Imani's free-pass fallacy

Troy Caine , Contributor

I AM not always in agreement with much of what is generally expounded by The Gavel, but I must commend the column by Daraine Luton in The Gleaner of March 10 regarding the gender-neutral quota system proposed in Parliament by Senator Imani Duncan-Price.

It is truly astounding that anyone would want to promote such an artificial method to get more women into politics. All of the loquacious mumbo jumbo about patriarchy, power dynamics, etc., can neither justify a free-pass system in our politics, nor guarantee any improvement in the quality of representation by women. Women have indeed made magnificent strides in the business world, but how does that necessarily translate into better female political service and representation than that of the men?

Take our present situation in Jamaica. Has the fact that we have a woman prime minister made any significant difference in the country's productivity, its economic condition, the burgeoning state of poverty, or the daily escalating rate of crime and violence?

Equality from hard work

I am all for gender equality in our politics, but this must be accomplished through women's dedication, hard work and a commitment to serve as acknowledged by the voters, whether they came up through the ranks of the grass roots, or from some avenue of professional endeavour.

None of the women thus far, successful or otherwise, has done it through any freebie system. Indeed, such a system would be grossly unfair to all those great women like Iris Collins, Rose Leon, Iris King, Esme Grant, Enid Bennett, Dr Mavis Gilmour and Portia Simpson Miller, who, as the song says, were all prepared to do what the guys did and "still be a lady".

Women are not scarce in politics because of structural impediment. Their numbers are small because, for a variety of reasons, they initially revealed a high level of trepidation towards the political process, which has clearly minimised their participation.

However, the few who have not allowed anyone or anything to intimidate their political engagement are the ones who have succeeded. What assurance is there that allowing women free passes to political office is likely to mitigate any female apprehension?

Continuing to ride that myth, Senator Duncan-Price and others speak as if someone or something has prevented the full political participation of women. But sensible Jamaicans regard this as absolute nonsense. From the very outset, women had every opportunity for participation as men. Women such as Collins, Leon, King, Grant and Bennett were never in awe of men in politics. They took them on, whipped them soundly in tough constituencies, and served with pride and dignity. Some, like noted educator Edith Dalton James, Gladys Longbridge and Myrtle G. Edwards, never made it to Headquarters House, but their political courage was never in doubt. However, others, like the great Amy Bailey who was a founding member of the PNP, stayed away from representational politics when singularly she could have become one of the most significant inspirations to other women aspiring to enter the system.

Ironically, it took the PNP 15 years to have its first woman elected to the House of Representatives (when Iris King first won in 1959), and up to the end of the '80s, lagged well behind the JLP (5 to 11) in terms of elected female membership in the House. Eventually, the PNP overtook the JLP (20 to 15), and with Rose Leon and Verna Parchment joining their ranks and Sharon Hay-Webster switching to the JLP, their margin further improved to 21 to 14.

As the dialogue about the need for more women in politics intensifies, it is also interesting to recall the media's torrid criticism of the JLP's large number of female candidates in the 2011 election, purely, it seemed, out of envy that once more they were outmanoeuvring the PNP in that area by as much as 13 to six.

Now, even as a PNP senator leads the charge for the expanded involvement of women, members of her party are in the process of ousting the female PNP mayor of Lucea, just a short time after getting rid of the female mayor of Morant Bay. How are Jamaicans expected to view these mixed signals coming from a 75-year-old party in power and led by a woman?

The present situation where 35 per cent of the parliamentary seats in 2011 were contested by women, and 12.7 per cent won by them, is actually a great improvement by women, whose upward trend really started in earnest in 1993. That is a long, long way from the earlier years when the first five general elections (1944-1962) yielded only one victorious woman per election. And although the JLP had seven women in the Lower House and Jeanette Grant-Woodham as the first female president of the Senate (1983-1989), it was not until the early '90s when the PNP ruled that the numbers started to pick up, climaxing in 1997 and 2011 when both elections each produced eight female winners.

Numbers misinterpreted

I
must point out that, contrary to Senator Duncan-Price's figures, it is
NOT "835 persons elected to Parliament in the 70 years since 1944" with
67 (eight per cent) being females. To put it into context, the real
figures are 362 different individuals who have been elected to the House
since 1944, with women accounting for only 35 (9.7 per
cent).

The figure of 835 merely represents the total
number of seats contested in the 16 general elections since '44, and
then you have to consider the large quantity of members who were
re-elected for numerous terms in so many of those seats. In addition, 41
seats have been contested in 41 parliamentary by-elections, bringing
the actual total to 876, and of the 2,190 candidates who contested all
of those seats, only 205 (9.4 per cent) have been women, of which just
71 (8.1 per cent) have been successful.

Another case
is the demographics being trumpeted to justify political freebies for
women. According to the 2011 Population Census by STATIN, the excess of
women over men has had a considerable reduction, from 40,538 in 2001 to
20,917 in 2011. In fact, only three of the 14 parishes now boast a
female majority, namely St Andrew, St Catherine and St James, largely
because of their high urban population percentage. So, with only a one
per cent difference (50.5 to 49.5), the lack of any preponderance of
females over males hardly makes it a potent point in support of such a
bias to women when the demographics do not countenance that
view.

More flexibility in
Senate

Naturally, there will always be more
flexibility in attaining some semblance of equity in gender
representation in the Senate, since anyone can be recommended for
appointment by the major parties. Getting to be selected and elected by
the people (outside of a garrison or a die-hard seat) is an entirely
different ball game. Women must continue to go through the system the
normal way and be accepted, elected or appointed on the basis of merit
as determined by the people and not some quota
system.

Perhaps Senator Duncan-Price needs to set a
personal example in the next general election by stepping out from the
protected cover of the Senate, persuade her party to post her in a
marginal constituency where she can join in the cut and thrust,
cultivate the art of organisation and campaign strategy, and learn how
to truly represent the people like all the great women before had to. It
shouldn't be too difficult, for, politically, as Eddie Seaga would say,
she's from "good stock".

Troy Caine is a political
historian. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and
trodencorp@gmail.com.