From the New York Times (link via this ain’t livin’):
The upper house of India’s Parliament passed a bill Tuesday that would amend the Constitution to reserve one-third of the seats in India’s national and state legislatures for women, after the measure stirred two days of political chaos that could whittle the governing coalition’s majority to a dangerously thin margin.
[...]
Tuesday’s vote was the first of four hurdles the measure must clear. The lower house of Parliament, the Lok Sabha, must pass the bill, then the proposed amendment will need to win approval from at least half of India’s state legislatures. Then India’s president, a largely ceremonial post, must sign off.
Click through for some context and criticisms of the bill, for instance there’s concern ‘that it will favor wealthy upper-caste women at the expense of the lower castes and Muslims’.
The Indian Express provides some regional and international context. They also have an article on latest UNDP report, which suggests that ‘that quotas for women-held seats in political bodies can be “effective” and are “necessary” for overall growth.’ And here’s an article at the Hindistan Times that is well worth a read. cim from Refusing the default has an analysis of how quotas work and might work in various political systems, jumping off from the criticism mentioned above.
Quotas of any kind make me nervous because though they might be devised as a good first step, often they do not really progress further than that. I feel the same way about congressional districts drawn specifically to ensure that minorities always have representation. One can be sure that the quota will always be reached and minorities will always have a representative, but as for true equality being reached? That is a dream deferred.
Unfortunately the Indian parliament is quota-ridden; they basically divide political power before the election, rather than after it. So I am not as dismayed by these quotas as I might be if they were applied in a freer system.
Still, it’s an institutionalization of second-class status. Doesn’t seem all that exciting to me.
The thing to know about India and MPs is that the vast majority of female MPs are the wives, sisters, widows, and daughters of famous male representatives who outserved their terms limits. These women get elected because they are seen as extensions of their more famous male counterparts.
Unfortunately, this proposed law operates under the theory that anyone with a uterus will bring a certain kind of flare to Parliament. The practical implications (and I say this as an historian of South Asia) is the marginalized groups will become more marginalized. A law about female respresentation should have a caveat to prevent dynasties and to enhance the image of female representation in their own right, not as extensions of already entrenched male political figures.
Personally, I think this is a good thing, given India’s wonky political system. Scheduled castes and Muslims already have quotas in congress, so the only way this hurts the groups themselves (rather than individual politicians) is if the caste and religion parties aren’t currently pushing forward enough women candidates.
India has a long track record of charismatic, vaguely shady women politicians, so it’s not clear that this will make the system any less corrupt. However, if India has quotas for scheduled castes, they should absolutely have the same for women; both groups have been historically oppressed and marginalized, and I would argue women’s oppression is more universal than that of the Schedules. Also, women make up 50ish percent of the population, but get only a third of the set aside seats. For the other castes and tribes, the proportion can be reversed: i.e., maybe they represent 10% but get 20% of seats, etc.
It’s worth noting that simply being a woman doesn’t mean that feminist or pro-women change will follow suit. This is a huge argument amongst Indian feminists and women’s rights advocates and academics right now, and the general sentiment in the progressive circles I run in here in Kolkata is that this quota system lacks teeth, that these women will be tokens who will tow the patriarchal party line.
I tend to agree with Feminist Review. While I’m always happy to see more women in government, just because they are women does not mean they are going to be good for the women of their country or support feminist ideals. I mean, just look at Laura Chinchilla, President of Costa Rica.
This is incorrect. There are no quotas for Muslims in the parliament, which is the equivalent here of the ‘Congress’ in US. There are quotas for Scheduled castes and tribes at some levels. Congress is a political party here which has an alliance with the Muslim League but no quotas as such.