Zapatero whose 2008 cabinet was made up of a majority of women
It seems you can’t move for BBC commissioned Scandinavian dramas at the moment, in all their Ikea-clad, grey-skied glory. You may recall my reference to The Killing in last week’s blog entry. This week, it is new Danish political thriller Borgen which has provided me with blog fodder (blodder?). The fictitious female Prime Minister proposes that a 45% female quota be imposed on senior corporate posts. Whereas The Killing’s gruelling scenes are best left on screen, Borgen‘s initiative is surely something that should not remain behind glass.
Zapatero whose 2008 cabinet was made up of a majority of women
The issue of quotas is one with which Cambridge University is all too familiar from its constant struggle to fulfil the government targets for state school admissions. As much as admissions tutors would like the university to reflect society, they argue, students from state schools just don’t get the grades that the privately educated do. ‘Lower the criteria’ cries Nick Clegg meekly. Well, we all know how seriously he is taken these days. The obvious but most difficult answer to the problem is to improve state education- to change the system from below.
But this could take decades. Do we really have time to sit around and wait for society to progress ‘organically’? Shouldn’t we intervene in any way we can to speed up the process of equality? Lenin certainly thought so.
Quotas for women in politics and executive corporate positions are ubiquitous these days; half of all countries use some type of gender quota system for their parliaments. They are not, however, without contention. There are those who say that by forcing employers to uphold a 50:50 divide, you wont get the ‘best person for the job’.
Charlotte Vere, who argued alongside Katie Price in last week’s Union debate, is of the view that quotas are demeaning for women and isolating for men. She argues that we must “fix the causes of drought rather than fix the numbers”. This is all well and good but Vere’s alternative method of “remov(ing) the barriers to entry for women” is somewhat lacking in substance. How do we tangibly “change the debate around women in politics” or “achiev(e) a natural equilibrium” without some kind of input from above?
A study by Rohini Pande, professor of public policy at Harvard University, found that such fundamental shifts in society can come about through the enforcement of the very processes against which Ms Vere rails. Research conducted in councils in various Indian villages showed that the appointment of female leaders had a substantial effect on the aspirations of young women in those villages. The role model effect cannot be overlooked, not only in the case of women who dream of being the next CEO or Prime Minister but also for women at lower levels who may feel encouraged and legitimised by the knowledge that women can hold positions of power.
Charlotte Vere, who is openly against the use of quotas as a means to gender equality
And so back to Scandinavia, the land of all things (not so) bright but very beautiful indeed. In 2003, Norway became the first country to introduce quotas for boards of public companies and since then has inspired many other European nations to follow suit. Pro-quota campaigners argue that this is indisputable evidence of the effectiveness of quotas. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Norway, Sweden and Denmark have historically been more equal societies in terms of gender roles than the UK . So although the Norwegian initiative was radical, it was starting from a significantly higher base rate and is considered by some to be more of an incremental change than a quick fix.
Where does all this leave us? If quotas were introduced, many women say that they would feel uncomfortable taking a position they had apparently only been offered on the grounds of reaching targets rather than on their own merit.
But the oft cited example of two people sitting in a boardroom, one male one female, (or indeed one white; one from an ethnic minority) with the underrepresented being chosen solely due to the fulfilment of quotas, is highly unrealistic. It is a heuristic device used by men who are scared and women who are not seizing the opportunities they could be given.
We must take advantage of any attempts at equality, however artificial they might seem. Women won’t be offered jobs for which they are completely unqualified. Perhaps they will lack the same experience in those roles that men possess, but that is only symptomatic of the barriers (sometimes self-inflicted) placed on women at lower levels.
Let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot by saying quotas would undermine democracy when the real scandal is the inequality that already exists.
Comments