TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 8 °C Thursday 20 June, 2013

Column: Ireland’s political system must embrace diversity to foster justice

Paying attention to multiple, often mutually reinforcing disadvantages, can help us understand injustices committed against marginalised members of our society, writes Clara Fischer.

Image: spectrumblue via Shutterstock

RECENT EVENTS HAVE highlighted the inability of a largely monolithic and unrepresentative legislature to take decisions that are in the interest of people who are other than them. The overwhelmingly white, male Dáil, with its members predominantly selected from a narrow spectrum of dynastic families and professions, has proven itself to be incapable of acting justly toward all those historically excluded and marginalised. We have witnessed spectacular political blunders and injustices, for instance, in the handling of the Savita Halappanavar death and subsequent establishment of inquiries; in the refusal to introduce abortion legislation as mandated by the Irish people; in the treatment of Magdalene survivors; and in economic policy measures disproportionately disadvantaging women.

While individual representatives sometimes try to constructively deal with issues predominantly affecting women, it is doubtful whether political institutions so explicitly eschewing diversity can adequately deal with such issues. Thankfully, as research from other jurisdictions shows, we can be hopeful that this may change somewhat in the future, given the introduction of gender quotas at the next general election.

‘We accept systemic poverty in our society’

What of those marginalised groups, though, who have been historically disadvantaged owing to other factors, such as race, ethnicity, or class? Incidences of racial hate crimes are rarely treated as a political priority, and we accept, as a matter of course, systemic economic inequality and poverty in our society. Added to this is the fact that people often have complex identities, which means they may be subject to multiple, perhaps reinforcing, disadvantages. The sociologist, Patricia Hill Collins, describes such people as being subject to “interlocking systems of oppression”, as their lives are marked by “intersectionality”, that is, they are disadvantaged by virtue of their gender, race, and class, for instance.

Examples of the negative impact of intersectionality and mutually reinforcing oppressive structures are easy to find in Ireland. The issue of abortion, for example, is instructive. Many women who need abortions are unable to travel to the UK due to immigration or asylum status, meaning that race/ethnicity and gender intersect in ways that distinctly disadvantage migrant women, ultimately resulting in a denial of their reproductive rights. Similarly, there is ample evidence to suggest that people who were placed in Magdalene institutions were put there because they were poor. The ideology of ‘fallen women’, coupled with a disdain for poor people, thus resulted in women, and in some instances girls, being incarcerated by virtue of their gender and their class.

A homogenous legislature has not served us well

When understood like this, it becomes clear that intersectionality can be a powerful tool in drawing out the complexities involved in injustices committed against people who have been and continue to be marginalised. It is essential that political decisions are made with regard to such complexities. What better way to do so than by actually including those people in political decision-making, whose lived experience is intersectional, and who therefore have first-hand knowledge of the many ways in which disadvantage functions with regard to gender, race, or class, for instance?

As the examples of abortion and the containment of women in Magdalene laundries highlight, a homogenous legislature has not served us well, given that we are living with the legacies of injustices committed for several decades. If we wish to not repeat the mistakes of the past, then we need to include historically marginalised populations in political decision-making, paying particular attention to intersectionality, and the specific inequalities and injustices that can arise there from. As a country coming to terms with widespread, systemic injustices committed against young people, women, working class people, and the various intersectional identities of these and many others, we must ensure that diversity takes centre-stage in the political institutions and processes governing our lives.

Prof Patricia Hill Collins will be speaking on intersectionality and social justice in a public lecture organised by UCD Women’s Studies on 20 March. Dr Clara Fischer is a co-ordinator of the Irish Feminist Network.

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

Comments (61 Comments)

  • tom 26/02/13 #

    I’m not in favour of gender quotas as this results in people being appointed to make up the numbers instead of the best person for the role.

    Reply
    • I agree, it’s a nice idea on paper but overall a bad idea as the wrong people get appointed.

      Reply
    • Direct Democracy is the way to go. Appointing politicians is heading in the USSR direction. DirectDemocracy.ie Swiss system for Ireland.

      Reply
    • I agree. Demo- People. Kratos- power. Democracy is the best way forward. Giving unelected people power is what the EU is. I don’t like it.
      If you want more women in power then create empowerment for them to run. Educate society on values and the elected representatives will reflect those values. I agree that women need to be more represented but society needs to be educated on those values. We also need sensible women. A woman is not enough, she needs to represent hr electorate honestly. Regina O’Connor would not have the best interest of her people at heart. Do not expect to change politicians. Gender or ethnic quotas is, I’m afraid tyranny. It is not democracy.
      @LiveIreland- I also like the theory of Direct Democracy. However there are many challenges in reaching consensus , especially in this party mindset population.

