The negatives of positive discrimination
As David Cameron has announced new measures to encourage local associates to select more female candidates and the Labour party has introduced all women shortlists in certain constituencies, it would seem clear that positive discrimination is increasingly prevalent within our political system.
Women are indisputably poorly represented in parliament with only 126 female MP’s. Positive discrimination has increased the numbers of female candidates and MPs and arguably has made parliament more representative. For those who support positive discrimination imposing all women shortlist is a necessary and important step to increasing representation. To support this claim it must be believed that by selected a candidate of the same sex they represent our interests better. Even this basic premise challenges how many women may wish to define themselves. This argument ignores those who do not simply define themselves by gender. It dismisses the value that each individual accords to their beliefs and assumes that sex supersedes these views. 
It would appear that democracy has been dealt a heavy blow by allowing discrimination to become a key element of how representatives are elected. Even if we were to believe that the outcome of positive discrimination is beneficial, in a system where we value due process, should we ever endorse a method of selecting candidates that is oxymoronic to the very nature of democracy?
Our political system relies on choice. Imposing all women shortlist removes voter’s choice. Regardless of how voters select their representative, we should respect an individual’s right to chose. Without a full choice of candidates we being to embrace dictatorial methods, tainting the results regardless of how legitimate they may appear.
All women shortlists simply allow discrimination by the back door. Should anyone suggest all male shortlists there would be public outcry. Arguments for female equality reek of hypocrisy if we are prepared to allow men to face the same oppression with a respectable facade. By preventing male candidates from standing we risk suppressing people who may be best for the job. A fair playing field where both male and female candidates compete against one another will ensure that the best person prevails, not the best women or the best man.
To select a candidate merely because they are women not only does a disservice to our political system. It is a disservice to women who are selected. People should be judged by their merits. Politicians should be judged by their words and their actions. On these grounds we can hold the people who represent us accountable. We cannot hold someone to account simply for being a woman. For those candidates who do make their way to the House of Commons, they should be able to feel a sense of pride in their achievement. But who can honestly feel proud to be selected simply because of their gender. To allow all women shortlists, we dismiss female candidates as being unable to compete fairly, we reinforce stereotypes that women are in need of help and quite simply we patronise them.
As women prove themselves to be just as capable as men, the numbers of female MPs should theoretically be equal to those of male MPs. Change is often slow. But that does not mean that forcing such changes would be better. Positive discrimination is damaging to voters, damaging to the women themselves and crucially damages democracy.
(Photo courtesy Conservative Party @ Flickr)
It would appear that democracy has been dealt a heavy blow by allowing discrimination to become a key element of how representatives are elected. Even if we were to believe that the outcome of positive discrimination is beneficial, in a system where we value due process, should we ever endorse a method of selecting candidates that is oxymoronic to the very nature of democracy?
Our political system relies on choice. Imposing all women shortlist removes voter’s choice. Regardless of how voters select their representative, we should respect an individual’s right to chose. Without a full choice of candidates we being to embrace dictatorial methods, tainting the results regardless of how legitimate they may appear.
All women shortlists simply allow discrimination by the back door. Should anyone suggest all male shortlists there would be public outcry. Arguments for female equality reek of hypocrisy if we are prepared to allow men to face the same oppression with a respectable facade. By preventing male candidates from standing we risk suppressing people who may be best for the job. A fair playing field where both male and female candidates compete against one another will ensure that the best person prevails, not the best women or the best man.
To select a candidate merely because they are women not only does a disservice to our political system. It is a disservice to women who are selected. People should be judged by their merits. Politicians should be judged by their words and their actions. On these grounds we can hold the people who represent us accountable. We cannot hold someone to account simply for being a woman. For those candidates who do make their way to the House of Commons, they should be able to feel a sense of pride in their achievement. But who can honestly feel proud to be selected simply because of their gender. To allow all women shortlists, we dismiss female candidates as being unable to compete fairly, we reinforce stereotypes that women are in need of help and quite simply we patronise them.
As women prove themselves to be just as capable as men, the numbers of female MPs should theoretically be equal to those of male MPs. Change is often slow. But that does not mean that forcing such changes would be better. Positive discrimination is damaging to voters, damaging to the women themselves and crucially damages democracy.
Write a comment
Posts: 2
Reply #2 on : Wed December 02, 2009, 07:39:58
Posts: 2
Reply #1 on : Thu December 03, 2009, 16:44:56