The state gives some funding to political parties. If they don’t run 30% female candidates. This funding will be hit. However if they wanted to run 100% males they could but would do so without state funding. So I doubt it is constitutionally challengeable.

Simon it is not that the parties get money for running 30 per cent women candidates. Rather, under the proposed legislation, the state gives all political parties state funding and this funding will be halved for parties that don’t run the required 30 per cent of each gender in the previous election. This means that parties that don’t comply will be discriminated against using the mechanism of halving state funding. This appears to conflict with article 40 on equality and freedom of association and expression grounds. It is also, as you point out above, very much against the spirit, at the very least, of Article 16.3. The judgement in the case Des Kelly took against the Minister for the Environment found that you treat election candidates unequally. The proposed legislation will discriminate through the mechanism of state funding between candidates of different parties, based on compliance or not with the legislation. It will also throw into sharp relief the fact that Independents don’t get this funding and are not covered by the legislation at all. This despite the fact that only 8.9 per cent of Independent candidates at the last election were women compared to 18.3 per cent of those ran by parties. Heretofore electoral funding has been distanced in the legislation from the elections themselves. This law will apply state funding according to what parties do at election time and where do you draw the line, as you point out there could be other quotas, or even other requirements on parties altogether, hence undermining freedom of association. The state is supposed to be neutral when it comes to elections and referendums, as found by the McKenna Judgement, yet this legislation uses state funding to try and engineer party parties into running particular types of candidates. Questions yet to be raised are what if a candidate has had their gender reassigned, what rules apply to them? Also there were a couple of registered parties that ran only one candidate at the last general election. The legislation is silent about how such parties can comply with the 30 per cent. Worth noting that in France and Italy similar laws were introduced they were ruled unconstitional. France amended its constitution and brought in a similar law to ours in 2000. 12 years later there are 19 per cent women in the National Parliament which is not much higher than in Ireland. Sweden etc. have never had this kind of law, thereby respecting freedom of association as protected under the Swedish constitution. In the Oireachtas in 2010 the Joint Committee on the Constitution took the view that the kind of proposals we are now about to enact would be probably be unconstitutional.

Just a correction of a typo above – the Kelly judgement found that the State can’t treat general election candidates unequally.

Excellent input Joanna, I was wondering a lot of this myself, and tried and failed to find figures regarding the proportion of female independent candidates.

That answer was as long as the Mahon Tribunal!

Which undermines democracy within political parties and thereby undermines the participation of both women and men members of parties. Again I would point out that in 2011 general election political parties ran double the percent of Independent women candidates (The total per cent of women ran by political parties was 18.3 per cent compared to 8.9 per cent of Independent candidates – and some parties ran almost or more than 30 per cent).

What I really enjoy about this comment is the idea that we currently select TDs on the basis of competence.

I think Kathleen Lynch nailed it when she said “Before I die I want to be able to vote for a mediocre woman.”

“The PC brigade”

Fool

I think we should give ‘candidate selection gender quotas for State funding’ a trial. There are some practical issues re party size and so on that would need to be worked out.

However, if candidates of the quality of Ivana Bacik can’t get elected in bloody Dun Laoghaire, I’m not sure gender selection quotas would have too radical an effect on the body politic.

Preach Donal! Ivana is one woman I would really like to have seen on the ticket. But c’est la vie…

But candidates like Ivana can be, and have been, selected without quotas. Political parties at the last election ran double the percent of women that ran as Independent candidates.

Hi Joanna, a women from my own constituency! I agree that women can be selected without quotas. Actually maybe there is something in your argument to say we should withdraw state funding of political parties altogether. Gender balance shouldn’t be achieved because a party is being paid to do it. If quotas at selection stage are not the answer, how would you address the current imbalance?

Ivana Bacik didn’t get elected because Dun Laoghaire voters are not thick.

