Women don’t want quotas

My, my, what a hornets’ nest the item on quotas turned out to be. Last Tuesday, The Times certainly caused a stir – albeit in the wrong direction – with the piece entitled Women Want Quotas. Undoubtedly, the categorical title was instrumental for the article going viral on the internet and becoming the butt of so many online comments.

...if we do not want to continue losing out on all the investment in women’s talents... we should take the positive action road- Helena Dalli

Some remarks were incredibly primitive, others plain misogynistic. The tone of contempt with which this topic was “discussed” was appallingly symptomatic of this mindset. Incongruities and non sequiturs abounded.

Evidently, some of those who commented had simply read the heading, Women Want Quotas, and dashed to the keyboard, without bothering to read the content. You could feel the regressive, conservative establishment bearing down on you.

So, let’s start at the very beginning: Women don’t want quotas. Our society needs quotas and, sometimes, what we need isn’t always what we want but we must work for what we need nonetheless.

To say that women remain under-represented in politics and most of public life is simply a fact. In order to address this situation, our society – like any other modern society that wanted to shed its traditional patriarchal culture – needs to take temporary positive action. Look at the countries that have moved on and now have adequate participation rates of women at decision-making levels, see where they started from and how they got to where they are.

This has nothing to do with placing incompetent women in places where they do not deserve to be, as was implied in many of the online comments. We have enough women who are qualified, experienced and merit to be in decision-making positions. We just have to use this talent.

Now, if you want to call filling the posts on half a government board with capable women a quota, then call it a quota. There is though no quota for men and government boards are full of them. This measure will be in place until it becomes normal practice for those who appoint people, to select also from the vast pool of eligible women. That is why I told The Times that quotas are a necessary evil for the period of time necessary.

Be that as it may, the competence argument reminds of how, many years ago (precisely in 2004), Astrid Lulling – an MEP and a member on the EU committee for women’s rights – broached the quota issue with Lawrence Gonzi. The Prime Minister had said that he was not in favour of this kind of positive action since positions might be filled by women who are not fully qualified. To this, Ms Lulling had promptly replied: Since when has mediocrity barred men from occupying office?

She went on to say that if, by some mischance, incompetent women are appointed, they would surely not be enough to balance out the number of incompetent men who have been filling decision-making posts for centuries.

The Prime Minister is aware of this situation. When speaking with American Ambassador Molly Bordonaro, Dr Gonzi had voiced his concern on the dearth of talent around him and the difficulty he encountered when choosing his Cabinet and it was mostly men who were at his disposal.

This brings me to elective posts. The hackneyed argument that puts me to sleep was made over and over again last Tuesday: if women vote for women, then half the Parliament should be composed of women. Wrong. Women vote for women and men just like men vote for women and men.

The problem lies in the deficit when it comes to engaging women candidates. There has always been a disproportionately larger number of male candidates to female candidates. In proportion to the number of candidates, an equal number of women and men are elected. Thus, a much larger number of women candidates standing for election will improve the situation. We also know, though, that it is much harder to get women candidates than it is to get men to contest. Ask the political parties.

If there are no structures to support families where both parents are engaged in work outside the home, be it normal employment, voluntary work, politics, whatever, we will continue to lag behind other countries that are seriously trying to change the situation and are succeeding.

Unless there is also a critical mass of women in decision-making positions and a good representation of women in public life, we will continue to be Europe’s laggards. Many agree that this fact needs changing but, at the same time, resist the methods by which such change can be made to come about.

What we must all strive for is a better society: just and democratic, where the talents, experiences and qualifications of half the population are put to good use and not allowed go to waste.

If we can work this out without quotas, all the better. But we haven’t done it and look at where we are: at the bottom of the list with regard to women in Parliament; at the bottom of the list for women at decision-making level; at the bottom of the list when it comes to women’s employment. This, when we invest so much in women’s education and training, as should be done. Had this situation been in private business it would have closed down since we are getting very little or, at times, no return at all for our high investment.

It makes neither economic, nor social and not even political sense.

If we are happy with the situation as it is, then so be it. If the government thinks it is such a terrible risk to appoint capable and qualified women to its boardrooms, then it shouldn’t. It is only if we do not want to continue losing out on all the investment in women’s talents that we should take the positive action road. A road disliked by many but which has worked for others and should work for us.

helenadalli@gmail.com

Dr Dalli is shadow minister for the public service, government investments and gender equality.