Women in Power: What’s Wrong with the “Add Women and Stir” Approach

By: Anum Khan

Are women in leadership positions environmentally friendly, anti-corruption, anti-war and pro-all things that are “good?”  If female candidates are considered, they are usually judged more harshly compared to their male counterparts.  Take U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor who was scrutinized for her statement about being able to make certain gender and racial rulings (read: is she “white-man” enough to make certain verdicts).  And when women are in leadership positions, it is assumed that all women will fight for women’s issues, be inherently opposed to corruption or harming the environment or more dangerously, have the power to “change society.”  Yet, setting quotes for women to be part of committees or within government so women can have seats on the table does not translate into influential power or voting for “the good things.”  Questions such as what are her qualifications, what are her positions on key issues, and what power does she currently have should be asked of all candidates.  Female candidates need to be valued for their qualifications and merit, while still recognizing the challenges some women face with underdeveloped support networks.

Women in decision-making committees

The question of what it means for women to be empowered needs to be asked.  Will giving women seats within decision-making committees change gender dynamics and affect change?  It is assumed that women will “bring overlooked matters of societal importance into policy making” and will “change the quality of public life.”  Take the example of 66^th U.S. Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice who supported the 2003 US invasion of Iraq (definitely does not fit the model of women being “anti-war”).

In rural South Africa, women in water sanitation committees expressed how decision-making abilities are “severely impacted by gender relations…even with a tertiary education, women view themselves as inferior to men” and men make the final decision.  Alternatively, if men are migrant workers, women make decisions “based on what their men would have wanted—instead of themselves.”  This does fit the model of women supporting women’s issues.

Implementing quotas for women’s participation in institutions overlooks challenges that prevent women from having real voices. Structural constraints that some women face include where “their resource endowments for public life—their education, spare time, employment, income and connections—[being] lower than those of men.” Women just do not have the same powerful support networks that men established long ago with their “boy’s clubs.”

In the new Egyptian law, it states that each proportional list must have one woman.  Some of these female candidates have been listed on lower ranks or completely omitted when they rightfully deserved to be named on the top of these lists, given their expertise and long-time standing with politics.  Despite defeat in the parliamentary elections in Egypt, Gameela Ismail addresses the challenges faced running as a female candidate, stating in her blog that female candidates are subjected to “social prejudice, a lack of party support and funding.”  Gameela says women, alongside with men were at the forefront during the protests in Tahrir.  Women, like men also sacrificed their lives to pave the road for a better Egypt.  With this law of female representation, it either forces women to be part of the elections of marginalizes them in a systemic approach of “one woman” per list.  Female participation in government needs to be natural, with no structural barriers that prevent them from participating in all manners and need not be judged vis-à-vis  gender markers.

Tunisia has put up more female candidates than Egypt, but can we analyze that society is less sexist?  We have to look at these two countries based on their socio-historical contexts and not assume that because there are more female candidates and members in government, there is more gender equality.   Quota Project, maps out how many women around the world participate in government and whether there is reserved seating, voluntary quotas, etc.  It goes beyond how many females are participating in government, but asking questions like how much power do they hold to create effective change for women and are they working for “women’s issues” (whatever those may be)?  In a discussion with Martina Rieker, Director of the Institute for Gender and Women’s Studies at the American University in Cairo, she discussed how everyone has certain agendas (most of the women in European governments belong to the far right).  People forget to analyze what relationships they have with their constituents and disregard asking questions such as who are these female candidates, how do they create their own political power networks, what community debates are they involved in and what changes have they made in society.  Martina stated, “If you look at the number of women in politics, we need to ask what differences have they made, has it changed anything?”  Gender markers do not determine what differences women make.  To put it simply, there should be less emphasis on “women candidates,” but qualified candidates who happen to be women.

Quotas that do open doors for women

Farah Pandith, United States Department of State Special Representative to Muslim communities around the world stated, “Quota systems can open doors for women in politics that would otherwise be closed, and we see that very specifically in countries such as Rwanda, where changes have taken place as a result of a quota system.”  Nonetheless, Farah elaborated how it is up to each country to decide how to integrate women into government and decision-making opportunities.  Farah attributed her professional successes to both men and women providing her with opportunities, and stated how progress for women’s participation in leadership positions “cannot be a fight that women undertake alone; this is a community fight that we work together to make our society stronger.”

Francine Rosado-Cruz, Diversity & Inclusion professional with 18 years of experience working in the corporate world, analyzed data from Scandinavian countries, which shows how quotas that have been in practice longer “have indeed increased the representation of females.”  Francine further elaborated how “the focus should be on creating a more inclusive workplace culture where everyone can succeed.  Shifting corporate culture is no easy task, and requires time.”

Muna AbuSulayman, Board Member of Glowork, which promotes jobs for women in Saudi Arabia, believes that quotas are “extremely effective especially in countries where female public decision participation is not very common.”  However, Muna stipulated how such a practice should not be implemented indefinitely.  When quota systems are in practice for a certain time period, it gives “time for society to learn what it means to have women in those positions, and also for women to develop the right programs and networks to help themselves get elected.”

Challenges- Seeing Women as a Unified Group

Women are positioned as one homogeneous group with common problems and goals.  This negatively impacts any progress for women’s equality, because not only do women have to fight for their representation and accessibility, but they have to work harder proving that all women’s problems are not all women’s problems.  A “one-size fits all” approach leaves the socio-historical  context out of what various women need.  Using quota systems as a “magic bullet” to include women in governments, corporations or organization allows these entities to check off the box that they have included women’s perspectives into their agendas.  Even though I state women as a collective here,  I must clarify that any approaches to achieving gender equality must be analyzed in isolation, even if a quota-system works in some limited manner, it must not be implemented in a “add women and stir” manner.

Comments

comments