@Siobhan Schnittger
Siobhan,
There are lots of alternatives. The situation in Sweden was that parties in that country responded to a public demand for more women candidates – now we have that here too. In addition bigger parties there reacted to fact that smaller parties were unning more women candidates by competing with them in that regard – again we have that here too (the smaller parties often run more women (like Labour, Sinn Fein and especially at the last election, People Before Profit) and the bigger parties like Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are trying to follow suit. This explains why in Ireland right now there is a consensus amongst the parties and generally that we need more women. That is the climate that led to greater women’s participation in Sweden. In Sweden the question was how to get more women but contrary to what those arguing for quotas suggest the answer in the main was not quotas. Only 3 out of 7 parties in Sweden have ever had quotas. The party that has the best record of achievement re women’s participation in Sweden, the Center Party, has never had quotas nor even targets. And Sweden has never had the kind of legislation we have are about to introduce and nor have had the other Scandanavian countries. France however has and 12 years later (it was originally found unconstitutional) the percentage of women in the French national parliament is stalled at 19 per cent, not much better than the Dail. The point is that we have the climate, namely the public demand and parties trying to meet that demand both in terms of the increase that has happened in recent elections in the percentage women run by parties and in the debate we are having in Ireland right now. Secondly there are other ways to try to address the issue of low participation of women, from Paternity leave, to better education and awareness about politics, to giving party members more say in political decisions within parties (quotas do the opposite) , to trying to address the fact that the lifestyle is unatractive for anyone that wants work life balance (obviously within reason because politics can’t be 9 to 5 anymore than getting involved in your community can be 9 to 5, or many professions and businesses for that matter) and also addressing that issue generally in society, to making politics more participative, to mentoring. We’ve all those alternatives to try yet, instead of the worst option of quotas.

Holy moly… Thanks for your reply Joanna. The only thing that really defeats a good argument is a better argument. The way I look at it is that we need to try something new to move forward. Maybe it’s quotas at selection stage maybe it’s any of the really worthwhile and valid points you made above. I’m not set on one way or another I feel that if a course of action kick starts us into action, rather than just discussing existing problems ad nauseum, then it’s worthwhile in the attempt. I’ll need to look at the Swedish model some more to examine how they got around things like work life balance but if it can genuinely be done without quotas then obviously that would be the preferred option. Would be interesting to see how Iceland managed it too. If its not too personal a question, what was it motivated you to choose your current career path?

I’m a little confused – you seem to be supporting the idea of quotas for the lower classes (damn good idea!), but you also seem to be opposed to discrimination against the men (which presumably translates to being opposed to the idea of discriminating against the middle and upper classes).

So how can you be in favour of quotas for the lower classes while being opposed to discriminating against the middle and upper classes?

Or have I read you wrong?

No I’m not supporting the idea, I’m just trying to draw parallels. I’m not in favour of quotas, but if anybody was in favour of quotas, surely gender quotas would be one of the least important, since socio-economic status, ethnicity, religion etc all affect your political outlook a lot more than gender.

We have roughly one TD per 25,000 people. That’s pretty granular, and I’d expect that a good number of those 25,000 are women. Why do we need quotas? That’s undemocratic. Granted, the political party system may need some work but there has to be a better way.

Democracy

You left out equal representation for Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, pagans, wiccans, Jains, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, Jews, scientologists, Rastafarians, pastafarians, shintos, zoroastrianists, Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses, santerians……. The dail is going to be massive. We’ll only be able to pay everyone a fiver per annum.

So Dil, what your saying is we should fill quotas and ignore the voting process? Because thats the only way your going to fill all those quotas,

Also as already pointed out what about religious beliefs?

This is why quotas are nonsense.

Dil, by your logic I presume you’ll be opening up your show to a wider audience. Will you now be having 50% men on. How do you intend on executing a more fair system of representation on your radio show?

Hang on guys, Dil didn’t express an opinion on whether or not she was in favour of quotas. She simply said she was glad that the “conversation of quotas is evolving to include all groups”. That doesn’t mean she wants quotas for all groups. She simply talks about “broadening the profile and introducing real diversity to the Dail”, but, she doesn’t say that quotas are the way to do it. For all we know, she could simply have education in mind – some form of encouraging people from minority groups to get involved.

Thank you Brian, you are spot on as I never mentioned I was in favour of quotas, in fact even in my column http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-what-is-wrong-with-the-media-all-the-faces-are-the-same/ where I wrote about the lack of diversity in the media I never mentioned the “Q”word. For some reason some people seem to be obsessed with quotas and automatically assume that is the only way to bring about representation.
What I am asking the Irish media, workplace and politics is to invest in a diversity strategy through education, training, awareness, mentoring, work placements, transparent recruitment policies just to mention a few in an effort to encourage larger involvement and equal participation. At present the labour pool that the media, workplace and politics are hiring from is at times exclusive and elitist.
The Mahon Tribunal has proved that cronyism and nepotism is ingrained in the culture of how our country has been run so far. The only way we can bring about positive change and create a democratic and equal society is if we stop hiring too many people from the same social group, school, gender, religion with the same views and beliefs… etc.
Diversity cannot be viewed as a threat but instead an opportunity for advancement, growth with the ultimate aim to create a society where all residents of Ireland can aspire to reach their full potential.

