Last night, in GeekGirl’s political science class, “we discussed representative parliament and the idea of guaranteed representation for minority groups.” She goes on to describe the fracas that broke out between a couple of ‘het white males’ and the rest of the class.
It’s an interesting subjet, and I posted a comment, which I thought I’d replicate here:
Speaking as a card-carrying (well, I misplaced it, but I’ve got it somewhere) member of the ‘het white male elite’, I think ‘guaranteed representation’ is a deeply anti-democratic idea. Yes, we should make it easier for women and minorities to participate in the political process, but doing an end-run around political process isn’t the right approach.
Here’s one approach, which I hope somebody brought up in your class: Norway’s political parties (not the government–the parties) applya voluntary gender quota system:
A system of gender quotas was first adopted within the Socialist Left Party and the Liberal Party as far back as the 1970s. Today virtually all of the major Norwegian parties apply a gender quota system in nominations to elections as well as to the make-up of party governing bodies at all levels. This quota system is voluntary and self-imposed. Norway does not have any legal provision for gender balance in political parties or directly elected bodies.
You could extend this to minorities, but let’s just use women as a case study here. This makes logical sense to me. If the political parties made it a priority to equalize gender participation, it would:
- Encourage more women to participate in politics, as they have a fairer shot at being influential.
- Provide female role models for further generations of politicians.
- Not damage the democratic process. After all, I’m sure that ‘anti-quota’ parties would emerge that people could support, if they chose.
In short, as a Norwegian citizen, I can vote for women (and have plenty of choice), but I’m not forced to vote for them (or a minority).
Does it work? Well, since 1986, no Norwegian Government has been formed with less than 40 per cent women
DarrenBarefoot.com 
One of the Womens Studies seminars I went to last month was on Women in Politics. I’ve completely forgotten the stats, but this page has lots of fascinating info:
http://www.canadianwomenvoterscongress.org/
Penny Priddy, a former MLA spoke to us intelligently for quite a while, and she was fascinating. But here’s something interesting about the differnces between the genders in politics: Men tend to go into politics as a career move. Women tend to go into politics because they feel strongly about a particular issue and can’t see any other way to make a difference.
Interesting perspectives.
Anyhoo, nifty stuff. I don’t agree with quotas either (as seen by my previous rant about affirmative action) but I want my choices to include more variety. I’m tired of my electoral options being “Rich White Man 1, 2 or 3”. It’s a bit better in Canada where we’ve got such people as Kim Campbell & … whatsherface of the conservative party. Where the only two non-Liberal/non-independant MLAs are women. Where we can have an east indian premier.
But pity the poor americans who got to choose between Gore & Bush. Bleah. Diversity? What’s that?
It is right to be anti-quotas for women and any other biological group, or any that would need an anti-merit policy to increase their representation, as it’s often called. To get something of economic value by means of sexual patronage and to make a profession of this; isn’t that the definition of…actually I won’t say it. What then, would the leaders and organizers of such patronage-seeking be called; not what some may think… There is a moral deficiency in anti-merit policies, and a practical consideration of what chance to maintain standards there will be on that basis.