The Prague Post Online: Opinion: The question of quotas

December 5th, 2008

Endowment Fund Business Listings ONLINE Reservations Classifieds

Gift Subscriptions

Prague accomodation

The question of quotas

Commentary | Search restaurants | Archives

February 13th, 2008 issue

enlarge

CASE FOR: Lack of talent society’s loss

By Jana Hybášková

Over half of the planet is female, but even governments in the most advanced nations are not 50 percent women.

What that means is that, all over the world, women are in the minority in governments.

Many people say politics is rough, inherently masculine and simply not for women. This is nonsense. Politics are only “masculine” because so few women get involved.

At this point, only women who conform to the male model and beat their male colleagues at their own game can succeed. For example, Margaret Thatcher only had one woman in her government in her entire 11-year stint as prime minister of England.

During my numerous political campaigns for office, I met many successful women in business, including managers. Often they looked down on me because I was involved in politics. I realized these women have a very difficult time identifying with our political environment, because it is almost completely dominated by men.

As a consequence, women are not interested in politics and often find it distasteful. It does not bode well for our democracy when (at least) 50 percent of the population has a negative attitude toward the politics of our country.

Because there are so few women in politics and business, we are missing out on a great deal of talent, which is a loss for society as a whole. This also relates to equal opportunities for the disabled, ethnic minorities, etc.

If we agree that more women should be involved in politics, the next question is how? Do we even need quotas? Can’t women get into politics on their own?

I used to see it that way, and I admit that I’m embarrassed about it now. I’m a liberal and I don’t like social engineering, but it’s clear to me that we can’t get anywhere without a certain degree of regulation. For example, we need to regulate traffic on the roads, otherwise we would kill ourselves in our cars. And quotas are simply regulators that redress an initial injustice.

The Czech Republic applies a proportional electoral system in its parliamentary elections and uses the so-called Hondt system to convert the number of votes into seats. This, too, is an attempt to correct reality to improve representation.

Why should we avoid a correction in the form of a quota, which merely ensures that 50 percent of the population will be fairly represented? Seen from this angle, measures such as quotas make sense. Moreover, to paraphrase what Winston Churchill said about democracy: It’s not an ideal solution, but we haven’t yet invented anything better or more effective.

Here, however, quotas are so controversial that even once high-ranking politician Miloš Zeman, when asked what he thought about quotas answered, “Fortunately, this mad cow disease hasn’t reached our country yet.”

No one is surprised that aid to help girls obtain basic and midlevel educations is flowing into developing countries. Quotas are a way to help people who need it — they also help those who deserve it.

Certainly it is better to have a capable man in politics than an incapable woman.

But the present situation in Czech politics is such that there is an excess of incompetent men and a dearth of competent women.

— Jana Hybášková is a deputy in European Parliament

CASE AGAINST: A few who speak for all

By Jiří Šolc

Under the guise of a noble fight for equal opportunities, women’s interest groups are calling for quotas for women in politics as a panacea for all kinds of gender-related problems.

In the Czech Republic, equality is guaranteed by the Constitution and the law. Both sexes have exactly the same possibility of representing voters. Quotas are discriminatory measures, which seek to skew elections in favor of one gender. They are also a violation of the principle of free competition and would result in our filling our political sphere according to all kinds of special-interest guidelines.

Let’s ask ourselves a basic question: In whose interest is this? Anyone who has the least bit of interest in the behind-the-scenes arena of politics knows that the task of a representative or senator is only the tip of the iceberg of what a political party actually does.

Ruthless battles are waged over electoral seats within the parties, and the contested seats are allocated as the result of either a victory or a compromise. The path to gaining a seat in Parliament is paved with committees, conferences, meetings and setbacks. A seat in Parliament, therefore, is also a reward for predominantly unpaid and unseen work, which is often thankless, unpleasant and, most of all, very time-consuming.

Because I am the representative of a large city, I know this from personal experience. Perhaps it comes as a surprise, but I want to see as many women as possible in politics. But it is difficult, in these commercial times, to find a citizen who would want to do battle, without getting paid, for the good of others.

In the midst of this general malaise, men in general devote more of their interests and time to politics. They devote their time to seemingly banal political skirmishes and to asserting their opinions, which they must do strenuously. Even at the lowest levels of representation, there are more men than women. The higher the politics, the more abstract and difficult to grasp the problems become.

Of course, we could designate women to be candidates, but what if they don’t want to run? What then? Will we punish political subjects because women don’t want to go into politics? Or will we dissolve parties that don’t manage to attract a sufficient number of women?

Incidentally, did anyone ever ask the women? I often get the feeling that a few ambitious representatives are trying to speak for all women. I’m not sure most women would want to trade family lives for brilliant but treacherous political paths, which will rob them of their time and privacy. If they do, there is nothing stopping them now.

Quotas would dictate results without changing the fundamental nature of the problem — and only at the top, of course. It is tempting to be a representative with all the visible advantages. Many people would probably like to enter into high politics without having to fight their way up from the bottom, without accomplishing anything in the public sphere. But nobody who is simply installed in office will ever be a good politician.

More than 50 percent of voters are women. So every party must, in its own interest, make its ballots as attractive to women as possible, so as not to lose decisive votes.

Free and democratic competition should always give the best individuals the chance to advance — ones who know how to strike the right chord with voters and have something to offer, regardless of gender.

Quotas are a shining example of the saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

— Jiří Šolc is president of the Czech Association of Men and also a representative of the town of Liberec.

These articles are published with permission from The New Presence (www.new-presence.cz).

Be the first to add a comment!

Most e-mailed articles
Glass company declared bankrupt State pushes fish as healthy, tasty choice 10 Questions

Related articles
Deprivation dining

Most visited in Business Listings

The Prague Post Online contains a selection of articles that have been printed in
The Prague Post, a weekly newspaper published in the Czech Republic.
To subscribe to the print paper, click here.
Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited.