Sir, – A recurring strawman in the debate about gender quotas in a representative democracy is that our parliamentary system is intended to primarily represent the demographics of a society. It is not.
A representative democracy needs to represent the broadest range of ideas and opinions and with numbers in the debate to roughly mirror those it represents. It must facilitate a publicly accessible environment where these ideas are robustly debated and vigorously contested. Members of the electorate must then be able to openly and without fear of intimidation decide for themselves which viewpoint they wish to support at the ballot box. Does anyone believe that this is what our parliamentary system currently affords us? Is the main fault really with the gender of those doing the debating or is it the ideas being debated?
Is the real problem with the composition of the Oireachtas with the choice on offer at election time (when anyone is free to stand as a candidate) or is it with the mindset of the electorate when making choices? Is one of the problems with candidates that people are unwilling to stand up for their beliefs at election time when there is no certainty that they will be successful? Faint heart never won fair mandate. – Yours, etc,
DANIEL K SULLIVAN,
College Gate,
Townsend Street,
Dublin 2.
Sir, – Gender quotas are used not as preferential treatment; rather they are an attempt to remedy problems of deep-rooted male privilege.
The merit argument is often advanced as a reason to oppose gender quotas, ie that the best person for the job should be chosen irrespective of gender. However, all things are not equal. If merit were the only criterion governing the election of politicians, then the Dáil would not be composed of 16 per cent women.
Progress on voluntary gender quotas implementation by the political parties in Ireland has been a dismal failure.
The passing of the Electoral (Political Funding) Act in July 2012 was a recognition by the mostly male Dáil that progress on gender equality would not be advanced without a financial penalty to the political parties.
This problem of gender inequality is not only an issue between men and women but also between progressive men and those men who benefit from the status quo.
Women are by far the biggest group underrepresented in Irish politics. – Yours, etc,
Dr COLETTE FINN,
Cork 5050 Group,
Croaghta Park,
Glasheen, Cork.
Sir, – In response to my point that the introduction of gender quotas could result in better candidates losing out to weaker candidates, Anthony Leavy (September 6th) remarks that, "The decisions that contributed to the bankrupting of the country were made by a Dáil which was nearly 90 per cent male" and that "it does not look, therefore, as if the better qualified candidates were always chosen in the past".
Mr Leavy's contention that there was a causal link between the gender profile of the Dáil and the bankrupting of the country suffers from a bad case of "reduction fallacy", recently defined by your columnist David Robert Grimes ("The way we argue now", August 16th) as "an often misguided attempt to ascribe single causes to outcomes that are in reality complex interplays of many factors". Dr Grimes pointed out that the "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" ("after this, therefore because of this") fallacy is used to brilliant comic effect by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to assert that a drop in the number of global pirates since the 1800s has caused global warming.
While it may well be true that better qualified Dáil candidates were not always chosen in the past (and I look forward to the day when we have more women in politics and put the days of the old boys’ networks and nepotism behind us), I would submit that the performance of the Dáil up to and during the bankruptcy of the State had more to do with the well documented objectively identifiable deficiencies of the Dáil – for example a lack of expertise, groupthink and the whip system – than with its gender profile. – Yours, etc,
ROB SADLIER,
Stocking Avenue,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.
Sir, – It is misleading to say that half of our population is somehow disenfranchised because only 15 per cent of TDs are female. Women (and men) are free to vote for whatever candidate they choose. The resulting composition of the Dáil suggests that the gender of the is not their priority – nor do I think it should be. Clumsy attempts to “correct” the electorate by restricting its choice is, like most patronising interference, likely to have unintended and undesirable consequences. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL ANDERSON,
Moyclare Close,
Baldoyle,
Dublin 13.
Sir, – The debate rumbles on about gender equality in Irish politics. Quotas are constantly referred to as a method of achieving this. Surely if there is a genuine desire to have gender equality then the only and best way to achieve this is to have an equal number of seats designated for male and female representatives in all political bodies, including the Dáil.
Voters would simply vote for their male representatives on one ballot paper and vote for their female representatives on a separate ballot paper.
Quotas are for farming and fishing, not for women.
If Irish society is genuine in wanting equality in political representation, then perhaps this suggestion deserves some serious debate.– Yours, etc,
FRED MEANEY,
Saval Park Gardens,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – We can be sure that, quotas or otherwise, the criteria for the selection of female candidates will be much the same as for their male counterparts, ie having the right connections, having the right views and being willing to toe the party line when required. This is not a recipe for a better quality of public representative. – Yours, etc,
HUGH GIBNEY,
Castletown,
Athboy,
Co Meath.