That’s all fair and well Dil, but can you tell me about the % of men v women you had on your show for the past 6 months. How many from the travelling community have you had on? What different races have you had on and can you break down the % to make sure that you have had equal representation per race / sex / sexual preference / age / religion on your show? If you can provide those facts and they all abide with what you preach, perhaps then your logic may be easier to take note of.

And I am not looking for a quota here, I am merely trying to observe if it’s a do as I say policy rather than a do as I do.

“That’s all fair and well Dil, but can you tell me about the % of men v women you had on your show for the past 6 months. ”

Dairmuid so are you asking that in th context where the media landscape is completely dominated by men?

You not so hot on logic yourself there.

Mark I’m sure even Dil will agree that the majority of the guests on her show, guests which she and her producer would freely invite on, would not be involved in media directly. On that point I am bemused as to what you think your point actually is?

Well Diarmaid, you will just have to tune into Global Village on Newstalk 106-108 on Saturday 7-9pm to find out how inclusive my show is! :)

Very fair response Dil, I’ll take you up on that, hope I’m not disappointed now :)

“Quotas are an attack on the prevalent political culture and nothing else.”

“And to be honest, after yesterday, anything that shakes up the current political system wouldn’t be any harm at all.”

So you want quotas because men are ruining the country? Surely if that was the case we’d have given up voting for them long ago?

“You can be female and non national, just as you can be female and middle class. Gender is a fundamental distinction that bridges race, religion, ideology, class and culture, its far more fundamental that those.”

You can flip that on its head too, and say that religion, culture, ideology etc bridges gender. And to be honest they define your belief system and ethics a lot more than your gender. I would agree with the average woman on a lot more topics than the average Catholic or American.

“Why not just run more candidates, mostly women so that the proportion meets legislative requirements, and let voters decide? This would make parties’ bailiwicking strategies (carving up constituencies and assigning patches to different candidates to maximise votes) harder. But it will make elections more competitive and give voters more choice. ”

Parties simply won’t do that, as it is counter-intuitive to the accepted wisdom that conservative candidate strategies maximise seats won. So therefore, elections won’t be more competitive and voters won’t have more choice.

Well you said that quotas attack the prevalent political culture, and the only things quotas are attempting to do is reduce the number of men in government, so I presume thats the prevalent political culture you’re talking about. And your comment about yesterday insinuated that the Mahon Tribunal was a result of this prevalent political culture. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but it seemed as if you were saying that the corruption highlighted yesterday was a result of male domination in the Dail.

And you said gender is far more fundamental than ideology, class or culture, but if its less likely to define your belief system then its not. And if you agree with my point on that then why are you so determined to get more women into politics? Would a more even balance based on religion or socio-economic background be much more pertinent than gender since gender has nearly no basis on your political stance?

Spot on Eric! Now there is a real issue!

why? Their job is to listen to the people, not act in the interest of their demographic. I dont go to the polling booth looking for a white male under 25, I’ve voted for women who I feel could represent me. If half the population are right wing, half the Dail should be right wing, if 20% are Socialist, 20% of the Dail should be from the Workers Party. Do you think we should have 20 seats reerved for pensioners too?

So what you’re saying is when democracy doesn’t bring results that a % of the population are happy with, then the government should discard democracy to satisy the % of people who think the outcome should be different?

What I am saying is simply this. To an extent, men don’t understand women, and women don’t understand men. Also, the able-bodied don’t understand the disabled etc etc etc. A democratic system cannot work unless it has all voices present in it. A system in which policies for the disabled are decided upon only by the able-bodied cannot work. And so it is with women’s issues being overwhelmingly decided by men, or indeed vice-versa.

