The Millennium Development Goals (MDG) report has revealed that India is amongst those backward countries where women’s participation in legislature is placed at poor 98th position in the world, with just about 10.98 per cent women representing in law-making process of the country, due to our male-dominated culture. The issue of ensuring considerable representation to women in Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies has been hanging fire for the last several decades, and needs to be resolved immediately so that women are able to step forward in making their voices heard more distinctively in pursuance of their right to gender equality in the society.
It was in 1976 that a parliamentary committee on the status of women had favoured reservations for women at the lower level of politics – Panchayat and Zilla Parishad – and urged all political parties to field at least 15 per cent of women candidates for Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies. In the over 40 years since the report has been written, parties have remained stubbornly unyielding on the question of fielding women candidates in the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections. Therefore, reservation has become an urgent imperative.
It may be noted that reservation for women at the panchayat level has already led to a wide social debate on women’s participation in politics. It began the process of establishing and creating women leaders since mid-1980s. A large number of states across the country introduced between 30 and 33 per cent reservation for women in panchayats and zilla parishads, and the 73rd Amendment put hundreds of thousand women in panchayati raj institutions. The experience has been mixed; Many women who were elected are relatives of local political or social elites and have done little to achieve actual devolution of power. At the same time they have been forced to speak up and step out of their house if not for new policies, at least against the misuse of power.
The justification for the one-third quota Bill is based on two different promises. One, the Bill is expected to become a tool to attain equality and justice for women in the political arena. Such an egalitarian argument springs from liberal feminist views that seek to overcome discrimination against women in society mainly through law.
The second argument emanates from another tradition of feminist thought, one that emphasizes women as a source of moral superiority. Characteristics such as altruism, self denial, intuition and caring attitude are seen as the biological essence of feminity, or traits of a feminine culture which have been concealed by patriarchy.
The first argument based on women’s demand for equality is much more irritating for political parties than the second, since it has revealed the existence of discrimination in the nation’s democracy and within the parties during ticket distribution for elections. As a counter-argument, some people have insisted that the quota law is anti-democratic because it has discriminated against political parties and the population as a whole by restricting their freedom of choice. They say a good male MP would be denied access to Parliament simply because his seat might be reserved for women. Some male politicians who have anonymously opposed the law insisted that “if women and men are equal, there is no need for a quota system.” Hence, the argument is “women who do not make it lack the necessary qualification.” Not unexpectedly, the second claim gained many more allies, especially among men.
A meaningful intervention is one that took the issue with the debates about equality or differences and pointed to women’s equal ability even to participate in corruption scandals. The task of ‘humanising’ politics, placing it at people’s service should be carried out by men and women together. Women should participate in politics both on the basis of equity and equality. Sometimes, the unequal distribution of instruments is a necessary condition for true and full realisation of equality. Through the 70 years since Independence, the highest percentage of women representatives in Lok Sabha have been 8.1 per cent. The Bill, therefore, defines affirmative action and is a ‘historic corrective’. It should, however, only be seen as a transitional necessity and not a substitute for a strong and active women’s movement.
During the last few decades, many countries across the globe have refined their election laws to ensure effective participation of women in legislature. The large number of countries where women make up 30 to 35 per cent of parliamentarians can be found from Tanzania to Costa Rica, Rawanda to Spain. Notably Argentina, Cuba and Venezuela have all established a quota law to ensure female political representation. Costa Rica has promulgated a law for real equality for women in political as well as social sectors. Sweden in 1972 was the first country to establish quotas for women. Even Islamic world, including Pakistan and may other democratic countries have created a pool of women politicians who participate effectively in public life.
The Bill is a progressive measure that has gone beyond strictly political ends. If made into law it will have a major impact on established models of democracy, political representation and gender relations. It is, however, not a point of arrival but of departure, a permanent effort that requires great will power, conviction and awareness for its successful implementation. Women legislators should bring a feminine perspective to the range of issues they deal with and not let separate constituencies narrow their outlook. They must realise that they represent not just women but individuals whose interests cannot be isolated from economic, social and political interests.
(The writer is a freelance journalist)
