Quotas for women in politics to be introduced?

Stheno

What do y'all think of this?

Parties to face penalties if quotas not met

MARY MINIHAN

POLITICAL PARTIES will have to implement a 30 per cent gender quota for general election candidates, or else face severe financial penalties, under planned new legislation.


State funding for parties will be cut by half unless at least 30 per cent of the candidates they put forward are women, Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan has said.

Mr Hogan will shortly ask Cabinet to sign off on proposed legislation under which parties will face a 50 per cent reduction in funds if they do not hit the gender target.

“It’s a groundbreaking political opportunity for the country in terms of increasing particularly the participation rate of women in Irish politics. This is the carrot and the big stick approach. If you don’t deliver you’ll get your funding cut, and it’s quite a serious penalty to be in breach of this particular proposal,” he said.

Mr Hogan said the threat to cut funding was the only way to “concentrate the mind” of political parties. The measure will be attached to promised legislation banning corporate donations, likely to be published before the Dáil’s summer recess.

Asked if he was anticipating any negative reaction to the proposal, Mr Hogan said he was not. He claimed Fine Gael efforts to ensure greater participation by women candidates in the 2009 local elections “brought us greater results from the electorate”. He said: “So there’s a vested interest on behalf of the political system to ensure there’s a greater balance of gender in terms of participation in Irish politics.”

The proposal has been discussed a number of times at Cabinet meetings, during which the Coalition’s senior women Ministers, Joan Burton of Labour and Frances Fitzgerald of Fine Gael, were vocal on the issue.

Mr Hogan acknowledged their input while stressing he had initiated the measure. “I brought forward the proposal and obviously women, particularly Minister Burton and Minister Fitzgerald, would be very strongly supportive of it.” He also said Cabinet was “very supportive”.

He said the proposed legislation would apply at national level “initially”. As State funding of political parties was based on the vote received in the previous national election, it might be difficult to implement at local level, he said.

“But I think that there will be a huge pressure on political parties to replicate this at local level once it’s implemented at national level.”

In 2009, Senator Ivana Bacik produced a report recommending parties should face financial penalties unless a third of their general election candidates were women.

Exchequer funding for 2010 was more than €13,480,000. Fianna Fáil received €5,200,780; Fine Gael €4,484,378; Labour €2,163,293; the Greens €801,999 and Sinn Féin €830,298.

The Dáil has 166 seats, 25 of which are occupied by women. In February’s general election, some 15 per cent of the 566 candidates were women. More than 16 per cent of Fine Gael’s candidates were women, with 25 per cent from Labour; 14.6 per cent from Fianna Fáil and 19.5 per cent from Sinn Féin.

For Independents and others, including the United Left Alliance, women represented 10.6 per cent of candidates. The Green Party’s figure was 18.6 per cent.

The programme for government said public funding for political parties would be tied to the level of participation by women as candidates those parties achieve, but did not set targets or detail penalties.

Mr Hogan noted Taoiseach Enda Kenny, in opposition, had attempted to implement quotas of women candidates in Fine Gael, “with mixed results”. Lucinda Creighton and several other Fine Gael women opposed the measure, with Ms Creighton describing it as an “easy solution to a very complex problem”.

Personally I'm not in favour of this, to me it implies that women can't get on in politics without the help of quotas, whereas if you look at the past few years, we have had a fair few high profile Cabinet posts, and the Presidency occupied by women.

I was heavily involved in politics in college, and loved it, really really enjoyed it, but since leaving college have not been involved as I've moved around a lot, my work commitments don't allow it, and I've lost interest. I still avidly follow elections, the goings on in politics etc, but have no desire to be involved.

So thoughts?

Silverfish

In one way, 70% is still a huge majority.

However, a quota is a bad way to go about this. I'd rather politicians to be the best we can get, and not sacrifice that due to gender.

It would also be incredibly insulting to get your position due to a quota. There's something stopping an equal or fair amount of women being in politics, and a quota will not solve that. From what I've seen / read, it will only build resentment.

