Women and political power

Address by Dr. Anamah Tan, President ICW-CIF, at the Human Rights Commission’s Speakers’ Forum, Wellington, 3rd October 2006.

I. Introduction

Today, I am going to speak on women in political power, particularly in regard to public election.

There is good news: The past 10 years has seen the fastest growth in the numbers of women in parliaments, compared to previous decades. This is according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU). According to the IPU as well, the not so wonderful news is, if the number of women parliamentarians in the world grow at current rates, it will not be until 2025 that an average of 30% is reached, and not until 2040 that parity will be achieved .

So, what do the figures show today? This year’s July statistics show the world average of women parliamentarians at 16.6%. This is definitely an improvement compared to 1975, when women accounted for 10.9% of MPs worldwide, but that is not good enough.

To some extent, we can attribute women’s low participation rate in politics to women making choices, choosing not to forgo time with their family. But the evidence from official State party reports and NGO reports to the CEDAW Committee affirm that discriminatory cultural norms are still the main stumbling block to women and girls participating in any significant decision-making bodies, be it in the public realm or in the private sector.


II. Hurdles to Women’s Decision-Making

Women need to be in the decision-making chair in politics or in public life because the decisions in those domains determine the rules by which every woman and girl lives her daily life. As stated in the CEDAW Committee’s General Recommendation No. 23, “policies developed and decisions made by men alone reflect only part of human experience and potential. The just and effective organisation of society demands the inclusion and participation of all its members”.

There are many factors stacked against women’s entry and success in political decision-making. The main problem is that women’s capacities are still shaped by both men and women’s gender-bias patriarchal perspective of what women can do and how they should operate. When women have a foot in the door, their roles are usually defined outside the more critical mainstream functions, and are usually engaged on a more ad hoc or specific-need basis. It is wonderful to know that New Zealand bucks the trend on this count – you have a woman for your Governor-General, Prime Minister, Chief Justice and Speaker of the House of Representative, as well as six women Ministers holding heavy portfolios usually held by men, such as Minister of State Services, Police.

Allow me to give a rundown of some of the factors that inhibit women’s participation in significant political decision-making:
(i) the lack of confidence by men, and even by women, in women’s abilities;
(ii) related to the first factor is the fact that family members often do not encourage women to participate in politics because society puts more confidence in men’s leadership;
(iii) then there are the constraints women face resulting from stereotyped division of labour;
(iv) in some places, women’s roles and abilities are not accepted, even by other women. They may also become objects of envy among their female colleagues, and thus, may not be given credit for their capabilities;
(v) threats of violence - in some areas, women experience violence when they become politically active;
(vi) yet another factor is the lack of influential social networks, local influence and capital for use in campaigning;
(vii) then there is always the block from the “Old Boys network” phenomenon, which could isolate and disempower the women in power. This is an obstacle cited, among others, in the National Council of Women of New Zealand’s latest shadow report to the Monitoring Committee for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).


III. What Can We Do - Affirmative Action to jumpstart?

With all these cumulative exclusionary factors from time in memorial, governments need to consider very seriously the use of special temporary affirmative action to bring women to the same starting point as men. This is a mechanism that CEDAW advocates very strongly to ‘jumpstart’ equality between men and women.

I note that New Zealand does not mandate any electoral or party quota system. In relation to this, the CEDAW monitoring committee expressed some concerns in its concluding comments after reviewing NZ’s fifth periodic report in July 2003.

The fifth periodic report explained that a parliamentary select committee - after reviewing the Mixed Member Proportional Representation system (MMP system) in 2001 - agreed that there should not be any legislative measures to support or enhance the parliamentary representation of women. The responsibility for this is seen as resting with the political parties; they are expected to develop their own processes to ensure that women are adequately represented in Parliament.

However, the CEDAW Monitoring Committee had its concerns about this approach in its concluding comments, as not all political parties see this issue as their responsibility. In the same breadth, the Committee was concerned “that the State party does not pursue an overall policy of target setting in its Ministries”. These comments were made in view of the declining number of women in parliament and in local government. The Committee recommended a comprehensive strategy that included temporary special measures in accordance with article 4 of the CEDAW Convention. Nonetheless, it was acknowleged that NZ has women in some of the highest decision-making positions.

Since the concluding comments were made, I note that NZ has bounced back with women parliamentarians currently making up 32% of Parliament – an all time high, I understand. You have more or less reached the critical mass of 33% and are just a few more notches to the Nordic average of over 38% (it was a 40% average in October 2005) . Research demonstrates that if women's participation reaches a critical mass of 30 to 35 per cent, there will be a real impact on political style and the content of decisions. Perhaps, it is timely for NZ to now aim for 50/50 representation in Parliament, just as it aims to do in government boards by 2010.

I understand from the Shadow Report of the National Council of Women of New Zealand that, that which is still lagging is women’s representation in local government – this has been decreasing or remained static, and the number of women mayors has fallen.