Ya but democracy is democracy Deirdre. The ironic thing here is I actually would love if there was more women in politics, God knows they definitely wouldn’t have made such a hames of the place. My argument is, even with that knowledge, there is no fairer system than leaving a completely open voting system where there are no quotas, no minimum thresholds, nothing and whoever wins the most votes, wins. Once you start imposing minimum thresholds or start forcing anyones hand with who should be put forward or who they should vote for, for whatever reason, democracy loses and nothing less. With all the ravings of people who want more integration or want quotas or what have you, they are missing some key points. 1) All these people want equality for every citizen, no matter what sex, colour or creed, however, theoretically by requesting for more integration or quotas or what have you, they in fact want preferential treatment for their particular group. That is not equality! 2) People claim that women / the gay community / the travelling community have to be integrated more and recognised as citizens just as much as your average Irish Catholic, however, by pushing an integration / quota agenda, surely they themselves are the only ones highlighting the difference. I find sex / race / sexual preference is not even on my list when assessing someone, even though I am told I think otherwise by some people with agendas, yet it’s these very people who claim everyone is the same, are the ones highlighting the differences?

So Deirdre can you give me an example of where we are currently failing the disabled or female community? And I know people are probably going to jump down my throat with the cuts to the disabled in Budget 2012, but that’s my case in point, it was reversed. The Government, of which 0 out of 166 are disabled, listened to their voters, realised the error of their ways, and reversed the decision.

“A democratic system cannot work unless it has all voices present in it”

Wrong. A democratic system cant work unless all voices are listened to. I dont care if the Dail is full of disabled black lesbians as long as they are willing to listen to my concerns as a voter.

Yes let’s have everybody in there, that’s completely logical. Men, women, disabled, non-disabled, travellers (both settled and non of course), white, black, tall, short etc etc and they can all have their say from their perspective. That would be great. Did you know a camel is a horse designed by commitee?

When EVERY election has a hugely disproportionate number of male candidates, we have what amounts to a de facto systematic institutionalised gender quota system, yet you are against gender quotas? I don’t buy it!

How is an 86% of candidates from 50% of the population be considered good for democracy?

@Deirdre: please run for election. I might vote for you if have good ideas.

Thank you, though I’m far from convinced politics is a meritocracy.

“How is an 86% of candidates from 50% of the population be considered good for democracy?”

Because Deirdre, in politics, men don’t act in the interests of men, and women in the interests of women. they act in the interest of their voters because they need their support to survive (see my earlier comment about disabled budget cuts). thats how democracy works, as long as everyone gets a vote they’re represented, regardless of whether or not someone who looks like them or has the same downstairs plumbing is representing their constituency. Think of all the progress women have had in the last 50 years regarding equality, none of that happened with a higher than 20% share of the Dail being female: its because the men that were there listened to them as voters and acted in their interests.

And men running in disproportionately high numbers in election is no more a de facto quota system than the disproportionate number of women in teaching. Its due to choice, and women are choosing not to, 9% of Independent candidates are women, compared to 18% of party candidates. Women dont want to be politicians any more than men want to be teachers.

Do men in politics look out for women? Of course they do! I mean, most men love women! And similarily for women looking out for men. Which leads me to wonder if a more gender balanced government might actually be better for men.

But the fact remains that the people who most understand men’s issues are men, and the people who most understand women’s issues are women.

Men don’t choose to be teachers? If so, then how come most schools have a man as their headmaster?

In any case, I really don’t understand what is this resistance to the idea that those who represent the people should be representative of the people. There are clearly some institutionalised ingrained systems or somesuch in place at the moment that prevents that from happening. We’ve been hoping for decades that the problem would sort itself out “organically” – that is clearly never going to happen – it’s time for positive action.

“Men don’t choose to be teachers? If so, then how come most schools have a man as their headmaster?”

Yes some men do, I wasnt claiming that there are no male teachers, just that there were fewer male than female.

“In any case, I really don’t understand what is this resistance to the idea that those who represent the people should be representative of the people.”

The resistance is that its undemocratic, it took us milennia to actually have a say in our country’s affairs and a lot of people believe its being taken away. But why are you so insistent women aren’t being represented, what is fundamentally flawed about the argument I’ve been throwing at you that claims that because women can vote too politicians aim to represent them as much as men? I dont think any men felt less politically represented under the Presidency of Mary MacAleese.

And I stand by my hypothesis that women dont enter by choice, is it an institutionalised ingrained system that there arent enough male nurses? Politics is a job just like anything else, we pay people to sweep our streets, fix our cars, and look after our national affairs. Some jobs are male dominated, it doesnt mean they ignore the needs of women, do you think male doctors give preferential treatment to their male patients?