I believe in fairness above all, and fairness means if you can do the job, and do it well, you've a right to be in that job. Fairness is not giving someone a job to make up the numbers.

It's a commendable idea, but not a practical one and in my opinion, not one for the greater good.

Stheno

Silverfish wrote: »

It would also be incredibly insulting to get your position due to a quota. There's something stopping an equal or fair amount of women being in politics, and a quota will not solve that. From what I've seen / read, it will only build resentment.

This I agree with 100% and I'd like to see as much effort if not more put into finding out why women don't get involved in politics and addressing the issue at that level. If it was done and shown that women simply don't have the appetite for it in this country then fine, but instead we see quotas coming in regardless of why women are not involved in politics.

I've already suggested on another thread that parties are failing to capitalise on the involvement of women in student politics in college, which could be a starting point for more involvement imo.

I can't imagine a quota system working e.g. in the industry I work in, where I work is all about experience, qualifications, and credibility, now whilst you see nepotism in politics the benefitees of that have grown up in political households and probably (one would hope) have a better understanding of politics, but just deciding that a certain percentage of politicians being female would serve us better despite a continued lack of interest of women becoming involved in politics to me suggests we will not increase the pool of talent that are our politicians.

amacachi

As I've said before the number of successful women candidates was in line with the number of candidates so the electorate isn't the problem. I'm also pretty sure that the parties' candidates are made up by a higher proportion of women than the proportion within the independent candidates, suggesting the parties aren't the problem.
So no, I'm not on board with this. :pac:

Lu Tze

They would be better off funding a road show to various parts of the country to get women involved (something less belittling than rock the vote hopefully!).

Information, and encouragement to participate at grass roots would be a better way of going about it.

I would imagine the percentage of women standing for election is more than the paid up membership of most parties? I have nothing to back this up other than my own observations on those campaigning around election time in the various parts of the country i have lived in, hence not stating it as fact, just opinion.


I tried to see if i could get that a membership gender breakdown on the labour website (as i believe they are the most female friendly) but couldn't find it.

Getting more women involved at local level will end up (hopefully) with the most competent female candidates naturally progressing to the highest levels.

jesus_thats_gre

Being elected to a political position ultimately boils down to the respect and credibility that you have manged to earn. The way society works, a significant percentage of women's achievements in getting elected will be derided as being the product of this quota, irrespective of how able they are.

This could, in my opinion anyway, lead to there being more women involved in politics than there is now but those women ultimately having less credibility and respect in both their colleagues and publics eye.

WebGeek

There should be no quotas - just go for the job if your able. That's equality.

WesternNight

I wish it wasn't necessary to have quotas for women.

And this is kind of a no-win situation for women, as I see it. With quotas, women get X percentage of jobs, but there's always something to hold over them - "you know you wouldn't be here if it weren't for the quota" etc. And without the quota, it seems that many women wouldn't get the jobs regardless of how qualified or able they are.

Either way it's bad, to be honest.

WesternNight

WebGeek wrote: »

There should be no quotas - just go for the job if your able. That's equality.

Completely agreed.

Except we haven't achieved equality yet.

Logical Fallacy

The thing about positive discrimination and quota's like this is it can generate a new form of backlash, as people who attain their position via their hard work and genuine ability to do the job well get labeled as only being there because of the quota, neatly undermining them anyway.

It's not a suitable method to increase the number of women in politics in my opinion.

panda100

Lu Tze wrote: »

They would be better off funding a road show to various parts of the country to get women involved (something less belittling than rock the vote hopefully!).

Information, and encouragement to participate at grass roots would be a better way of going about it.

Getting more women involved at local level will end up (hopefully) with the most competent female candidates naturally progressing to the highest levels.

If you look at the majority of community groups in Ireland, you will see the majority of membership is made up of women. Women are really involved in grass root campaigns in their local areas all ready. It might be a case of they don't see the point in joining a party like FF or FG, as it will affect little change for what they do on the ground.

