Why we need quotas
In reply to – Quotas harm the cause – The left should not succumb to neoliberalism’s phoney version of equality, argues Yassamine Mather.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/999/quotas-harm-the-cause#1
We do not believe that by having a 50% quota to ensure that women
hold political positions with in our party will solve the oppression of women. We have never argued that or even suggested it. Therefore we have not been duped into believing that this will provide women with formal equality. However, it is a step in the right direction, as we have to start somewhere. By ensuring that there are women in these positions we are making sure that women’s voices are heard. Hopefully this guarantee will show other women that they are wanted and indeed needed in politics and this will result in more involvement of women. We know that this is not the only thing that needs or will be done, but at least we are making a start and not simply critiquing others for trying. I believe that quotas are a practical way of enabling ordinary women to have a voice, it’s a more inclusive way of being empowered.
I do praise Left Unity for sticking by the promise it made in May 2013. Not many parties stick to their promises that are slightly controversial. Also, to go back on this promise would be a huge embarrassment for the party and this is not a message we want to send to people. Breaking our promises would only show everyone that actually we are just like all the others. The 50% quota that Left Unity has set is a statement, which is that we stand for the rights of women; we want to her their voices, their opinions matter, so much that we will ensure the 50% quota. We have more equality laws than ever before, yet we still don’t have equal pay!
For a motion like this to be voted on and passed several times and to still have such opposition is shocking. We are Left Unity, hence the work ‘Unity’. We should be united on such topics that have be passed and hugely supported time and time again. We are Left Unity, not some rehash of a failing group. This is something that Left Unity stands for so it would be wrong for people to keep trying to change this.
I am working class, I loved growing up in my council house, and not at any point have I been fooled by any capitalist society into believing that women have formal equality. Personally I do not measure equality in the terms of formal or informal. Equality can be no half measure.
We know that sexism affects women differently depending on their class and race; we are not taking away from this. In fact we want the opposite affect we want to encourage minorities in politics to come forward and ensure that there is a space for their voice to be heard and indeed projected. We no longer want to be a minority and that is why we vote for the 50% quota, perhaps if there was not such a negative view of quotas, then many minority voices, which have never had a place to be heard, would have been heard by now. Instead their rightful places have been filled with dominate, white middle class men who have had the encouragement and resources needed to be heard in the political sphere. Such negative attitudes to quotas aren’t exactly welcoming.
Of course, people who fill important positions within Left Unity should be very class conscious, and 50% of them should be women. What makes a class conscious man more able than a class conscious woman, especially when it comes to certain issue should as child care, and the majority of low paid jobs?
By not having 50% women, what are you doing? What are you doing to get rid of the oppression and the prejudices? Instead why not say, yes this is a start but we need to go on to do other things such as….
We know that by having the quota we are not going to solve the entire problem of female under representation in left wing politics, or for that matter politics in general, but at least we are placing women in positions where their voice shall be heard, and then we are at the start of making a real difference.
So what is your solution?
Jade Hope
Northampton Branch.
7 comments
7 responses to “Why we need quotas”
Left Unity is active in movements and campaigns across the left, working to create an alternative to the main political parties.
About Left Unity
Read our manifesto
Left Unity is a member of the European Left Party. 
Read the European Left Manifesto
ACTIVIST CALENDAR
Events and protests from around the movement, and local Left Unity meetings.
ongoing
Just Stop Oil – Slow Marches
Slow marches are still legal (so LOW RISK of arrest), and are extremely effective. The plan is to keep up the pressure on this ecocidal government to stop all new fossil fuel licences.
Saturday 27th April: national march for Palestine
National demonstration.
Ceasefire NOW! Stop the Genocide in Gaza: Assemble 12 noon Central London
Full details to follow
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
Personally I’m in favour of quotas, although I question how effective they are and in what context they are most useful – I’m also against “50% women” in those terms because it can preclude the adequate representation of genderqueer people.
I’m not quite sure though what you refer to when you talk about the “promise” Left Unity made in May 2013 – the only thing I can find in the minutes of the National Meeting from that time is a commitment that 5 out of the 10 directly-elected members of the newly-established NCG should be women. As much as that may reflect a sentiment of that meeting, it’s not the same as conference (the party’s highest decision-making body) deciding in favour of quotas being applied more widely. This of course we did, but only in November.