So, the question is: Is there a case for affirmative action to address this shortcoming? A corollary to this are the questions of whether it is good enough to have a small group of women in key positions of power, and what our commitment is to have a women-friendly political environment.

Let us look at how common or accepted quota use has become:

According to data from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) and Stockholm University, 14 countries are using constitutional quotas. This has resulted in an average of 22.1% women representation . As for electoral law quota regulations for national parliaments, 38 countries have used it, producing an average of 18.9% women representation.

And this is where I think it is especially relevant for the current issue in New Zealand: about 30 countries are using constitutional or legislative quotas for sub-national levels, including France, Brazil, Argentina, India, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan.

In the Republic of Korea, the Political Parties Act requires that in City Council as well National Assembly elections, political parties must have women comprising more than 50% of their candidates lists. The rank-order rules used is the zipping system . Therefore, every second candidate must be a female in order of the ranking of candidates in the list. I understand that for the city council elections at least, if a political party does not keep this rule, its candidate registration will be invalid .
In Taiwan, the Local Autonomy Act, passed in 1998, reserves 25% of all local council seats for women .

In France, the Constitution in 1999 instituted ‘the parity reform’ which put the responsibility on political parties to facilitate equal access of women and men to electoral mandates and elective functions. New national laws were promulgated in 2000, mandating that the parity reform apply to all elections with a proportional ballot. The election law also imposed a financial penalty for parties that did not meet the 50/50 gender balance requirement for their candidates lists .

As for political party quotas for electoral candidates, they are used by 163 political parties, in 73 countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, South Africa, Germany and Netherlands. Sweden appears to have met with the most success with women making up 45.3% of Parliament. As of this year, major political parties in over 50 countries have voluntarily institutionalised quota provisions in their own statutes .

Whichever quota system is used, it must be enforceable. This can be done through diligent monitoring and carrying out meaningful sanctions for non-compliance. The processes have to be transparent. Currently, my personal preference is for the law to mandate gender quotas rather than having to wait in hope for political parties to institute gender-balance in their candidates’ list.



IV. Issues Related to Affirmative Action

Debate on affirmative action is, needless to say, a highly charged one. There are always detractors and here are some of the points they make:

Number 1: They say it is undemocratic. Some label it as a form of reverse discrimination that makes a mockery of meritocracy as well. But patriarchialism, which is the current norm we are working against, is undemocratic. It is, firstly, bias against women, irrespective of merit. Then, consider that even the way we select our men in politics is undemocratic, to various extents – there are the considerations of loyalty or whether certain personalities would be a threat to incumbents, horse-trading, et cetera.

Number 2: Detractors say the outcomes of affirmative action have been mixed. Granted, but gender-based affirmative action is still relatively new. At this point in time, I think it is premature to make conclusions.
We do know this much, that women’s representation did reach worldwide highs in the Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Norway and Sweden without the use of legal quotas. And when some political parties started introducing electoral gender quotas, women already occupied 20 to 30 per cent of seats in parliament. According to Dahlerup and Freidenvall, “in the Scandinavian countries, quotas were seen as a critical act made by a large minority of women to consolidate women's representation and make more room for elected women” . Following this theory, I believe New Zealand is ready to use gender electoral quotas to full effect as you have that “large minority of women”; women made up 30% of all locally elected positions in your 2004 elections, and you have 32% women representation in your National Parliament.

We also know this, that “fast-track” countries such as Argentina, Costa Rica and South Africa show that we do not need to wait for “a large minority of women” to be in Parliament for gender quotas to effectively increase women’s representation. These countries implemented gender electoral quotas when women constituted only a small minority in Parliament. As a consequence of these quotas, their women’s representation increased very quickly. Dahlerup and Freidenvall, highlight that in Costa Rica, in just one election, the percentage of women jumped from 19% women to 35% in Parliament. South Africa secured 36% women in her very first democratic parliamentary election.

Both illustrations show that whether you have too few women in national or local government or quite a large minority hold, affirmative action through electoral gender quotas can be very effective.

Issue Number 3: There is the question of whether gender quotas result in the actual empowerment of the women populace in a country and not just the select few in power. I am aware that more equal representation through affirmative action is no guarantee that women in power will make decisions that benefit the majority of women. Women themselves must also be ready to unite and speak up for other women if they were to make affirmative action work. Here is just one illustration of a situation that did not turn out quite right: A few years ago, I read that in Bulgaria, while women had won 26% of seats in parliament, new women MPs were not fully prepared for their new careers. They also did not see themselves as representing women’s interests, or as having common interests with each other.



V. How to Make Affirmative Action Work

So, how do we make affirmative action work?

I am going to address issue Number 3 and will refer to some interesting highlights in the Shadow Report produced by NZ’s National Council of Women.

According to the Report, some NGOs note that women in powerful positions within organisations are not always willing to mentor or encourage women in the lower ranks.

