Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A week ago, Labour leader Eamon Gilmore revealed that a bill to force political parties to select 30 per cent female candidates would be published within the year.
Ahead of a public meeting on the subject of quotas tonight, Labour’s Joanna Tuffy argues here that the legislation is discriminatory – and does a disservice to the capable women in politics.
GENDER QUOTAS ARE anti-democratic.
They are based on the idea that voters can’t be trusted. Gender quotas bypass the voter’s right to decide, and impose a conclusion on him or her. They are imposed at the expense of grassroots participation in political parties by women and men.
Gender quotas are also discriminatory – but the irony is that they are likely to be used to discriminate against both women and men. The proposed quotas will mean that candidates will be ruled out on grounds of gender, and legislation will make such discrimination mandatory. This appears to conflict with Article 16.1.3 of the Constitution, which states that no law shall be enacted placing any citizen under disability or incapacity for membership of the Dáil on grounds of gender.
A further problem is that gender quotas will give party leaders more control over candidate selection. Quotas are blunt instruments and will have unintended consequences – like the quotas found by Swedish courts to have discriminated against women applicants for college places. But even if no woman had ever lost out because of gender quotas, that would not make them right. Positive discrimination is discrimination all the same.
Those that argue for quotas claim that women don’t win selection conventions. Where is the evidence for this? Where the problem really lies is in the fact that not enough women choose to run for election. This is not confined to political parties – less than ten per cent of Independent Dáil candidates were women in 2011 – or to politics, or even to women. Quotas are not the answer to underrepresentation of any group in any walk of life.
Like many others that oppose gender quotas, I do want to see more women in politics. I just don’t agree with the mechanism. Mandatory gender quotas are not the only way. Scandinavian countries are often held up as models for gender quotas. But those countries don’t have quota legislation. In Sweden, for example, there are parties that use gender quotas and parties that don’t – with similar outcomes. In Denmark, no parties have quotas and their parliament is 37 per cent women.
In contrast, in France, where they have the type of gender quota law that is being proposed here, the percentage of women elected to the national parliament is not much higher than the Dáil.
There are other steps that can be taken to increase the numbers of women in politics. If more women were active in parties, more women candidates would emerge naturally over time. Measures should be aimed at increasing the participation of all citizens in politics. The State should do more to promote politics through the curriculum. Barriers to voting should be removed. The proceedings of all levels of Government should be televised. And the introduction of paid paternity leave would help women in politics.
Women are emerging in Irish politics. There are more women TDs, councillors, and mayors. More women are studying politics. Many are joining political parties. Even if it takes longer, is it not better to let women emerge naturally from the grassroots of political parties, rather than undermining the grassroots by the top-down imposition of gender quotas?
Gender quotas are to the participation of women in politics what the Kyoto Protocol is to climate change. A target is imposed from the top – but the reality on the ground stays the same because the issue is not tackled from the bottom up.
Quotas treat women as if they can’t hack it a party’s selection convention, like a man can. They decree that women must be selected on the basis of their gender, and this does them a disservice. Women, just like men, should be chosen on the basis of their qualities as individuals and their ability to persuade voters.
When it comes to democracy, the ends do not justify the means. Gender quotas subvert democracy by making the ends more important than the means.
Joanna Tuffy is a Labour TD for Dublin Mid West.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I wonder what causes more disruption to air travel, Unions or Terrorists? I’d say Unions!
You’d wonder about SIPTU’s real agenda in all this. That deficit didn’t just happen overnight. It’s as much the workers fault as the company’s. the trustees either put too much trust in fund managers, or took their eye off the ball completely. Personally I think SIPTU are more worried about Croke park than anything else. Using Aer Lingus workers is a smokescreen.
The union guy won’t give up his wages during this dispute! I hope the union looks after these people.
They will, they provide strike pay to their members.
Here we go again! Ryanair will be laughing, counting their profits.
not quite, don’t forget they own just under 30% of Aer Lingus shares as well, strike action won’t do their value much good…
Last time they went on strike Ryanair leased a/c’s and crew to Aer Lingus and Ryanair operated some of their flights, probably just do the same again
Hard to listen to a man who paid himself €1.3 million last year accusing the workers of featherbedding…
The unions have wanted this strike for some time. They get to shut down the country and show how powerful they are. They’re ok with their big wage packets, while they screw the ordinary people of this country. Not nice people!
Hey, idiot, the Union doesn’t decide when people strike, the workers do
Their as bad as the teachers almost for striking
If you become an employee of a semi-state company – as aer lingus was – you are compelled to join their pension scheme. It’s a requirement. If you are required to join the surely the company that insists you Join has an equal responsibility to ensure the fund is properly managed and has a funding plan that is both acceptable and practical? Workers are just fighting for their pension rights.
Spot on Seafra. The comments above blaming “the unions” seem to imply the big boys in Liberty Hall are putting a gun to the heads of their gullible members to force them to strike. It’s the majority of Aer Lingus workers that made the decision and fair play to them for fighting for their pensions.
I reckon the government will introduce a law that will allow companies losing money due to strikes to hire new staff or fire the striking party! they did it in America in the 80s when air traffic controllers striked and shut one half off the country down, the government simply passed a law because because they seen it a potential threat to the economy and fired them all replacing them with the many people that were looking for work at that time.
Please don’t strike I’m flying with them late next month, haven’t had a break in years. I’m living for it :(
For the past 25 years at least it is the same old story with Air Lingus
Yawn yawn
have your say