for the country. This argument can be altered with the answer, “Yes, but temporarily.” Opponents of gender quotas often neglect the fact that women have the right as citizens to equal representation and that experiences of women are needed in political life.


Conclusion

Based on this research, I came to realize that supporting quotas for women is like demanding intervention from the state – which is a little socialistic, in terms of distribution of services. On the contrary, opposing quotas for women is like a Social Darwinist kind of idea – which holds that the state should not intervene in anything and the society should be left on its own, so the fittest in the society can survive and everything can occur evolving by itself. As this ideology does not have many followers today and the modern states choose to regulate most areas (like the social services), if not all, it would not be improper to say that values like democracy and equality need extra effort to be thoroughly practiced.

Overall, most of the academics and their works on the issue show that using gender quotas is sine qua non on the way to a more democratic and equal representation. Their significant works prove this paper’s argument that the equality and democracy do not occur all by themselves, therefore taking positions and putting up measures is what there is to be done, strategically.


References

Ballington, Julie (2005). Introduction. In J. Ballington & A. Karam (Eds.), Women in Parliament: Beyond Numbers. A Revised Edition. Section 1. (pp. 23–30). Stockholm: Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).

Dahlerup, Drude (2005). Increasing Women’s Political Representation: New Trends in Gender Quotas. In In J. Ballington & A. Karam (Eds.), Women in Parliament: Beyond Numbers. A Revised Edition. Section 2. (pp. 141–153). Stockholm: Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).

(2007) Geçici Özel Önlem Politikası: Kota (Temporary Special Measure Policy: Quota). Kota El Kitabı (Quota Handbook). Istanbul: Publication of Women Candidates Association of Turkey (KA-DER).

Tan, M., Ecevit, Y., Usur, S. S. & Acuner, S. (2008). Turkiye’de Toplumsal Cinsiyet Esitsizligi: Sorunlar, Oncelikler ve Cozum Onerileri (Gender Inequality in Turkey: Problems, Priorities and Solution Overtures). Istanbul: Publication of Women Entrepreneurs Association of Turkey (KAGIDER).

Norris, Pippa (2000). Breaking the Barriers: Positive Discrimination Policies for Women. In Jyette Klausen and Charles S. Maier (Eds.), Has Liberalism Failed Women? Parity, Quotas and Political Representation: Assuring Equal Representation in Europe and the United States. Chapter 10. (pp. 89–110). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Whittington, S. (2004). UN Goals for Gender Mainstreaming. Conference on Women and Post-War Reconstruction: Strategies for Implementation of Democracy Building Policies. Miami: Florida International University.

Posted in , , , , , , , , , , , ,

0 Response to "Positive Discrimination for Women in Politics"

Yorum Gönder

Kaydol: Kayıt Yorumları (Atom)