I am all for gender quotas. I don't see any harm in trying it out, and seeing if it will encourage more women to get involved in politics.

CnaG

There's a lot of people here saying gender quotas would be bad bad bad. Bad for women who are in politics, bad for women who aren't in politics, bad for democracy. Apart from "get more women involved at a grassroots level" - which I actually wholeheartedly agree with as an ideal solution - there aren't a whole lot of positive alternatives being proposed though. Probably because there are no easy solutions.

Gender quotas are not the be all and end all of increasing female participation in politics. They're basically a first step, and for that reason, I'd welcome them. Maybe this is optimistic of me, but I can't see it leading to the onslaught of shoddy female politicians that people are saying it will. And not just here, the common meme around this topic seems to be that it will lead to inadequate female politicians being elected. The electorate aren't stoopid*, and parties worth their salt are generally not going to run candidates they don't think have a chance of getting elected at some point. They want to win seats, they have to have a certain percentage of female candidates, so hopefully this will make them look beyond traditional male-dominated party circles for some decent female candidates. I'm thinking of community activists, business leaders, academics and all the other people who would be fantastic politicians if convinced.

Now, if only we could do the same for selecting decent male candidates :rolleyes:



*perhaps debatable at times.

paky

i think this is an absolutely stupid new rule. Theres nothing stopping women form going into politics and we dont need legislation to do this. men dont rule any different from women and vice versa. Its like introducing legislation forcing hospitals to hire 30% male nurses. its ridiculous and offensive

CnaG

paky wrote: »

i think this is an absolutely stupid new rule. Theres nothing stopping women form going into politics and we dont need legislation to do this. men dont rule any different from women and vice versa. Its like introducing legislation forcing hospitals to hire 30% male nurses. its ridiculous and offensive

Clearly, there is something (or more likely things) discouraging women from entering politics, or we'd be in there. But, for the sake of my blood pressure, I think I'll let someone else respond to this one.

paky

CnaG wrote: »

Clearly, there is something (or more likely things) discouraging women from entering politics, or we'd be in there. But, for the sake of my blood pressure, I think I'll let someone else respond to this one.

clearly? how do mean? is it necessary to introduce the same quotas for women to work in the construction industry even if there was one?

CnaG

paky wrote: »

clearly? how do mean? is it necessary to introduce the same quotas for women to work in the construction industry even if there was one?

a) yes, I'd like if more women got involved in the construction industry (and not just in engineering) and b)the construction industry does not make the laws in this country, so not really comparable.

paky

CnaG wrote: »

a) yes, I'd like if more women got involved in the construction industry (and not just in engineering)

why are you a feminist?

CnaG wrote: »

and b)the construction industry does not make the laws in this country, so not really comparable.

politics is a profession just like the construction industry is. politicians must appease both sexes otherwise if they dont they can be voted out. thats democracy in practice. to introduce quotas would be an affront on democracy

WesternNight

paky wrote: »

why are you a feminist?

Eh? What on earth kind of a question is that in the Ladies' Lounge of all places..?

paky

WesternNight wrote: »

Eh? What on earth kind of a question is that in the Ladies' Lounge of all places..?

its a simple question. should i assume all posters in the ladies lounge are feminists?

rainbow kirby

paky wrote: »

its a simple question. should i assume all posters in the ladies lounge are feminists?

You should assume that you should stay on topic here. The topic of the thread is quotas for women in politics, not whether or not posters are feminists.

paky

rainbow kirby wrote: »

You should assume that you should stay on topic here. The topic of the thread is quotas for women in politics, not whether or not posters are feminists.

fair enough

Endymion

This is just going to lead to a few more daughters of Ex TDs getting elected. It's not going to lead to any massive shift in the establishment.

Nolanger

Don't these quotaed women still need to get elected? Just because they're put forward for election by the parties doesn't mean they will win.