      Reply
    • Sean 26/02/13 #

      Exactly the best candidate should get the job regardless of gender. Thats actual equality not discriminating based on fulfilling the obligations of a quota.

      Reply
    • Most Irish politicians are elected not appointed. The quota system that has been legislated for is for Dáil *candidates*. Parties will have to select a better balance of candidates and the electorate will still have their choice at the ballot box.

      Reply
    • We currently have a quota system in place. A geographic one. We don’t get to vote for who we think is the best candidate, but one from our electoral area ‘to make up the numbers’. This is about enfranchisement & representation, thus there is no reason why gender quotas could not be introduced.

      Reply
    • Sean 26/02/13 #

      The geographical system we currently have has a lot to do with the mess we are in with people who are elected locally making decisions that imapact heavily on the country as a whole but only being held accountable in their local area. In my opinion if we are to elect people to represent the interests of a particular geographical area or indeed to represent those of a particular gender then that is all they should be representatives promoting the issues that affect the people they represent. The decision makers should be elected indiscriminately based on how the public view their ability to best serve the country in their particular role. I think this kind of a system would go along way to ensuring the best candidate for the job gets the position.

      Reply
    • you say “What of those marginalised groups, though, who have been historically disadvantaged owing to other factors, such as race, ethnicity, or class”

      the only people being marginlised in Ireland today are the native people who happen to be white because they are white , if your white and Irish nowadays the burdon of proof seems to rest with you , you are somehow guilty of oppressing minorities and taking away their rights , we are all cast as racist and Xenophobic , even in a recent (4th) report by the European Commission against racism and intolerance our Gardai were branded as racist , it was implied they were engaging in racial profiliing without any factual evidence and the recommendation was that we legislate against such acts that have not been even proven and set up more anti discrimination bodies.

      Reply
    • Do real people actually talk like this columnist? That is a clownish article.l

      Reply
  • The problem with gender quotas is that it makes big assumptions about the existence and cause of the inequality.

    In particular, it completely ignores the possibility of women being naturally more inclined to take up extremely challenging and time consuming roles that can get in the way of raising families.

    When you look at top level management in most companies and take a look at politics, you see it is clearly male dominated. But there also seems to be a small pool of women who are in a position to put themselves forward for those types of roles.

    Women should be given every chance to compete for those types of roles if they want to, but the fact that you are always going to have x percentage of women who do not want to do that means that you are always going to have a smaller pool of women who are prepared to enter such roles. You are never going to get 50/50 male and female company CEOs for example.

    Having said that, more can be done. If men at least had the option to take paternity leave the career burden of maternity leave for career minded women could be reduced. Who knows to what degree men would take on the responsibilty, but it would be a good start for them to at least have the option!

    Reply
  • The political class here are incapable of acting justly towards any member of society, not just those marginalised. We have not a single decent politician in the dail, every one of them are liars. Generations of crooks, haughey, aherne etc, but the crooks of today are far worse. Gilmore, Noonan, Howlin, Kenny ignore their people, bow to technocrats and cut and slash everything from social welfare for the needy to wages for frontline, all to pay bankers against the peoples will. Childrens rights referendum? Seanad referendum? The real referendum needed here is bank debt, but you never here them mention that. A bunch of cowardly crooked fools run this country who will sell your soul to do whatever europe tells them to do.

    Reply
    • snooch 26/02/13 #

      Your not being very just or fair yourself by by saying we don’t have one single decent member of the Dail. Have you ever considered engaging them and seeing individuals beliefs before making ridiculous sweeping generalisations that sound like a headline from the sun newspaper?

      Reply
    • Perhaps you can point out the member you have in mind? In fairness though, is he or she going to challenge their own party legally and morally about this dail selling out every single part of this states people and their dignity for bankers to get paid? Or is the same individual content to sit on his or her arse up in ldinster house while thousandz leave these shores annually.?

      Reply
    • snooch 26/02/13 #

      Stephen Donnelly? Regularly on the radio an tv communicating his views. Never contradictory, common sense, logical, just and fair.

