[southsiderosie]

There has been an ongoing debate over the issue of female representation in electoral politics. In most democracies, the percentage of women serving in the national legislature is far below the percentage of women in the general population. Some countries have subsequently adopted quota systems, whereby parties are required to field a certain percentage of female candidates, or there are reserved seats in the legislature; examples include Argentina, Sweden, South Africa, Pakistan, Belgium and France. Proponents argue that this is necessary in order for the legislatures in representative democracies to truly be, well, representative. Critics argue that quotas are demeaning to women and simply represent tokenism, not real change.

Recently, this debate has spread to Ireland, where out of 166 seats in the Dail, only 23 of them are held by women. However, it has been controversial; it caused a huge ruckus at the Fine Gael conference where it was proposed, and the Irish Times reported that a majority of female TDs are opposed to the idea of gender quotas as well (although there are differences by party). The current online Irish Times poll is running 69% no, 31% yes.

Although I am sympathetic to the aims of the proposal, personally I don't think gender quotas are the solution to female under-representation in politics for several reasons. First, I would be concerned that female representation through a quota system would be completely divorced from actual political power, whereas if you rise through the ranks as a politician, you have clearly built up your own base. Oftentimes, I think this kind of thing is window-dressing: "Oh, sure, we'll let her in, but just sit in the back and be quiet". Another reason is that too often I think there is an underlying assumption that somehow having more women will somehow make the system "better" or more humane in some way; the reality is, many women in politics are just as stupid, cutthroat, and corrupt as the men; Sarah Palin and Iris Robinson come to mind.

The one positive effect I could see from a quota system is that it might force the major parties to look beyond their usual recruiting grounds for candidates (party youth, GAA, family dynasties) and we could end up with more candidates who were actually interested in policy, rather than playing politics...or with people who actually know something about the issues that they are legislating about. If done correctly, this could also open up the potential pool of male candidates as well.

So what say ye, loungers - should Irish parties adopt gender quotas? If so, why? If not, how can we increase female representation in the Dail? Or does this even matter?

[jokettle]

I'm not fully in favour of a quota system at all; I think it was mentioned in today's Irish Times article that if more women are introduced by way of filling a quota, then that position is devalued somewhat-a kind of "Sure she only got in because they had to bring in women" kind of attitude. I think it could lead to a lot more patronising opinions of women in the political scene.

I do, however, agree that *something* has to be done to encourage more women to enter the political sphere. Exactly what that is, I have no idea! I like your point about looking beyond the usual recruiting centres...encouraging people who are inherently affected by policies and policy change could be an interesting way to go.

[jellie]

I would much prefer someone got the job because they were better qualified for it than because of their sex.

From my experience there are far fewer women interested in politics than there are men, which id guess is a big factor in why there are less women in politics. But as someone who has very little interest in politics I dont know much about this.

[Lynnsie]

I really don't agree with gender quotas. I think it could lead to female TDs being taken less seriously then male as there would always be the perception that it was easier for the females to get where they are.

It also seems to be undemocratic - is it really a democracy if you have to field/elect a certain number of a certain type of candidate? Ideally the electorate should be voting for candidate based on their abilities and experience, as opposed to their gender. If this is not the case I don't think this form of positive discrimination is the answer. But like Jokettle, I don't know what is! However really politics is like any other career in that it attracts a higher proportion of one gender than another and it's hard to know what can be done about that.

It would be interesting to see how the number of women elected measures up to the number of women who ran in the general election, to see if it's a matter of female candidates not running for election or not actually getting elected.

[spurious]

Political meetings are often in the evenings when many women are putting kids to bed, so women don't even get in at the bottom end of the game.

[SerialComplaint]

Originally Posted by spurious

Political meetings are often in the evenings when many women and men are putting kids to bed, so women and men don't even get in at the bottom end of the game.

Fixed that for you.

[bluewolf]

Originally Posted by SerialComplaint

Fixed that for you.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the older male TDs thought it was womens' work tbh.

I don't like the idea of a quota. I would hate to get a job and have everyone saying "you only got it because of your gender, not your ability". Even if I am hired on my ability that doubt is always going to be there.
No, I think more women have to show an interest and stick bravely at it despite the sexism, I think that's the only way forward for this.

[Kooli]

Originally Posted by bluewolf

No, I think more women have to show an interest and stick bravely at it despite the sexism, I think that's the only way forward for this.

But how do we make this happen?

I agree with what most here have said. Quotas are not the answer as they will fuel sexism, but something really does have to be done to encourage more women to get into politics. Can't think what that would be though - there's nothing in the world that could convince me to do it, so it's hard to think how I would convince anyone else!

