Gender quotas not about preferential treatment

Hume Johnson GUEST COLUMNIST

Critics of the introduction of gender quotas to increase representation of women in Parliament anchor their argument on two assumptions: that it's discriminatory, in that it undermines say the selection of candidates or parliamentarians on the basis of merit; and as one male poster on Facebook suggests, "It's an excuse for desperate professional women to sit on the mountaintop without having to go through the trenches."

These assumptions are, however, based on a flawed notion that the proposal for quotas is about tokenism. Although Jamaica has 14 women in both Lower House and Senate, this is a tiny fraction of the 63 parliamentary seats. Across the world, the lack of gender equity in political structures and decision-making is stark. Less than one in five parliamentarians across the world are women. Women are historically marginalised in societies.

Rwanda and South Africa are among the countries with the highest proportion of women in Parliament. They both introduced gender quotas. South Africa, in its post-apartheid reconstruction, created deliberate mechanisms for women, who were largely homemakers in the apartheid era, to become creative contributors to the productive sector and policymaking. Rwanda moved to effect gender quotas in its attempt to establish a more equitable society and an inclusive democracy after the genocide in 1994. Indeed, in 2008, Rwanda became the first country with a majority of women in the legislature.

Over the last two decades, more than half the world's countries have introduced - by way of constitutions, legislatures, and political parties - some kind of quota to correct gender imbalance, and to reserve positions for women in the decision-making bodies. Some of these processes have been voluntary; others occasioned through law. Some quotas are gender neutral, meaning that they cover both men and women. Others provide for ethnic groups and the youth. Overall, although controversial in some countries, gender quotas are seen as the most effective mechanism to include voices historically excluded from the political process.

Importance of Female Voice in Politics

Gender quotas are also part of efforts to jump-start democracy in some countries, improve democracy in others by - at first - levelling the playing field. But why is it important for women to have a voice in politics? When women are involved, the argument is that they tend to advocate for issues that are salient to women. Although this view is being challenged, it doesn't invalidate the importance of gender balance in political and legislative discussions about women's health, including women's reproductive health and reproductive rights (abortion, teenage pregnancy).

Regrettably, in Jamaica, as elsewhere, it is men who are largely crafting legislation about women's reproductive health. These are developmental issues which require a perspective that addresses the needs of all genders. There is also a deafening silence of women in public discourses about crucial issues such as the economy, education, and the environment.

Gender equity is also seen to be crucial to improving democracy because women in politics are generally observed to be more responsive to needs of constituents. Women in political circles also tend to be more focused on cooperation than discord, a vital asset in politically charged environments such as Jamaica.

It is to be regretted, however, that women parliamentarians in Jamaica have been silent on the increasing violence upon women and girls, have not been as aggressive about articulating the concerns of women, and have, in instances, foregrounded confrontation over collaboration. These deficits in the performance of women may work against support for women in achieving gender quotas. But with the small minority of women in Parliament, they are compelled to work harder and collaboratively (across party lines) to be able to make a real impact.

Jamaican women up against it

But all this must be viewed within the context of the nature of our political system, and the factors that work against women's participation in politics. First, Jamaican politics is an aggressive, male-dominated space. When Lisa Hanna, the minister of youth and culture, refers to politics in Jamaica as "bloodsport", it is not idle commentary. The garrisonisation of Jamaican politics, where dons and thugs have developed undue influence on elections and political processes, exposes women candidates to corruption and extralegal practices that garrisonisation promotes.

Second, alongside a criminalised political environment, there are high levels of crime and violence. This situation has the potential to compromise the personal safety of women candidates, and acts as a deterrent in attracting women in electoral politics. In addition, women are forced to divide work with personal commitments to children and family. More than this, Jamaica's political system is designed on a patriarchal framework.

Exclusion of Women - Systemic Problem

The majority of workers at the constituency level of both parties are women, and the majority of individuals attending campaign rallies and lending support to the party structures in myriad other ways are women. It is, therefore, fair to question what's preventing a leap to leadership for the qualified, competent and suitable among them. The problem is systemic, and can only be fixed institutionally.

It is unclear how many women apply for candidacy in the party system in each political party, and what percentage of those is accepted. At present, the selection of women to serve as candidates is premised on tokenism and to buttress support for political parties in the polls.

The 2011 general election, for example, saw token women candidates placed on the ballot to strengthen voter support, and to reinforce a notion of being what one party called 'a party of women'. Indeed, women candidates were promoted in campaign rhetoric as 'pretty' as opposed to what they could bring to the political process. Women can't be positioned solely for political expedience; because they 'look good'. This is not only unfair, but deliberately sets up women candidates to fail.

The party machinery putting up a new female candidate a mere six months before the polls makes it impossible for women to make the connection on the ground, and with constituents in such a short time. This is while their male opponent may have spent years adapting to that constituency, and building base support.

Indeed, some of the women candidates selected for 'imagery' in 2011 were visibly not ready for the political hustings, and were mostly unsuccessful. Despite pronouncements to the contrary, party insiders and focus groups post-election point out that with the exception of Paula Kerr-Jarrett in Easter Hanover (who lost narrowly to D.K. Duncan), the young female candidates were weak political competitors. Critics of gender quotas believe there will be more of this. Yet, I fully believe the system ought to seek to attract the best persons into the political process. But this needs to be a strategic decision.

I believe local government reform must be hastened. Effective management at the local government level means that MPs will be able to spend time articulating issues at the national level. The cultural attitudes towards role of women in society must also change. If we consciously think women belong in the political decision-making process, we will move to create the mechanisms to include and accommodate them.

This will require recruiting, training and mentoring women for leadership at the party and constituency levels. The women's movement of both parties can facilitate this mentorship.

It is without question that Jamaica has made remarkable progress in the empowerment of women and in closing the gender gap in terms of the number of women who work in public administration. But I am afraid their visibility creates a false sense of influence and equality.

Dr Hume Johnson is a political analyst and assistant professor of PR at Roger Williams University, Rhode Island, USA. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and humejohnson@gmail.com.