|
Author
|
Topic: women in parliament
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204
|
posted 04 June 2002 11:13 PM
Skadie: I found the idea interesting too - some time ago I read a Joan W. Scott article in New Left Review about that proposal, and I believe I have a photocopy somewhere which I may dig out. She wrote about possible changes that the 50/50 deal would bring to the idea of universal French republicanism and the notion of the individual, and interestingly, she defended the idea. She argued that those who defend the proposal because it would lead to the more accurate representation of 'women's political issues' are doing it a disservice. Women should form one half of the highest national representative body because they form one half of the population - I think she maneuvered within the concept of universality and argued that 50/50 might lay stronger claim to 'universality' than the present system. I really have to find that paper... Trin: 'women are not having difficulty being elected once they are nominated'. I read that famous study (Sex as a Political Variable I believe it was called, by several researchers) and I am not sure what to do with it. They do statistically show that gender is a much less important variable than the incumbent/challenger status when people run for the office in the US, and they argue that the main reason women are not elected is because they do not run. They somehow manage to abstract from everything relevant that might nuance their argument (like, the nominations and party gate keepers; reasons why women choose not to run; childrearing factor; public speaking; etc etc etc). Have you ever seen the book Getting Elected in Canada (prefaced by Allan Blakeney, incidentally)? That book, which in no way represents feminist scholarship, is much more knowledgeable of gender dynamics in electoral politics than this study. Also, there have been studies about what happens electorally to parties that introduce gender quotas (30%, 40%) for their candidates, both in majoritarian and proportional systems. Also 2, the notion of 'critical mass' has been discussed a bit too - women do not necessarily represent more accurately other women and issues related more often to women's lives, but it just so happens that after a certain level of female presence is established in the representative body (let's say 37%, I'm guessing) the focus and priorities change from (I'm trying to remember) let's say excessive defence spending to improving health care. Also 3, it has been shown that the representation of women is often reversely proportional to the relevance of that particular political body in the broader political context. In ex-Communist countries women had much higher presence in quasi-parliamentary bodies with no relevance than in Polit-Bureaus and such, for instance. I read somewhere that in Sweden too the representation of women in the Swidish equivalent of parliament increased as the centre of real decision-making shifted outside of the country, in EU or WTO. Now that according to some parameters Western democracies live their post-parliamentary stage, women may even be admitted in... If anybody knows more about these three subjects under Also1, Also2 and Also3, please share.
From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 05 June 2002 12:05 AM
Scandinavian countries generally use the "party list" system. So, any party which is serious about electing women puts them in positions 1, 3,5,7,9 and so on. The number of women elected will automatically amount to approximately 50% of elected representatives.I am so glad to see Trespasser back again; my theory was that she had disappeared from Babble in order to complete a 9th Ph.D. or something. But I do not think the analogy she mentions, about Sweden, is particularly meaningful. I do think its true that women were mostly window-dressing in Soviet political systems (not in Nicaragua, though). In Sweden, women are powerful in Parliament and Cabinet. Norway has had a woman prime minister, and presently has very important women cabinet Ministers (or did when I checked last). I do not think this achievement becomes less noteworthy because a process of globalization leeches power from every nation state, and deposits it at the IMF. Electing women to the most powerful positions at one's disposition is a measure of commitment to equality. If those positions are less powerful than they once were,
that does not undermine the commitment. [ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: jeff house ]
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
)