CnaG

paky wrote: »

politics is a profession just like the construction industry is. politicians must appease both sexes otherwise if they dont they can be voted out. thats democracy in practice. to introduce quotas would be an affront on democracy

Thanks for that, I wasn't entirely sure how this democracy thing worked before you explained it to me :cool:

But seriously, how would it be an affront on democracy if the women selected under these quotas don't get voted in? The electorate at large does not have a say in any party's selected candidate anyway, so what difference does it make to them if the candidate put forward is female instead of male? I really don't see the issue in that regard. If you don't like them, vote for someone you do like. Or even better, run yourself...

What I can understand are people's concerns that women brought in under a gender quota will be taken less seriously within the party (rather than in the polling booth). They won't all have the background and network of contacts to wield influence internally. But, with the right support, I don't see why that can't be developed. The problem is getting them in in the first place.

I'm tired of the nay-saying. I want to see something done about the lack of women in politics. Gender quotas are by no means perfect, but I think we should at least try them and try make them work well before writing them off. Just my two cents worth.

Endymion

CnaG wrote: »

The electorate at large does not have a say in any party's selected candidate anyway

Isn't that the point of these rules, the electorate enforcing (though their elected representatives) their will on parties?

paky

CnaG wrote: »

But seriously, how would it be an affront on democracy if the women selected under these quotas don't get voted in? The electorate at large does not have a say in any party's selected candidate anyway, so what difference does it make to them if the candidate put forward is female instead of male?

introducing segration among the sexes is totally contrary to equality. so where will it end? are we heading down a road where men can only vote for male candidates and women for women candidates until there is 50 percent representation in the dail? because that sounds just as ridiculous as the quota system

WesternNight

paky wrote: »

introducing segration among the sexes is totally contrary to equality. so where will it end? are we heading down a road where men can only vote for male candidates and women for women candidates until there is 50 percent representation in the dail? because that sounds just as ridiculous as the quota system

What would your solution be for encouraging more women to get involved with politics, out of curiosity?

paky

WesternNight wrote: »

What would your solution be for encouraging more women to get involved with politics, out of curiosity?

i dont think its necessary to encourage women to go into poltics. like i said before, a female politican will have to appeal to both men and women and by introducing a quota system i think it will endanger their appeal to the people. if women as idividuals feel its necessary for them to go into politics, the opportunity is there for them to do so. theres nothing stopping them from doing so. equal opportunities for both the sexes and no special privileges for either

liah

Are the quotas temporary or permanent?

If temporary, I can see the short-term benefit; yes, I wholeheartedly agree people should be getting elected on merit, and yes, I believe in genuine equality. But. In the short-term, this will get more women involved in politics. Maybe for the wrong reasons, yes, but there needs to be a boost in the amount of women as political figures in order to inspire change in the next few generations. Now, this doesn't mean I agree with the action, but I can see where it would have its benefits - if, and only if, it is temporary.

If permanent, then it's just all kinds of wrong for reasons many others have covered in this thread that I don't feel the need to reiterate. If permanent, it flies in the face of equality and does a disservice to the public opinion of women in general, nevermind feminism.

WesternNight

paky wrote: »

i dont think its necessary to encourage women to go into poltics. like i said before, a female politican will have to appeal to both men and women and by introducing a quota system i think it will endanger their appeal to the people. if women as idividuals feel its necessary for them to go into politics, the opportunity is there for them to do so. theres nothing stopping them from doing so. equal opportunities for both the sexes and no special privileges for either

Necessary for them to go into politics? I think that's an interesting (and maybe unintended) way of phrasing it.

Do you genuinely believe that women have the same opportunity to progress in politics as men? Do you genuinely believe that there are no explicit or implicit obstacles that women have to overcome in the world of politics that men don't? If you do, then it may be worth talking to women in politics, or women who've tried to progress in politics but have been unsuccessful for reasons other than capability.

paky

WesternNight wrote: »

Do you genuinely believe that women have the same opportunity to progress in politics as men?

ya, ive just stated that many times already. so what your saying is if a woman fails in politics its because there is some giant conspiracy aginst her to keep her outta politics even though our last two presidents were female and our last two tanaistes were aswel?