[Super_Sonic]

I'm a guy and believe in all forms of equality so I would oppose any positive discrimination including this quota idea.

[Permabear]

The underrepresentation of women in the Dáil is the least of our political problems right now.

We simply have to stop electing morons, of either gender.

In my view, a quota system for women would just give an easy pass to more underqualified daughters of former TDs—such as Beverley Cooper-Flynn and Mary Coughlan—while maintaining the framework of corrupt, dynastic, parish-pump politics.

The question of representation itself is a curious one. In my view, a male TD should represent the interests of all his constituents, not just those of his own gender, race, or religion. A female TD should do likewise. I don't believe that representative democracy can function if we have to elect women TDs to represent the women, Polish TDs to represent the Poles, Muslim TDs to represent the Muslims, and so on.

[Pythia]

Originally Posted by spurious

Political meetings are often in the evenings when many women are putting kids to bed, so women don't even get in at the bottom end of the game.

I'm involved in politics. At a college level, far more men than women are involved. I don't think they are putting their children to bed at that age. From what I have seen, politics is extremely open to women but they just aren't interested as much as men.

Gender quotas are an insult to women. It's saying, well you're not as good but since you're a little woman we'll let you have it anyway.

[Bullseye1]

It should be based on ability not what sex you are. If that happens to be all me or all women so be it.

[Sound Bite]

I absolutely hate their supposed "equality schemes" for want of a better word.

The best person for the job should get the job, simple as. Any sort of gender, religious, ethnic majority etc quota shouldn't come into it.

Is it fair to give a job to a woman just to even out the gender balance.

I wouldn't want to get any job based on anything but merit.

[southsiderosie]

Originally Posted by jellie

From my experience there are far fewer women interested in politics than there are men, which id guess is a big factor in why there are less women in politics. But as someone who has very little interest in politics I dont know much about this.

Originally Posted by spurious

Political meetings are often in the evenings...

This is why I started this thread in TLL and not Politics. So many women say they are not interested, or they don't have the time. But when you talk to women who do get involved (and aren't from a political family) many of them say they got involved by accident - they were a member of a parent-teacher association at their child's school, or involved in some other community organization, and somehow ended up engaged in electoral politics. I think there are a lot of women who are engaged in their communities in ways that are not explicitly political, but that would transfer well to electoral politics - the question is how.

Originally Posted by donegalfella

The question of representation itself is a curious one. In my view, a male TD should represent the interests of all his constituents, not just those of his own gender, race, or religion. A female TD should do likewise. I don't believe that representative democracy can function if we have to elect women TDs to represent the women, Polish TDs to represent the Poles, Muslim TDs to represent the Muslims, and so on.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. In the US, many congressional districts were redrawn to create ethnic minority supermajorities as a way to build up minority representation in the Congress. Although representation did increase, the unintended side effect was that problems in those districts are treated as "minority" issues, rather than broader economic or social issues. In a democracy, this is dangerous: getting people from different parts of society to understand each other's views and work together on key issues is critical. But I also have to wonder how much non-participation by under-represented groups becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If politics is a game for middle aged men with certain last names, then why would one even bother to get involved?

[EMF2010]

Originally Posted by Pythia

I'm involved in politics. At a college level, far more men than women are involved. I don't think they are putting their children to bed at that age. From what I have seen, politics is extremely open to women but they just aren't interested as much as men.

This was interesting to me because when I was in college it was true that more men than women were involved - but it was not equally open. I enquired about joining a political society during freshers week and was all but laughed at.

Another interesting thing while at college was this; when running for student office, women were largely overlooked. Given two equally qualified candidates a male and female, the guy won hands down. This happened two years in a row while I was there. It may be immaturity but I recall discussing this with friends of mine and while most of the girls based it on who they preferred, many of the guys admitted that they would vote for the guy over the girl - on the basis that he was a guy!

While student office isn't quite the same, I do think that it is one way which can influence how women perceive politics. I also found that the male candidates had easier access to large blocks of voters through sporting socs and the like. I went to a meeting once where both candidates were to speak. The girl in question was leered at and had to put up with a lot of sexual innuendo. The guy just got listened to. She handled it like a trouper, well able to banter etc. but she definitely had the harder job that night.

Now that's 10 years ago, and perhaps things have changed a lot, but I do wonder whether a quota system at that level would work. Ordinarily I despise the notion of postive discrimination (which this would be) but maybe more encouragement at a much earlier level would be effective.