Imani's price of equality

Ian Boyne, Contributor

People who control power concoct all kinds of clever arguments and rationalisations - and convince themselves, too - to hold on to that power. As Karl Marx said, "The ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas."

Listening to some men, including commentators, argue against Senator Imani Duncan-Price's recommendation for quotas for female political representation reminds me of Marx's statement and psychologist Leon Festinger's theory of man as a rationalising animal (cognitive dissonance). Some of the fellows have been writing and saying that this whole matter of quotas is just to get women at the mountaintop without having them do sufficient work in the trenches. It's a way to give women a "free pass". It's unmeritocratic, undemocratic, unfair.

It's the same arguments used to argue against affirmative action for blacks in America or for the Malays in Malaysia. And it sounds reasonable, even commonsensical. And many women support arguments against any kind of 'preferential treatment of women', too. Reminds me of that classic book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Same dynamics with gender as with class and race. Perhaps, even more subtle.

Which is not to say there is no genuinely supra-gender, defensively rational argument against quotas. But many of the reflexive reactions to it are just that - reflexive. And they are well-meaning, I am sure. Patriarchy is so institutionalised and culturally embedded that it assumes common sense and a naturalness that is hard to deconstruct.

Equality of opportunity

Many of us are still stuck at the notion of 'equality of opportunity' that we are quite satisfied to know that unlike a number of countries where there are legal barriers to women's advancement, in Jamaica, we have none. Talk about under-representation in politics?

For Heaven's sake, we have a two-time female prime minister! And women head very powerful corporations in this country. Two of my own media bosses are women (both from St Jago, incidentally). In fact, I unearthed a very interesting piece of information last week while reading Gender at Work, published in February as the World Bank's companion publication to its World Development Report 2013. The publication revealed that out of 114 countries surveyed, Jamaica was one of only five that had reached or passed gender equity in occupations such as legislators, senior officials and managers! So, yes, much has been accomplished. 'What else do these Jamaican women want?' some might be asking. Can't they be satisfied?

Imani Duncan-Price herself is part of one of the wealthiest and most profitable firms in Jamaica. Scotiabank is run by a woman; so is the Jamaica Public Service Company and a host of other companies. Our director of public prosecutions and chief justice are women. So what is Imani fussing about? There is opportunity for women to reach for the stars in Jamaica. And, in fact, women are outperforming men at school. Imani herself showed, in her much-publicised Senate address, that 62 per cent of women are at university, compared to 38 per cent of men, and 55 per cent of HEART graduates are women.

Equality of outcomes

But the international development discourse, ladies and, especially, gentlemen, has moved passed mere equality of opportunity. It has reached, and is now moving beyond, equality of outcomes. Says the recent United Nations Development Programme's publication, Humanity Divided: Confronting Inequality in Developing Countries: "However, simply providing equal opportunity may not be enough to improve the inequality of outcomes ... . Opportunities require an appropriate environment to be transformed into just outcomes."

Besides, the publication points out: "Despite an explicit focus on 'fairness' of processes that determine material outcomes, equal-opportunity perspectives are unable to explain why discriminatory behaviour appears intransigent even where there is formal equality. Why do intergroup inequalities (of outcomes and opportunities) persist even in situations where overt discrimination is illegal and the provision of basic services universal?"

It is not enough to say women can strive for, and reach, any position in Jamaica. Therefore, quotas don't make any sense. I am not necessarily arguing for quotas. I am simply saying the so-called commonsensical arguments against them are not as potent as they seem.

And there is a fundamental philosophical point which is made by the publication that was made by ancient philosophers contemplating issues of justice: "The assumption that a just outcome can derive from an unjust starting point is dubitable." You can only have equality of opportunity between equals. Theorists of justice have long recognised that disadvantaged groups are comparable to physically challenged people being told that they are free to enter any race.

Disadvantaged peoples and groups have to be given preferential treatment to reverse historic injustices and imbalances. A quota system for gender equality is not inherently unjust. It does not constitute 'discrimination' against privileged groups - such as Caucasians, men or ethnic Chinese (in the case of Malaysia, where ethnic Chinese have traditionally dominated the economy) Gender stereotypes and norms affect gender outcomes. Says Humanity Divided: Confronting Inequality in Developing Countries: "As pointed out by studies on gender inequality, that system is undergirded by a gender ideology that justifies the unequal state of gender relations, socially and materially. These, in turn, are embedded in a variety of institutions ... . The material and cultural spheres act in tandem, each influencing the other to produce and reproduce systemic gender inequality."

Specious arguments

So men (and women!) will always have specious arguments as to why certain things relating to gender equality are just "nonsense", "damn foolishness" and "intellectual gibberish". And add that to our fundamentalist Christianity and you have a toxic combination! "Power permits elites to shape ideology, norms and stereotypes as well as formal social institutions in such a way that it defines the dominant group's activities and traits as superior and more valuable." It's natural. Even divinely ordained.

Globally, women only represent 21 per cent of MPs (though 42 per cent in the Nordic countries). 'Gender at Work' shows the many barriers, including legal, that exist to women's advancement in many countries. Yet an abundance of studies show that increasing female participation is good for economics and society generally. Booz and Company, has demonstrated that raising female employment can boost GDP. Almost half of women's productive potential is underutilised globally, compared to 22 per cent for men, according to the International Labour Organisation. Remarkably, as many as 128 countries still have at least one legal barrier to women's access to institutions, such as obtaining an ID card or making official transactions. In 15 countries, women still require their husband's consent to work!

Imani should be highly commended for bringing this important issue to the fore. Indeed, the Senate continues to outshine the appropriately named Lower House in the quality of discourse. That Lower House is increasingly a bunch of rabble-rousers. Imani has fired up national discussion on an important issue, and her recommendation for a Joint Select Committee for further examination is a useful one.

Women will have formidable barriers to political leadership and representation here, even with a quota system. There is cultural prejudice against them. They can't raise as much money as men for political campaigns. Their family-life commitments and natural nurturing instincts can impel them to avoid the bloodsport of politics. And yet, we need the proven empathy, compassion and soft skills of women (yes, I know of ruthless women!).

Legal barriers are gone, but there are significant cultural and sociological barriers to female leadership here. But there should be no barrier to our discussing this issue rationally and dispassionately.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.