This happens in pockets all over the world, and it is one reason for the lack of wide-scale empowerment of women. We need to work on this. The Report states correctly that it is important that women at the top are prepared to be role models for other women in the organisation, and that they do not “pull the ladder up after them”. Just as women NGOs should cooperate and curb competition with one other, so should the women within a single organisation. We cannot afford to lose the resources of our women; it is difficult enough to get women to participate actively in public life in the first place. To ensure continuity in the supply of capable women leaders, we should work with leadership renewal in mind to some level.

Having said that, the lack of a positive ripple effect can also be affected by the inclination of the powers-that-be for women who hail from politically affiliated families, or simply highly connected circles. If they are not aligned with the interest and concerns of the grassroots movement of the women, there is the real risk of the empowerment resting with them at the top.
Powerful affiliations are definitely important, and so is the financial health that usually comes with it - there is no doubt about that. However, we do need a bottom and top-approach for candidate selection. We need leaders from the grassroots and from social elite circles to push through the agenda of true democracy, which is really about the equal interest of both men and women, and girls and boys. Both sides bring different strengths and know-how, and maybe even weaknesses – but that’s the same for men. No side is superior than the other if both are as productive in terms of actual results.

In our formulation for affirmative action, I think it should be understood that we must have transparent checks against governments and political parties wasting gender quotas though fielding incompetent or undeserving women whom they hope will serve as ‘token’ women leaders. It should also be understood that there should be transparent processes to check against political parties fielding their ‘quota women’ in constituencies they feel are a lost cause.

As for fielding more grassroots women candidates, as opposed to those from the social elites, I think financial issues are more likely to come into play for this group of women. So, in addition to gender quotas, the State might need to look into special funds for their campaigning.

Empowerment of women from the grassroots means empowerment of the women and girls at the community or grassroots level – and I hope that remains true after they come into power. Therein lies the multiplier effect. It is the conviction of the International Council of Women that when we build a firm foundation from the ground up for women and girls, we are also paving the way for building up enough suitably experienced women for higher level decision-making, whether in the workforce or in politics.

VI. Target-Setting

As I had mentioned earlier, the CEDAW Committee was concerned that the Government of New Zealand had not pursued an overall policy of target setting in its Ministries. National strategies for women’s representation in National Parliaments and local government, with concrete figures as targets within set timeframes can galvanise commitment and entail concrete measures.

Allow me to share with you a national target-setting from Southeast Asia that I find interesting. Thailand may not be the best political regime to refer to with their current situation but there are points we can look at. Granted also that the country is way below New Zealand’s proportion of women in political representation, which according to IPU data early this year, had women comprising 10.8% of Thailand’s Lower House, and 10.5% of the Upper House.

The point that is interesting about Thailand’s target-setting is that, at least until early this year, it had set its own MDG-Plus targets, which are much more ambitious than the internationally agreed MDG targets. Thailand’s MDG Plus for gender equality promotion and women empowerment had targeted that by 2006, there will be a doubling of the proportion of women in the national parliament, sub-district administrative organisations, and executive positions in the civil service. As with all commendable national target-settings, they stand the risks of derailment by political instability and political will that is not sustained.


VII. Conclusion

Going back to affirmative action: I am sure all of you know that affirmative action cannot stand alone. We need to do many things in tandem. Women who wish to make headway in politics must continually plan for meetings with political leaders. This will help build up the political incumbents’ recognition of women in the public realm, and hopefully, all this will help win their support for fielding more women candidates. The media is an extremely powerful tool. Use it thoroughly to showcase substantive arguments. Use it to encourage women to become candidates and to support and vote for female leaders.

All the measures that I have touched on are a complement to your existing mechanisms such as the Nomination Service administered by your Ministry of Women’s Affairs, which, I understand, aims to ensure that women are properly and actively considered for appointment to decision-making positions in life.

We can always institute safeguards against abuse of affirmative measures. For example, we can institute a “sunset clause” in the form of a 10-15 year timeframe. More than, say, 25 years, and affirmative action could do more harm than good, leading to the day when we start to believe that women can only advance by clinging on to props, and not by their own potential and merit.

Affirmative action is necessary in order for us to be just to the other half of the nation. It is a real means of undoing the gender bias that has been stacked against the ‘fairer sex’ since time immemorial, and to unleash a country’s true and full potential.

I hope that New Zealand will consider temporary measures, such as gender quotas, to at least get more women elected into local government. In Singapore, meritocracy is the order of the day and many women have reached the top in sectors such as banking, information and communications, shipping, oil and gas, hospitality and service, and this is indeed commendable. But I am hoping that special temporary measures, pursuant to Article 4 of the CEDAW, will be used to get more women elected into the Singapore Parliament.

With that, I thank you for your very kind attention.


Dr. Anamah Tan [PPA(G), PBM, BBM, JP]
President, International Council of Women
Member of CEDAW Committee