Across the world, from developed countries to undeveloped
nations, the number of female politicians compared to that of male politicians
is very small. Observers tend to attribute
this development to well entrenched patriarchal society. The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, however,
is attempting to change this trend in British politics, at least in his own Conservative
party, by introducing a system
called “all women shortlist candidates” within his party.
The process involving all women shortlist candidates is very
simple. All male contestants within the affected
constituencies will be excluded from contesting for elections regardless of
their talents or skills. Female
candidates shall be selected from a pool of female aspirants. This is irrespective of whether some of these
females to be nominated are poorly suited for the job.
The rationale for all women shortlist candidates is to
balance the proportion of female politicians with that of male
politicians. Currently, there is a
disproportionate number of male Members of Parliament (MPs) compared
to female MPs (503 male MPs as opposed to 147 female MPs). This undermines
the fact that women make up about half of the total UK population.
Support for all women shortlist candidates has also been
based on the view that women can make better politics than men. That is, women are less likely to be politically
corrupt than men. However, this
perception seems to be undermined by the 2009 MPs expenses scandal in which both male and female politicians were found to be
fiddling with tax payers money.
Further evidence
that female politicians are as equally corrupt as their male counterparts is found
in the activities of some former female Heads of States. The former Philippines President, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,
for example, was prosecuted for corrupt activities during her term as leader. Similar charges have also been brought
against former Ukranian female Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, and former
Thai female President, Yingluck Shinawatra.
Although,
critics might argue that these charges were politically motivated and that the
accused were innocent of the acts. If we can accept this version of the story for
these female defendants, we should also accept it for male
politicians who are prosecuted for corrupt activities. After all, anything that is good for
the goose is also good for the gander.
All of
these have led some commentators to argue that "all women shortlist candidates" policy is not the right measure to address the core issue of gender imbalance in
politics. Instead of having all women
shortlist candidates, these observers are suggesting a system in which political
candidates are selected on the basis of their merit.
That is, people with the best skills and
abilities should be chosen over those who do not irrespective of their sex or gender.
While this
may seem fair to every aspirant, the problem is what constitutes the best
skills and abilities for a political position?
The terms skills and abilities within politics are subjective rather
than objective. Candidates are not
selected on the basis of educational qualifications. Instead, party officials nominate the
candidates they consider to have the best skills and abilities for political
positions. Like the all women shortlist
candidates option, this process is also saddled with problems.
Since both
the all women shortlist candidates’ option and selecting candidates on the
basis of merit option are marred with shortcomings, it is advisable to take a
middle ground on the whole issue. When
picking candidates, therefore, party officials should take into account both the gender of
the candidates and their skills and abilities.
Comments
Post a Comment