WesternNight

paky wrote: »

ya, ive just stated that many times already. so what your saying is if a woman fails in politics its because there is some giant conspiracy aginst her to keep her outta politics even though our last two presidents were female and our last two tanaistes were aswel?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that women tend to face more obstacles than men do on the basis of them being women rather than on the basis of ability.

paky

WesternNight wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that women tend to face more obstacles than men do on the basis of them being women rather than on the basis of ability.

oh right, its a ''i cant get ahead in life cause im black'' type of argument. ya well if mary robinson, mary mcaleese, mary coughlan and mary harney dont change your opinion on the matter then it appears to me that you just want special privilege just because your a woman. equality isnt enough for you, you should be granted special privilege cause your a woman and men should be discriminated at your expence, is it?

WesternNight

paky wrote: »

oh right, its a ''i cant get ahead in life cause im black'' type of argument. ya well if mary robinson, mary mcaleese, mary coughlan and mary harney dont change your opinion on the matter then it appears to me that you just want special privilege just because your a woman. equality isnt enough for you, you should be granted special privilege cause your a woman and men should be discriminated at your expence, is it?

No. Not in the slightest.

The Ladies' Lounge really isn't the place to suggest that sexism doesn't exist, by the way.

Ickle Magoo

Can I remind everyone of the charter in this forum:

This forum is for the discussion of topics from a woman's point of view.
We do welcome male input, but do bear in mind that this forum is firstly for the women of boards to have their say, from their point of view.

There are plenty of other forums discussing this very topic for any poster wishing to just argue against the proposal and any female poster who wishes to discuss it.

drkpower

There is usally a negative knee-jerk reaction to quotas being used as a way of correcting all sorts of historical imbalances. And in the case of female representation in parliament, there certainly have been clear and obvious historical imbalances. These historical imbalances do not level out after a few years.

If we accept that higher female representation is of value, there should be nothing wrong with gender quotas so long as, in an attempt to rectify thise historical imbalances, we do not end up discriminating against others more than is necessary.

Gender quotas, particularly at 30%, seem like an entirely reasonable balance and they have been used in the past in a number of countries with considerable success.

the_syco

Nolanger wrote: »

Don't these quotaed women still need to get elected? Just because they're put forward for election by the parties doesn't mean they will win.

Actually, it'll probably mean that more unsuitable women will be put forward to fill the quota. And by unsuitable, I mean those who don't know anything about politics, or don't want to be elected. There'll be more daughters of politicians being put forward.

This will be bad, as it'll be harder to see the women who are trying to get into parliament, and those being forward "to fill the quota".

WesternNight wrote: »

What would your solution be for encouraging more women to get involved with politics, out of curiosity?

TBH, a country-wide study should be done to see why women prefer other careers than being a politician.

WesternNight wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that women tend to face more obstacles than men do on the basis of them being women rather than on the basis of ability.

Following on from my last question, I'm genuinely interested what these obstacles are.

drkpower

the_syco wrote: »

Actually, it'll probably mean that more unsuitable women will be put forward to fill the quota. And by unsuitable, I mean those who don't know anything about politics, or don't want to be elected. There'll be more daughters of politicians being put forward.

Quotas will always lead to some cases of injustice or undesirable outcomes. But, the intention is that, over time, the overal good that has accrued (greater and more representative female presence in parliament) will substantially outweigh the negatives.

Logical Fallacy

After thinking about this a bit today i guess it's real merit will be based in how the assorted parties go about increasing the number of women involved.

Kind of a dismissive comment to the whole debate but it's the most logical thought i can come up with.

The quota itself doesn't really matter, it's largely going to be about how the parties go about achieving it.

Silverfish

I don't think one person who posted after that warning actually listened to it.

Here is the thread in Politics

Here is the thread in the Gentlemen's Club

If you want to know what women actually think of this, perhaps less posting and more reading might be better.

drkpower

Silverfish wrote: »

If you want to know what women actually think of this, perhaps less posting and more reading might be better.

