Women in parliament

One question you don’t need to ask a politician is whether they think more women should be in politics. You might as well ask, “Do you believe in fairness?” The answer is political gospel. A far better question would be, “How will you increase female representation in politics?” If you asked that, well, then you’d be opening a floodgate of posturing. If that politician you were asking just so happened to be the leader of a mainstream political party, you would most probably be frustrated by the answer. I think that any answer to that question is a difficult one to make, but a far more difficult one to accept. We all know women are chronically under-represented in politics and something has to be done about it. It’s simply a matter of fairness. But fairness is not a simple matter.

Let us imagine that in 1993 a party announced that in some seats only women could stand as candidates. Imagine if in 1995 their leader described such ‘all-women shortlists’ as “not ideal at all” but stuck with them because they were a necessary evil. Could it ever be fair to stop someone standing on the basis of his gender alone? I think there would be many people who would be very angry at what seemed like a blatant trampling of the merit principle.

Furthermore, what would we think if in 2011 the female Deputy Leader of such a party referred to the Leader of the Opposition as an “honorary woman” in a light-hearted attempt at flattery? Would we laugh? Probably. But I imagine many might also be worried that such a prominent politician should make such a quip at the expense of men. Especially when that Deputy Leader has proposed to ensure that either the Leader or the Deputy Leader in her party had to be a woman.

Others, however, may draw attention to the positive effects of ensuring more of a voice for women in Parliament. They could point to an increased discussion of issues concerning women. They could even claim that far from harming democracy, all-women shortlists have actually made Parliament more reflective – if only a little – of the population at large. One of those who may believe this might even be a female Equalities Minister in a government horrendously lacking in adequate female representation. Such a Minister might be so disheartened in her failure to push through all-women shortlists in her own party that she considers resigning over drinks with Baroness Shirley Williams. In such a party they may openly want more female MPs and if you asked their leader he would be the first to admit their shortcomings on women’s representation. But he would probably also tell you that all-women shortlists are illiberal and certainly not a permanent solution to the problems of gender inequality. He might also be rather upset that his party has the fewest safe seats so that it’s actually rather difficult to make sure female candidates get elected in the first place. It would be no surprise that said Equalities Minister would be greatly frustrated.

Still, perhaps what we need is equality of opportunity rather than simplistic gender equality? In such a case, merit would be the only factor in choosing who becomes a candidate. Whether you’re a man or a woman, who cares? The only things that should be counted are whether you possess the skills and ability to do the job. That sounds about right, but it isn’t. Because certain progressives, feminists and left-wingers could then argue that, contrary to the meritocratic ideal that we all hold dear, we don’t actually live in one. If they wanted to, they could even point to findings by the Hansard Society which shows how without all-women shortlists the number of female MPs would almost certainly fall. In such a scenario we had better ask the question: could a Parliament without women ever be called democratic?