Before the collapse of the Soviet empire, party officials would
handpick the candidates for office. Since all the candidates were
members of the Communist party, the outcome of the election was never in
doubt.
This way, everyone was happy. The Communist party could maintain its
grip on the workings of government. And the Soviet citizens could
believe that they had participated in an open and free election.
But when the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, the perverse notion of
rigging the elections did not go away. Because just four years later,
the Beijing Women's Conference approved a quota policy that women should
constitute a minimum of 30% of elected officials.
Of course, radical feminists prefered to not use the "Q" word, so they
used Orwellian euphemisms like "promoting women's participation in the
democratic processes" and "assuring that women's voices are heard."
So now, with a wink and a nod from their United Nations sponsors,
feminists around the world are pushing hard for election quotas. Their
complaint: women represent
only 14% of
national elected officials.
In some countries, quotas have been installed by individual political
parties. For example in Sweden, the Social Democratic Party began to
require that its slate of candidates reflect a 50-50 gender balance.
In France, a constitutional amendment was approved in 2000 requiring
that 50% of persons nominated by each party be female. In Argentina, 30%
of candidates on the slate are required by law to be female.
But gender feminists still were not placated, because this strategy
still allows the electorate to vote for the person believed to be most
qualified -- 50% female candidates does not necessarily translate into
50% female elected officials.
For example in France, after the 2002 National Assembly elections,
women held only 12% of the national seats, even with the constitutional
requirement for half female candidates.
And in Islamic countries, male and female voters routinely give the
nod to male candidates over their female rivals.
So in true socialist style, feminists now want to require that a set
number of seats be reserved exclusively for women. In India, 33% of
national positions must now be filled by women, regardless of the
candidates' qualifications or voter preference. In Tanzania, the female
quota is 20%. In Kosovo, it's 28%. In Pakistan, 33% of seats must be
filled by women.
But the problem with election quotas is they rig the election to
achieve a pre-determined outcome. They represent the very antithesis of
democracy. As the corrupt politician Boss
Tweed once put it, "I don't
care who does the electing just so long as I do the nominating."
There are many
good reasons why women do not represent half of all
elected officials. All
too often, female politicians fall prey to feminist groupthink. And
according to a recent Time magazine article,
gender quotas are meeting
with growing resistance.
In Denmark, several parties had embraced 40% quotas in the 1980s. But
later, female politicians objected to the rule, saying it was
unnecessary. In 1996 the maternalistic quota was dropped.
Two years ago, East Timor, a neighbor of Indonesia, approved a new
election law. Despite heavy pressure from feminists around the world,
the law rejected a provision that would have required 30% female quotas.
Maybe the feminist-socialists should take heed of the time-honored
truth that democratic government should be "of the people, by the
people, and for the people."
