Up to ten percent of our population are left-handed, so should 10 percent of our political representatives also be left handed. This seems ridiculous, but is there something significantly different about gender or race that justifies a quota when it would be absurd for left handers?Does the gender or race of a political leader matter, or is what matters their views and competence? After all, a progressive male may be more supportive of say, childcare than a reactionary female.
Nowadays, society is too large- in terms of civilian population- to sustain a participatory democracy whereby everyone congregates to make important decisions as a single unit. This system has been replaced by political representation, where others are selected to represent us on our behalf. Forgetting accountability, it is important that these decision-makers, are an accurate reflection of society at large. But in what sense are they truly representative. We tend to think that they are representative if they roughly correspond to voting patterns for political parties. But to what extent are they representative in terms of gender and race?
Essentially it is a question of ideas and presence. Currently, the determining factors are based around whether representatives share our policy priorities, or the key features on the political agenda. However, some would say that fair representation demands equality of presence as well. They claim that quotas are needed to ensure that the playing field for those entering the sphere of politics is level. This is based on the idea that women for example have different experiences to males, and have a unique insight into society. By this logic, it is imperative that they are involved in the political process, so that this segment of society is accurately represented.
Most would not beg to differ on this topic. But when it comes to quotas- an apparatus for guaranteeing that a certain group can attain a minimum proportion of positions- they become more sceptical. They see quotas as a warped target- something inherently anti-meritocratic- which has no objective value. Yet gender inequality still exists. It does so, because often the established circles are exclusive, and can be a men's club. Women accordingly find it difficult to find a foothold on the ladder of progress, and are instead stuck languishing in the realms of underachievement. In addition, a formal prompt (in the form of a quota) can be required to offer the extra persuasion that discrimination of this sort no longer exists. Quotas are only one example of affirmative action, but their use has been met with unmitigated success. Norway have implemented a quota mandating a minimum of 40 percent women on all boards of management. This has radically changed the appearance of these previously-chauvinistic territories, leading to increased female participation and application.
Quotas are not designed to discriminate against white-middle-class males, but rather to offer a helping hand to those who would otherwise not find themselves with equality of opportunity. There is nothing stipulating that they must be a permanent fixture. On the contrast, they can be temporary, and removed as soon as they have achieved their objective.
Admittedly, there are dangers. Namely the beneficiaries of the quota system become free-riders, knowing that their very presence meets a target. Alternatively, the recipients feel degraded at having been chosen simply on the basis of their skin colour or sex. although, studies have shown these concerns have not materialised.
Quotas conform to the principle of gender balance. It argues for a fair and equal distribution that gives access to power and influence. The argument that quotas act to distort reality lacks a sense of history. If equality really matters, then it is our duty to take action so that it is more than an ideological whim.
No comments:
Post a Comment