So I find this bit of your article problematic:
“For a motion like this to be voted on and passed several times and to still have such opposition is shocking. We are Left Unity, hence the work ‘Unity’. We should be united on such topics that have be passed and hugely supported time and time again. We are Left Unity, not some rehash of a failing group. This is something that Left Unity stands for so it would be wrong for people to keep trying to change this.”
If you’re really worried about being a rehash of a failing group, perhaps consider that one of the biggest problems with failing left groups is that when disagreements emerge, they’re dealt with by a brief stage-managed debate, and then anyone who tries to continue discussing it is told “We’ve been through this countless times, we need to be united, why do you keep trying to make a mountain out of a molehill”. Not saying that’s happening here, but it’s a cautionary tale.
Much as I disagree politically with the anti-quota crowd, surely if we’re going to be a proper party then we need to have the maturity to tackle their arguments head-on? I think there’s a massive difference between “wrong for this to be changed” and “wrong for people to keep trying to change this”.
“I’m also against “50% women” in those terms because it can preclude the adequate representation of genderqueer people.”
50% women does not preclude the adequate representation of genderqueer people. That would only be the case if the other 50% were specified as men, but they are not. You have assumed that the 50% places that go to people who are not women should or will go to men. That’s your assumption, not part of the Left Unity policy as I understand it.
Right on all counts Edmund!
Edmund says he is unsure in what context quotas are most useful. I would say they are most useful in situations like those in Left Unity where they are combined with other measures which give women and other oppressed groups a collective space and voice through the existence of the caucus itself. The caucus is also a partial mechanism to hold women elected on the basis of quotas accountable – partial because only the caucus rep is elected directly.
On the genderqueer issue in most places the LU constitution talks about at least 50% women which as Judith says is not exclusive. There are some places where it falls into genderbinary by talking about x women and y men where x+y = 100%. The LGBTQ caucus at least will seek to change these at the next opportunity to change the constitution but these things happen when a constiution is written democratically with lots of people inputting.
As to Jades original point about the challenge to this approach being shocking, I dont try and speak for Jade but what I found shocking was THE WAY some people argued against quotas. The promise for me was in For me it was an illustration of how far the battles won inside the labour movement as a whole by second wave feminism have been lost again – I think in the wake of the defeat of the miner’s strike – a price we are still all paying 30 years on. And if the discussion in LU is representative its not amongst younger activists that there is the greatest resistance.
The ‘promise’ Left Unity made from the outset was to be different and that in many people’s speeches and articles in promoting the project was to be feminist….
Edmund is right that we have to confront the arguments head on and this is right but when women are spoken about as if we are an inferior ‘species’ by some members I think a degree of anger while not necessarily wise is rather understandable.
Yes, thank you Judith and Terry, you seem to have seen where i am coming from.
At no point have i or Left Unity said who the other 50% should be. The promise was the one in May you refer to, this is why i joined Left Unity, it showed me, a 22 year old female from a working class background that there was someone who wanted to hear my opinion, that there was a space for my voice. If Left Unity did not have the 50% quota for women, then it would have gone back on its statement of gender quality. It has always been one of the most strongest positive promised that Left Unity has, and that is its commitment to equality.
Everyone is more than welcome to carrying on debating this, i have had my say, that’s all i wanted. However i do believe that since this has already been voted on, we should be focusing our united efforts on the NHS and helping others with their campaigns and making other policy decisions.
By directing my article at another, i thought that this was head on? Also, it would be people after all that made changes to this, not just no one Edmund.
As for maturity am only 22 and very much still learning, i appreciate your feedback though and i shall be more detailed in future. Thank you.
My understanding was that all decisions are subject to democratic debate and change if so decided. Quotas were originally supported as a temporary tactic, not a permanent point of principle. What exactly is the big problem? If anyone has other ideas which have proved effective at representing groups historically under-represented, I for one would be interested to hear them.
Just re-read this thread – the comment I made earlier reads as if I support endless challenges to quotas – that isn’t what I intended. We all know they’re not the complete answer, but until we come up with something better, quotas are a big improvement on the status quo. The criticisms never include constructive proposals of alternative methods of promoting equal representation; if anyone has any, please tell us what they are. Until then, quotas are a step in the right direction