      I suppose its easier for the likes of you to come on here for a morning rant about how enda kenny stole your shoes when you were in school or how you saw Leo varadkar burning the tricolour in a ceremony in the basement of the german parliament than actually think about what your saying.

      Reply
    • I made no reference to flag burning or shoe sales. Stephen donnelly does appear to be decent, so I ask you this. Do you fully beleive an independent with no party and therefore in no fear of ever being a real decision maker has any need to tell the truth? Look whos in there now, look at gilmore, labours way etc, no student fee increase?? Then they get in and its manifesto in the bin and ram through whatever they are told from europe. Id like to see stephen donnelly in power myself, but come on now, are you believing he wouldnt do the same?

      Reply
    • snooch 26/02/13 #

      I absolutely believe he wouldnt do the same. As I do for shane ross. As I do for luke ming flanaghan. All Independents. No vested.interests. All come across as having morals and being in politics to work for people as opposed to milking them. Its up to people to make these changes away from the whip party politics crap with civil war parties.

      I can guarantee populist ranting on the journal about how every TD in Ireland is this and that wont help these changes.

      Reply
    • Believing in politicians here is something id rush to do. Shane ross the man who pushed for seanie fitzpatrick to be the finance minister of this country. Come down out of the trees will you.

      Reply
    • snooch 26/02/13 #

      Sorry Paul. I’ll just go back to ranting under every story then. Hopefully Richard Bruton has a job announcement somewhere later so I can slate it.

      Reply
    • snooch 26/02/13 #

      Would you ever consider being a politician yourself? Im sure the troika need to be told to come down outa the trees and listen to paul

      Reply
    • Question still stands you believe in shane ross, the man who wanted fitzpatrick for finance minister?

      Reply
    • snooch 26/02/13 #

      I bellieve that he wouldn’t be afraid to vote against things he doesnt believe in, whether right or wrong.

      Reply
  • Jimmy 26/02/13 #

    Considering the overwhelming majority of the population is white…is it any surprise that most of out Representatives are white also….pointless article.

    Reply
  • There are injustices being committed against most parts of society not just the specific ones called out. Rather than suggesting “positive discrimination” which is what I think you are suggesting, how about suggesting to people that we change the people we put into local council and government, as we “freely” vote them in in the first place.

    Reply
    • There’s no such thing as “positive discrimination”. Discrimination is either being practised or not. Whether its “positive” or “negative” is entirely subjective. I’d say it’s never positive to the person losing out unfairly

      Reply
  • Here we go again with gender quotas and this site. I have to say I’m becoming very concerned at how thejournal.ie is supposed to be a news aggregator i.e. but is nakedly biased when it comes to the selection of opinion pieces. I understand that they are pandering to the sensibilities of their trendy early 20s ABC1 audience and using the pieces as link-bait and comment bait to drive up hits, but there has definitely been a unbalanced and increasingly anti-government, anti-israeli, leftist and strongly-feminist-bordering-on-misandric stance taken over the past few months, and this has been discussed elsewhere on on the web.

    I agree that there is huge inequality in the makeup of the political class in Ireland, and that this probably has an adverse effect on decision-making at political and government level. However, a gender quota is fundamentally undemocratic. It undermines the right for parties to select candidates internally and without interference, because a highly ideological, arrogant, patronising yet organised and vocal minority of politicians and lobbyists feel that they know better than voters and that voters should be told how to vote. It is liberal-leftism at its most meddlesome and intrusive.

    The advocating political parties could, if they chose to, change their own rules to implement such quotas internally, without signing it into law for everyone. Instead they chose to impose their view of gender balance on other political parties by law. The absurdity of a temporary Dáil majority using taxpayers’ money to bend the rules of democracy so they can manipulate election outcomes, to suit their own particular agenda, and get the “right people” into power cannot be understated. The electorate can, believe it or not, actually make up their mind about the situation without the meddlesome poking of the Labour/FG ideologues and, at the end of the day, if gender imbalance is not a problem for voters, it isn’t a problem for the government.

    Gender quotas are also unconstitutional. The Irish Constitution ensures that the political process at every level, including voting, standing for and being elected to office, is open to women and men alike, and accords to all of us, the irrevocable right to stand for election and to choose our public representatives in Dail Eireann. There is simply no constitutional basis for gender quotas to financially disadvantage political parties which employ a candidate selection strategy that he or his party don’t agree with. Gender quotas have simply inserted enforced discrimination into our legislation.

