The first lawyer I ever met was a woman. I can remember practically every detail of Ena Cremona’s austere offices in Valletta which I visited as a child. There were the maroon volumes of law books which she would select and review before imparting advice. There was the mahogany furniture. There was the sparseness of the surroundings.
However, the most vivid memory I have is of her – her no-nonsense and professional approach. I was too young to understand the legal points she sought to make, nor could I understand the legal terminology she used – the civil law issues she would advise about were beyond my ken as an eight-year-old and not remotely interesting to a little girl. Still – I was left with the vivid impression of a serious professional. She was clearly somebody who knew perfectly what she was on about and would go about representing her clients well.
My childhood impression was shared by many. Along the years, Ena Cremona was nominated to high office, serving as a judge in the European Union General Court for two terms. Had she ever entertained the notion of contesting an election, I would have voted for her in a heartbeat. I would have done so because I thought her to be practical, professional and competent.
Dr Cremona’s gender would have never entered the equation, just as it never entered the equation during successive elections when I voted for candidates regardless of their gender. I am under no illusion that a person’s chromosomes make them more or less worthy of office – or more suited to represent my needs and circumstances. Which is why I am very wary of any artificial methods of pushing any gender or group into office, other than by creating equal opportunities for all. For me – quotas – by any other name signify meddling in the democratic process and a way of thwarting the expression of voters.
So I read the recently published Consultation Document about The Gender Balance in Parliament Reform with some trepidation. The declared aim of the process is to give an impetus to gender balance in Parliament. The main thrust of the document is that regarding the Gender Corrective Mechanism. In a nutshell, this introduces a new mechanism (after the usual attribution of votes) to make the percentage of MPs of the “under-represented” sex in Parliament closest to 40 per cent. This could result in a maximum of 12 new seats for the “under-represented” sex.
Why is gender the only factor being considered as making for optimal representation?
Since women are presently under-represented, this correction mechanism will first be applicable for women candidates. I am uneasy about this, for several reasons but mainly because it is not truly representative of the voters’ will. Why should an extra 12 MPs be foisted on the electorate to make up some elusive balance? If voters want to vote for female candidates they will do so – as they did for the very capable Miriam Dalli, Marlene Mizzi, Therese Comodini Cachia and Roberta Metsola in MEP elections.
If women (and men) voted in droves for female candidates in a forum where elected MEPs will have an exhausting and technical role commuting between two countries, why shouldn’t voters be trusted to elect only the candidates they prefer in the local forum? More to the point, if the proposed reform is about inclusivity and wider representation as a democratic ideal, why is there no provision for the removal of barriers to other political parties other than the PN and the Labour Party?
Why is gender the only factor being considered as making for optimal representation? How will taxpayers feel about financing a greatly expanded Parliament with MPs with uncapped pensions while normal citizens have to settle for a capped pension? Will they find the gender balance a satisfactory trade-off?
The more unsettling proposals of the document are those slipping in State financing for political parties. It is being suggested that political parties receive funds for “the recruitment, promotion and training of the candidates pertaining to the under-represented sex”. This sets off a huge number of alarm bells. In the first place, the amount of this State-funding is not quantified. This leads the door wide open for unregulated handouts by the parties in Parliament to themselves.
They may have to submit to some form of gender audit, but there is no specified limit to the funding which political parties may dish out to themselves – simply for promoting an ideal which they profess to espouse themselves. This is clearly the carrot being dangled over the cash-strapped Nationalist Party to support these constitutional amendments.
And on this note – why are political parties the only entities to be financially rewarded for recruiting, promoting or training women? Why isn’t your small-time employer similarly rewarded (instead of being sanctioned for not adhering to equality measures)? Why aren’t NGOs financed for the same reasons? Why aren’t large institutions such as unions and the Church also paid for the same reasons? Political parties are not the only societal agencies of change. It is insulting to the electorate to have to fund parties they do not necessarily support for measures they should be undertaking anyway.
The State funding becomes even more objectionable when it is viewed in the light of both the Nationalist and Labour parties persistent breach of company law.
As reported last Sunday none of the subsidiary companies of the two major political parties had submitted audited accounts with the MFSA, as is required by law. Why should we reward this lack of transparency by throwing more cash at the parties?
How about this for equality – that we hold everyone accountable in the same way regardless of whether they’re political parties or normal citizens? That we hold political parties equally culpable for administrative and legal breaches, as your everyday citizen? That we demand the same incentives for beleaguered employers as those enjoyed by political parties. As for gender equality – an aim to aspire to. But meritocracy? Now that would be the real game changer in Maltese society.
This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece