Women and politics – Part 2: Women and Europe

To see part 1, press here.

It is pleasing to see the EU taking women’s representation more seriously, especially when considering:

“in the 2009 European elections women made up 35% of candidates, 34% in the top 3rd of party lists (Greece and Denmark being the exception), 34% of MEPs elected, but got 19% of media coverage, falling to single figures in some countries” (figures provided by University of Exeter).

I think it is important to consider different countries’ attitudes towards women and politics when looking at what evidence the EU have cited in support of their view that women’s under representation results in women becoming less interested in politics and thus in turn reinforces their under representation. Due to this, they naturally support the need for quota systems, which I have argued before are based on paternalistic and passive notions of providing women ‘special’ care. Instead, there is a need for structural and cultural changes so that women’s rights and opportunities improve and consequently their participation in politics.

For example, you can have as many quota systems as you like, however, without structural changes such as improving childcare policies then you are only going to get the same types of women applying. Improvements to women’s representation requires a consideration of different countries’ social, economic and political conditions. Redistribution is key to improving women’s rights, as well as men’s. More redistributive polices would help reduce the high levels of poverty women often suffer from, and through this provide them greater financial stability to pursue a career in politcs.

The need to consider the varying position of women within different European countries to help provide a more specific strategy to improve women’s representation within the EU is highlighted when considering the position of women within Italian politics. An article only last year, reports that the Council of Europe found:

“The most worrying figure was the level of female representation in local municipal councils, where women made up just 2.2% of councillors compared to a European average of 24.5%. The only country with a worse record in this sector was Azerbaijan.

Italy fared better at a regional government level, where female representation climbed to 17.2%, although still below Europe’s average of 21.4% and less than half of Spain’s 39.7%.”

Therefore different countries have more problems around women’s representation in politics, and instead of just saying, as the EU seem to be suggesting, this under representation is due to women’s lack of visibility in politics, there needs to be a closer systematic consideration of why women are differently represented in different countries. For example, the article referred to how:

“Italy has also has a dismal record in terms of female employment, ranking second to bottom of all European Union countries, according to a report by EU statistics bureau Eurostat.”

This highlights how there are wider systematic issues within the country and these will help us account for the varying levels of under representation of women within European politics and politics more generally. It is simple for EU to attribute the lack of representation in Europe as a problem of visibility, but with more careful analysis it is clear the problem requires a more in-depth solution.

Women and politics – Part 1: Representation

This series of women and politics is inspired by a recent article by Sociology Lens that discussed the presence of a traditional gender symbolic order at a political, social and economic level. It argues against recent arguments that claim we are moving towards gender equality due to the increase of women in the workplace (economic level), as it rightly states that we need to address all levels of the gender symbolic order – so political, social and economic. The level I will be concentrating on is the political.

Representation is increasingly becoming a contested concept, especially among the post modernists. Their main problem with the term is their disbelief in the ability to speak of representative group interests, such as women, when we are increasingly living within a fragmented and individualised society. Whilst I can see where they are coming from, the representation allows minority groups to utilise a political identity in order to mobilise a collective movement that results in changes that help improve the lives of many (e.g women) in society.

A key area on the topic of representation and women in politics is the selection process. Here, it is interesting to consider debates around selection procedures such as all-women shortlists. None of the three main parties have a good record on all-women shortlists, as personally I reject the method due to it being patronising. It promotes the view that women need ‘special’ assistance in order for them to obtain the same jobs as men. This then takes the attention away from the real problems within politics, to do with culture and structure, which obstruct women from becoming move involved in politics.

Improving childcare is fundamental to increasing women’s representation within politics. This is evidence of the structural and cultural changes that are necessary for increased representation of women. It is structural as providing universally free childcare would allow many women who cannot presently afford childcare to pursue a career if they want to do so. Furthermore, there is the need for cultural change, as too often women who go to work and do not look after their children are stigmatised. This would allow women more scope to take part in politics, as politics is known for long hours and weeks – as a famous saying goes “a week is a long time in politics”. Related to this is the ability of some women to afford running for political office. This is a problem for men too, as politics is becoming too connected to big money, but as women are far more likely to be in poverty than men and there is the existence of inequalities such as the pay gap, then this is more likely to affect women.

There again, it does depend what you mean by politics. Maybe we should talk about the new social movements, especially associated with feminism, that has resulted in the rise of women in politics? Thus, again there is the need for further classification in debates surrounding women’s representation in politics.

