Eanna Drury
Staff Writer
It has long been clear that the exponents of political correctness do not rationalise even to themselves the proposals which they advocate to their increasingly weary and jaded audience. This, of course, is to be expected: succumbing to political correctness and not expressing ‘controversial’ views, even if honestly and passionately held, requires no thought and no effort. Most ideas dreamt up by the increasingly-hysterical PC brigade are rightly rejected by the general public, be it because they are impractical, have no basis in logical thought or are so bizarre that the only suitable response to them is a mixture of ridicule and incredulity. In certain rare and regrettable cases, however, such an idea may find itself with a serious chance of being adopted due to misleading arguments regarding its merits. Take, for example, the legislation proposed by our coalition government which aims to withhold State funding for political parties which do not ensure that a minimum of 30% of the candidates they put forward for election are female. Such a bill was introduced recently in the Seanad and will presumably be passed down to the Dáil at a later date for a vote. Laughably, this bill proposes to tackle gender equality in Irish politics by introducing legislation which itself discriminates on the basis of gender. This measure is daft, undemocratic and is, as argued by ex- Attorney General McDowell in a recent Sunday Independent article, arguably unconstitutional. It is also hugely demeaning to women and will, if implemented, greatly lower their standing in politics.
Gender quotas are, by definition, inherently sexist, as they imply that female candidates cannot get elected on their own merits and must be given a helping hand to attain a position to which they are as equally suited as men. This implication is palpably untrue. Speaking as someone who gave my first preference to a woman in last year’s general election, the argument that women are not given due consideration by voters in the voting booth strikes me as redundant. My vote was not made out of a knee-jerk instinct to be politically correct or because of deeply-rooted feminism but because I felt that the candidate was worthy of my vote because of her competence, intelligence and understanding of both national and local issues. Such a thought process should be the rationale behind every vote cast in this country. It is an inescapable truth that candidates elected by virtue of a gender quota will not be given as much respect as one who has been elected by votes cast for the reasons specified above, and that catapulting a female politician into office against the express wishes of an electorate which voted for another candidate will do absolutely nothing to enhance confidence or respect in a political system which is already the subject of scorn and dissatisfaction.
This bill has been commended by several Irish feminists as a welcome measure to make sure that the needs of Irish women are aptly represented in politics. However, what real feminist would accept a seat gifted to her by a measure which smacks of sexism? As mentioned above, I did not feel before casting my vote and have not felt since that my concerns and desires could not be voiced adequately by the female candidate for whom I voted and who was subsequently elected. Members of the Oireachtas, be they male or female, are elected on a constituency basis by an electorate made up of eligible male and female citizens, and are bound to represent the needs of that constituency as a whole. Women do not vote only for women; men do not just represent men. Isn’t the argument that the needs of Irish women are not being suitably represented in Leinster House itself an essentially sexist one, implying that it is beyond the scope of a man’s capabilities to represent the fairer sex? If this point is to be accepted, it stands to reason that those who argue that the interests of women are not being given due attention by the current political system are themselves taking part in the culture of sexism which they claim gender quotas will eradicate. This makes the concept of introducing such legislation a self-defeating one; in the same way that you should not fight fire with fire, so too should you not fight inequality with inequality.
Furthermore, as argued by Labour TD Joanna Tuffy in a recent article for TheJournal.ie, quotas ‘‘bypass a citizen’s right to vote freely’’ for the candidate or candidates that he or she feels can best serve their needs. Such an electoral condition also slyly implies that the Irish people cannot be trusted to elect a suitable field of candidates which will appropriately represent the country in Leinster House. It is essential in a democracy that the votes of its citizens are honoured in the form of a government which reflects that voting pattern. Any attempt to limit this process raises grave concerns as to the sovereignty, or lack thereof, of Ireland’s citizens. If nothing else, gender quotas should be opposed on this basis. As seen, however, this is but one of myriad reasons why such a measure should never attain legislative status. After all, positive discrimination is discrimination all the same.
