Affirmative action undermines equality

Is creating quotas for women in parliament advancing gender equality?

As the elections draw closer, the nation continues to speculate on a number of issues ranging from the democratic future of the country to the management of the energy crisis. I would like to draw attention to a matter involving the structure of politics in Pakistan, specifically the policies governing the appointment of women to the national and provincial assemblies. As per Article 51 of the constitution, 60 out of the 342 seats in the National Assembly must be reserved for women. Similarly, 17 percent of the total number of seats in the four provincial assemblies must also be set aside for women, guaranteeing their participation in national politics. The creation of such a quota, known as affirmative action, is a policy instituted by the government/legislative body to ensure the participation and inclusion of minority groups in society. Affirmative action policies are preceded by the recognition that the group in question is marginalised and discriminated against and they seek to level the playing field by creating quotas to guarantee inclusion. While the involvement of women in politics is most definitely a positive thing, one cannot help but wonder whether the establishment of a quota is counterproductive and reaffirms the subordinate position of women in society, as they need crutches from the government to access positions of power. In an attempt to promote equality by force, affirmative action undermines the principles of democratic election and women’s efforts to achieve real equality. The election of women is often cast into doubt, with people tempted to ask, “Is the woman really outstanding or is she riding the coat tails of misguided social policy?”

Any policy that systematically separates one group of people from another contravenes the principles of equality as it reinforces difference—separating ‘women’s seats’ from ‘general seats’ is claiming that women are indeed the social ‘other’, a subgroup of the male public. Instead of focusing on meritocracy and their validity as politicians, people are drawn to their gender and as a ‘minority group’ they are held to a different standard than men. Affirmative action sends a negative message to the people it was designed to help. The message it sends is: your position is the result of one group’s machinations against you; you are not completely responsible for your own performance; you are a victim and therefore the assurance of your equality will be provided by a higher power i.e. the government via the constitution. Specifying quotas can be seen as an attempt to create a politically correct parliament as it conceals the potential bias against women that could surface if a definite number of seats were not assigned to them. For example, 72 women were members of the national assembly before it was dissolved. This means only 12 women were elected on general seats as opposed to 260 men, highlighting the real struggle women are facing. 72 is a somewhat decent number that inspires hope, 12 serves us the bleak reality and reminds us gender equality is an urgent cause.

Getting female bodies into formal political spaces is only a part of what it takes to engender democracy. In this case, the end does not justify the means, as the ‘strategy’ through which women are elected has a direct impact on the way they are perceived. In their paper “Democratising Democracy: Feminist Perspectives”, Andrea Cornwall and Annie Marie Goetz argue that “much of the focus on the debate of engendering democracy has been on how to insert women into existing democratic structures, with an emphasis primarily on formal political institutions.” Yet, affirmative action only offers a temporary and superficial solution to women’s alienation from the political sphere and it allows the government to be comfortable with a gender-biased society as it has devised a way for statistics to appear otherwise. We need to focus on bringing about changes in political and social systems that make them genuinely inclusive, where 72 women or more can enter the National Assembly through general election. The assumption that democracy can be made more inclusive by creating ‘a reserve of women’ in parliament tends to advantage sex difference over other factors shaping interests and political skills. In addition, women’s seats are filled by assigning seats for parties’ own female nominees in proportion to the seats they have won. This is often seen as a tactic for parties to boost their own majorities and it decentralizes the woman making her selection an extension of her party’s victory only.

Proponents of affirmative action claim that it is impractical not to maintain a quota for women as they are nowhere near achieving the equal status that is required for being able to contest in direct elections. Many argue that the participation of women and by extension, their morale will reach an all time low if reserved seats are abolished. The truth is that an equal, democratic society will never be actualised in a country where women are treated and labeled as a subgroup of men. Affirmative action has never proved to be a long term solution—many colleges that practiced it in 70’s to mitigate racial bias eventually dropped it after students of color protested that they wanted to be accepted for their qualifications, not identity politics. We should strive for a society where women are elected to parliament because they are worthy politicians and not just for the sake of fulfilling a quota.

The writer is a staff member of Pakistan Today and holds a degree from Mount Holyoke College.