On Affirmative Action in India’s Parliament
India is in the process of amending its constitution so that one third of seats in the lower house of Parliament will be reserved for women.
I’m against this amendment, I think it’s a terrible idea.
Here is how this will work:
- There are currently 545 seats in the lower house of Parliament
- 180 of those seats will be reserved for women
- Which of the 180 out of 545 constituencies are to be reserved for women will be decided through a lottery system, every election.
- The same constituency cannot be reserved for women twice in a row under the rotation-lottery system.
So, basically, about two-third of sitting parliamentarians will be unable to run from their constituencies every election. If you thought it wasn’t possible to make elections in India any more anarchial, you were wrong.
In a sane world, politicians would be accountable to their constituents. Lets assume this happens for the most part, even in India (Though I would say it doesn’t). But now that most members of Parliament are not going to be able to run from their constituencies, there is going to be no incentive to be accountable at all.
Due to a number of factors, India has thrown up very few female political leaders. That is partially what this bill is trying to fix. However, one of the reasons that there are very few female political leaders is that very few women have an electoral base upon which to draw. The few exceptions have been women who are leaders of regional or caste based parties. Far more common are situations in which male politicians put their wives or daughters forward as a placeholder for their seat while they deal with criminal charges or attend to other business. I think something like that is what will happen for the most part. With a few exceptions, every election cycle about 180 men will let their wives, daughters, or other “trusted” women contest their seat and keep it warm for them, while conducting business as usual, and enjoying the privileges of being in power (i.e. abuse of power) without actually being in power.
I don’t think being related to a politician should be a disqualifying factor. I’m saying ability should be the qualifying factor, not nepotism.
Let’s say that some effective, ethical, qualified women make it through and get elected. What happens in the next election? They have to run from a new constituency, or drop out of the race altogether. (I believe they may be able to run from the same constituency without the protection of affirmative action. Realistically, their own parties wouldn’t allow it, they would need to make room for the male politicians displaced by the lottery. The media and their opponents would present them in a bad light as not “knowing their place” as well.) Where do the voters and their interests come in? *pause for derisive laughter for asking that question* They don’t.
So, I think the implementation of the idea of reserved seats for women is being badly done. However, I also disagree with the basic premise of gender, caste, or any other category of affirmative action for parliamentary seats.
As Nitin Pai says on his blog:
Firstly, reservations and entitlements are not the best way for a democratic country to order its society. History has shown that once an entitlement or a reservation is put in place, it is impossible to revoke — regardless of whether the purpose for which it was intended has been achieved or not. Reservations create no incentives for those entitled to them to break away from them and enter the mainstream. Besides it is a fallacy to believe that women legislators solve women’s problems better. And the idea of free and fair elections is for the electorate to choose who, in its combined opinion, is the best person for the job. Interfering with the course of free and fair elections seriously undermines democracy.
.
.
.
Indian women have been politically empowered (in law) since 26th January 1950. But economic and social empowerment has been elusive. Laws and regulations — sometimes introduced with the intention to protect them — have only led to their economic marginalisation. Other laws, like those allowing Muslims to follow a different civil code from people of other faiths, have led to cases like Shah Bano or Imrana.
I agree with Nitin in that the people that run India should be working towards fixing the inconsistencies in laws that deny certain rights to women with muslim fathers, brothers or husbands. Towards greater reproductive choice for women. And towards better and more widespread education for girls, which is truly empowering. Like most people who weren’t part of the brahmin “upper” caste, male land-owners or priests, women in India have been screwed over as far back as history can show us. While empowering women is a worthy goal, it’s going to take a while, a couple of generations if India has the will, and much much longer if they don’t. They don’t, which is why Indians are getting these half-baked measures that distract from real reform.
I really see very little going for this bill. It’s a flawed implementation of a flawed solution. It’ll probably pass. FSM help them all.
__________
Edit: It’s come to my attention that this reservation of seats for women will last for only fifteen years, not indefinitely. I can see this debate being revived in about fourteen years and the reservations being renewed by the decision makers of the day though. This time limit makes it only a slightly less bad idea. It’s sort of like the difference between being kicked in the nuts by a horse, and being kicked in the nuts by a horse wearing socks.
by Gaddis
by Harris
by Sachs