    As one commenter said before me, gender quotas make very big assumptions about the causes of inequality, and also assume that the gender/socioeconomic makeup of an elected body should mirror that of its electorate. The foundation for this assumption is never explained. It also seems to assume that adding more women will automatically improve governance in Ireland, and that men are responsible for all the corruption and incompetence. Beverley Cooper Flynn, Mary Coughlan, and former Fine Gael Councillor Anne Devitt are proof women can be just as incapable and/or corrupt in politics as their male peers.

    There are other, arguably more harmful imbalances within the make-up of the current government. Why are we focusing on one? There is an abundance of white, middle and upper-class, Irish, heterosexual male teachers, solicitors, barristers, over the age of 40 in the Dáil. Why aren’t there more representatives for the immigrant population in Ireland? Why is Irish politics a gerontocracy where whoever hangs around the longest gets the power? Why aren’t there more economists, sociologists , accountants and business outsiders involved in policy development, as opposed to an army of unseen, faceless, overpaid civil servants?

    The truth is that gender quotas are being implemented because the lobbyists and politicians behind them have been extremely vocal and organised, and equality is the now dominant political ideology of our age, but it’s not really anything to do with being equal in the true sense, it’s more a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease, and the definition of equality being completely arbitrary, depending on the people talking about it.
    The type of equality that Phil Hogan and the Irish feminist movement advocate is equality of outcome, for women, which disregards the individual skills, talents, and merits of men, in favour of creating a particular political situation, i.e. more women in the Dail. It’s the same type of “equality” which got us a law which says it’s illegal for insurance companies to charge women the same premium as men, despite overwhelming statistical evidence showing that women are less risky drivers.

    Contrast this with equality of opportunity, whereby men and women are given the same chances and opportunities when competing for political positions, but the outcome is determined by their own abilities and skills. This is the type of equality I espouse.

    Quotas set a dangerous precedent because once you begin, where do you end? What’s to stop quotas being introduced for immigrants, the under 40s, travellers, people from outside of Dublin; it really can be as arbitrary as you like. When you take the quota paradigm to it’s fullest extent, you end up with a circus-like situation where democracy is completely and utterly undermined, and whoever shouts the loudest gets the spoils.

    Quotas will simply tokenise female politicians, giving the impression that they were not selected on merit but on the basis of biology. The question could be raised of whether any Irish politicians are selected on merit, but that’s a different conversation. We’ve had more female representatives in the past than we do today, without quotas, especially with the PDs in the past, which implies that there are systemic and social causes of the poor number of female Irish politicians that could be addressed unilaterally and internally by political parties. For instance, the cost and time required to raise a young child is often cited as a barrier to entry in politics for women, so the introduction of proper statutory paternity leave could help lower or remove that barrier altogether. However, I suspect political parties have their own outmoded fears preventing them from doing this.

    Reply
    • The Journal definitely has a “slant” when it comes to opinion pieces. I would agree on the “feminist bordering on misandric” bit. In fact, I didn’t even know what misandry was really until a few months ago when I encountered one anti-male opinion piece after another on here and did some research on the wider web.

      They seem to have toned it down a bit recently, though. And to be fair, barring possibly the Irish Times, every media outlet has its particular political persuasion. Genuinely impartial news is a rarity.

      Reply
    • You’re missing the author’s point. It’s intersectionality that matters. White middle class women are inherently privileged, so incapable of making decisions which take the disadvantaged into account. You have to be non-white and/or working class as well. THAT’s where the quotas should be.

      No, you’re right. It’s still baloney.

      Reply
    • Wow so many people completely missing the point it’s hard to know where to start. To those crying misandry, you crack me up. Also, what’s the value of equality of opportunity when it doesn’t translate into equal representation? This is due to a range of factors that we can sum up as patriarchy for simplicity’s sake. Quotas for candidate selection work to balance the scales and give voters the chance to elect more women.

      Reply
    • Concepts like “patriarchy” and “privilege”, which are the cornerstones of the feminist lexicon, turn out under scrutiny to be no more than rehashes of Marxist doctrine. They explain everything, therefore they explain nothing, no evidence is required to support them, and if you disagree it’s because your disagreement is inevitable and you can’t help it.

      It was nonsense in 1848 and it’s still nonsense now.

      Reply
    • “Also, what’s the value of equality of opportunity when it doesn’t translate into equal representation?”

      Or, to put it another way, when the people’s democratic choices don’t suit your political persuasion, you’ll damn well alter those choices so that whatever way they do vote, you’ll get a result that fits in with your own ideology.

      This sort of rubbish cheapens democracy – doesn’t matter if Saddam Hussein does it or Marxist gender warriors do it. The vote is diminished into something else. If people aren’t voting for the kind of politics you want, it’s up to you to get out and convince them otherwise. Rigging elections is the stuff of tyranny.

      Reply
    • Emma, equality of opportunity has it’s own inherent value. It doesn’t need to be qualified by an artificially produced “equal” result.

      Reply
    • Eric Chump — “This is the type of equality I espouse”

      You don’t espouse any kind of equality, just say it.

      Reply
    • thanks for a thoughtful and interesting response, Eric. Not much to add except to say that in reference to your mention of the PDs, you can be sure that where an advocate of quotas for women is concerned, it’s not a Mary Harney – or a Margaret Thatcher – that they have in mind for the job, but a more ideologically-specific type of woman.

      Reply
  • I think the article makes some fair points, and given the low proportion of women in politics there is definitely a problem. Whether someone gets voted in or not isn’t really the issue, rather that as only a very select minority are ever allowed to stand as candidates we (the electorate) don’t really get much choice in who we vote for.

    Democracy should aim to allow all of the people to have their say- our system is so select I don’t know who to vote for as they are all so similar.

    If there were a broader selection of candidates (e.g. more women, more travelers, more minorities) then we might have a more equitable society than the one we are currently stuck with- I didn’t vote for property developers, I didn’t support them in any way but thanks to our current democracy I’m paying for them.

    Reply
    • Why is the low proportion of women in politics a problem but the low proportion of men in teaching, nursing and Montessori care totally fine? There’s a low proportion of women in the fire brigade too, should we tamper with that?

      Reply
  • Ridiculous feminist crap. I coild express my feelings on this article in a more thought provoking manner but I believe that sums it up nicely.

    Reply
  • What a blatant diatribe of misandry. This author must have serious daddy issues. Imagine writing an article like that accusing women of being incapable if understanding the disadvantaged. The level of sexists discourse in the media of late is almost unbelievable.

    Reply
  • I really love it when people use warm, fuzzy, loved-up phrases like equality, justice and fairness when what they’re actually talking about is ripping up the democratic, electoral process that has been the cornerstone of Western Europe since world war 2.

    There’s a simple principle here. One person gets one vote and every adult can run for election. Taking that key principle apart or undermining it with caveats, whatever the stated or current intention, is unwise at best. We certainly shouldn’t do so because someone is able to hide an obvious agenda in warm and fuzzy language.

    Reply
  • This is a very ego centric article. How come only women sufferings mater?

    Reply
  • The ruling class live in a bubble ,and to some extent ,so do the different ,classe,s or people living on different level,s of pay ,to put it simple .
    The whole lot is getting shuck up and is terrifying people because they don’t trust the government
    The government type,s can replace their loss of income with expenses or such while the rest face the realities,s .To me extra living costs and lower wage,s result in a downturn
    If you can’t meet your mortgage ,go do a deal ,that,s what they say ,yet Noonan just submitted to a total
    payback .How can you trust him

    Reply
  • Got as far as “abortion” and decided to give this article a miss.. A case of mid-labelling I believe.

    Reply
  • No mention of discrimination towards the non-religious. There are no non-denominational schools in this country despite the second largest religious grouping on the census being “no religion”.

    Reply
  • Gender quotas are a very bad idea. How could a woman possibly be the best man for the job?

    Reply
  • An overwhelming white Dail – in Ireland? who’d have thought?!

    In any case, the only “diversity” that matters is the diversity of viewpoints and opinions, something we have in spades. Does that even matter to those for whom having a ‘representative’ arrangement of neatly defined types and categories of person, who all have their own clearly defined group identities, is what’s most important? Are we really going to accept the premise that a woman can’t be represented by a man, a heterosexual by a homosexual, able-bodied by disabled?

    Anyone who uses the elusive term “social justice” should be forced to explain what they mean by it.

    Reply
  • Were genda quotas not voted down at one of the Constitutional Conventions, recently?

    Reply
  • Great article

    Reply
  • That would be an ecumenical matter.

    Reply
  • Doesn’t work when the vast majority of the electorate are both naive and stupid.

    Reply
  • We should finally come to accept that sociopaths come in all colors and sexual identities.

    Reply

Add New Comment