Fawcett society have done a lot of research into women and politics. Whilst I disagree with their support of all-women shortlists, they have provided some valuable research into the discriminatory attitudes that take place (and sometimes sexual harassment) within candidate selections. Thus, the next part to this series, after this introductory blog, will look at research by the Fawcett society into women’s experience in Liberal Democrat parliamentary selections.

Redundancy of free childcare policies, all-women shortlists, Cameron’s ‘poverty of parenting’: no, no and no!

Whilst Clegg’s speech took the right tone, simplistic and to the point, as Darrell Goodliffe has rightly argued, there is much to question, namely what has been left out. I want to focus on our childcare policies and how they have faced the chopping board, attaining the dreaded ‘aspiration’ title. To contextualise my argument, it is important to consider the following extract from Clegg’s speech:

“And, yes, that means that some multi billion pound spending commitments we have promoted in the past – like new free childcare entitlements, a new citizen’s pension or free personal care – will no longer be firm commitments in our manifesto, but will be put on hold until they become affordable again. And some of our other pledges such as the scrapping of tuition fees will have to be phased in over a longer period of time.”

Whilst I take the view that Clegg is right to promote four key areas to focus upon during the election campaign, this does not mean that we should not promise any other policies. Free childcare should be a fundamental right, it is the route of so many inequalities in society. For example, I disagree with the view of The Speaker’s Conference that all-women shortlists “may be the only way” to achieve equal representation of women in parliament. They have given up the fight of equality before they have even began fighting for it. It is simply discrediting and discriminatory to treat women as though they need ‘special’ treatment in order to become involved in politics. They should be there on their own merit, and nor is it fair on the men potential candidates who could be a better alternative. Instead, this links to the importance of policies such as improved childcare, there needs to be structural and cultural changes. Women need to have more resources to utilise in order to dedicate themselves to careers that involve a lot of work and time, such as politics, whilst also enjoying other things in life that they may so choose, such as having children. There needs to be more consideration of how organisational structures within politics, local and national, can disadvantage women. Attitudes within local politics can put women off, as it can at a national level. Making out that women need to be treated differently to men hardly helps with this cultural change, it reinforces the view that women are different and that actually they aren’t as good as the men, and thus, they need a foot up so they can get to the same career positions. What policy commitments such as childcare do is help tackle the real structural problems for women. People can huff and puff all they want about the level of representation of women and other minority groups in politics, but they cannot just give up at the slightest sight things may not be as quick or as easy as they would like.

This brings me onto my final point. David Cameron’s annoyingly increased interference into the life’s of families who are already stigmatised enough without some politician or the state telling them they have problems. It is no lie that working class families are more likely to face problems with parenting, but again, there seems to be again a total lack of regard for the structural factors that affect the parenting of these families. This utter load of rubbish from Cameron again, contradicts his whole small state rhetoric. Cameron’s discourse on his (another) new initiative illustrates the weaknesses in his proposals:

“Of course there’s a link between material poverty and poor life chances, but the full picture is that that link also runs through the style of parenting that children in poor households receive. Because the research shows that while the style of responsible parenting I’ve spoken about today is more likely to occur in wealthier households, children in poor households who are raised with that style of parenting do just as well.”

Cameron might recognise the link but I am afraid his conception of the link is wrong. Yes, poverty does affect family style, but therefore why can’t Cameron realise that the real changes that have to be made are to the factors that result in families becoming impoverished and disadvantaged. Furthermore, the second sentence stigmatises certain families, as he uses those families that have ‘successful’ parenting to highlight how it can be done, thus blame the ones who aren’t doing it ‘correctly’. He has a total disregard for taking into account the complex array of compounding factors that influence parenting style, it is so insulting to just blame the individual and then offer them classes or whatever to improve their ‘style’. It is again an issue that the state should not be interfering in at such a personal level, by all means provide help, but there is a line to be drawn. This shows how Cameron seems to becoming obsessed with interfering with the utter most personal areas of our lives, and the public just don’t want it, as shown by a recent UK Polling Report, which found:

“40% of people think it is right for the government to actively support marriage, but 57% thought it was not the place for the government to promote one lifestyle choice over another.”

Thus, it is important for all parties to recognise more the importance of tackling structural and cultural inequalities that affect people’s lives. Free childcare relates to both all women shortlists and parenting style, as it provides extra choice for parents – and it would be a policy change that would not see the state delve too far into the personal. It is important that we respect human agency and privacy, and that we do not treat people as though they need some kind of ‘special’ help, consequently stigmatising them. Empowering people is the way to deal with inequalities, and through structural and cultural changes we can do this without inappropriate state intervention.