Fair point, but perhaps women's views can be discovered through some discussion and questioning too?

Silverfish

drkpower wrote: »

Fair point, but perhaps women's views can be discovered through some discussion and questioning too?

Women post in the Politics forum too, if you want to debate it from both sides of a gender divide.

This is the Ladies Lounge, a forum for women to discuss issues from their point of view.

WesternNight

Y'know, maybe that private Ladies' Lounge forum isn't such a bad idea after all.. :cool:

drkpower

Silverfish wrote: »

Women post in the Politics forum too, if you want to debate it from both sides of a gender divide.

This is the Ladies Lounge, a forum for women to discuss issues from their point of view.

I appreciate that; but the reason that I am here is that I am interested to particularly hear womens' views on it, given the nature of the subject.

I presume I am allowed to participate in the thread on that basis?

Ickle Magoo

WesternNight wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that women tend to face more obstacles than men do on the basis of them being women rather than on the basis of ability.

I think that's an important point - and while I don't agree with gender quotas in the main, I would hope that some kind of intervention would force political parties to have a look at why politics is such an unattractive career choice, despite their being plenty of intelligent, able and politically astute women about.

I can't help but think that much like some of the discussions and forums on Boards - the tidal wave of male opinion in conjunction with the constant arguing, belittling, insulting and semantic cackling that passes for quality discussion puts a lot of women off getting involved.

Silverfish

drkpower wrote: »

I appreciate that; but the reason that I am here is that I am interested to particularly hear womens' views on it, given the nature of the subject.

I presume I am allowed to participate in the thread on that basis?

Yes, on the grounds you do not ignore any more moderator instructions, and attempt to derail the thread by arguing them.

And that you remain aware of what forum you are posting in, and are respectful of the rules and charter.

drkpower

Silverfish wrote: »

Yes, on the grounds you do not ignore any more moderator instructions, and attempt to derail the thread by arguing them..

Oh, didnt realise you were posting in that capacity (isnt using bold the convention?).
Anyway, agreement reached; cheers.

drkpower

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think that's an important point - and while I don't agree with gender quotas in the main, I would hope that some kind of intervention would force political parties to have a look at why politics is such an unattractive career choice, despite their being plenty of intelligent, able and politically astute women about..

That is a fair point but, is it realistic to think that a wholesale change in the political system can happen in the short term?

While gender quotas are a crude instrument, they are easy to implement and they have been shown in other countries and contexts to (gradually) create change. Perhaps if more woman were in politics (as encouraged by a quota), the manner in which politics is practised would then change.

Stheno

drkpower wrote: »

That is a fair point but, is it realistic to think that a wholesale change in the political system can happen in the short term?

While gender quotas are a crude instrument, they are easy to implement and they have been shown in other countries and contexts to (gradually) create change. Perhaps if more woman were in politics (as encouraged by a quota), the manner in which politics is practised would then change.

Were the quotas used to create change in line with any other measures? Such as better/more readily available childcare?

Whatever about using quotas to get more women on the ticket, it's as important to keep them interested in the job if they do get elected. Look at Olywn Enright, married to another TD, and retired from being a TD after nine years due to the pressure of juggling a young family and her career.

Annasopra

Stheno wrote: »

Were the quotas used to create change in line with any other measures? Such as better/more readily available childcare?

Whatever about using quotas to get more women on the ticket, it's as important to keep them interested in the job if they do get elected. Look at Olywn Enright, married to another TD, and retired from being a TD after nine years due to the pressure of juggling a young family and her career.

Olwyn Enwright who opposed quotas initially and then changed her mind?

Stheno

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Olwyn Enwright who opposed quotas initially and then changed her mind?

Regardless of her views, my point is that due to the pressure she felt in managing her career and her young family, she chose to leave the Dail, hence my question to drkpower as to whether quotas alone created change or if they were part of a broader inititiative.