Women In Politics By Sam And Kim

Women in Politics Presentation done by : Samantha Abela and Kimberly Zammit

Women represent half the potential talents and skills of humanity and their under representation in decision-making is a loss for society as a whole. Declaration of Athens

Too often the great decision are originated and given form in bodies made up wholly of men, or so completely dominated by them that whatever of special value women have to offer is shunted aside without expression. Eleanor Roosevelt

Women have long been absent from the international scenario of decision making process. “Where are the women?” Yet they represent ‘grosso modo’ half of the population of the world and they have been kept out of the shaping of today’s society for a long time. Emancipation of women’s participation in such affairs has a history of only four decades resulting after the rise of female number of students in Western universities who challenged this patriarchic administration. In 1919, America gives the right to vote to women, by 1944 the citizenship of women has progressed, but more then a century after, during the New York ‘Summit for the millennium’ in the year 2000, a photograph shows us, with difficulty, only six women lost amongst the head of states of 181 nations that surround the UN secretary general.

The red cross marks the only 6 women present.

Politics and International Relations, over time, have been compared to a household where relations have to be carried out in harmony with each other so as not to give rise to conflicts[1]. Hence women’s traditional good management of the house is seen as an incentive to why their success should be extended even to more effective actions such as Politics and International Relations[2]. However this point, though acknowledged is not implemented in the social order of administration. Women’s right to vote had to wait for centuries because the conservatives within the paternalistic society saw it as ‘unnatural’ for a woman to meddle in statecraft. [1] While women clean after their husbands’ mess at home, consequently they are capable of cleaning the mess in politics and end wars. [2] Antigone says: “show me a man who rules the household well; I’ll show you someone fit to rule the state.”

The first struggle of a woman in the international sphere is that of Suzy Borel who in 1930 was elected as first diplomat but was seen as unfit to leave Paris. Her case is similar to many other struggles that women had to pass in order to obtain recognition of their true value. Despite the fact that on paper they were given equality, in reality they were not given space for progress in their political carriers. ‘De facto’ a leader must not be weak to take important decisions. However women have not been given enough opportunity to prove themselves in for example military politics. A case in point happened in 1972, when Bella Abzug was voted as a member of the House of Representatives and made it her goal to end the war in Vietnam as many in her electoral district wished. Still when she requested a seat in the House Armed Services Committee, her application was denied and she was suggested to submit an application to the Agricultural Committee because it was deemed more appropriate for her. Other cases of the same genre are evidence that women in politics are channeled to certain areas of influence which are perceived as more ‘women’s issues’. A picture of the Congress woman Patricia Shroeder crying on her husband’s shoulder, was used to question her presidential candidatature. Also Jean Kirkpatrick, who was appointed ambassador by Ronald Reagan, complained that she wasn’t taken seriously by her fellow colleagues.

In the year 2000, ten are the only women forming part of the 188 UN representatives, while one out of fifteen members is on the Security Council of the same year. The United Nations though has long helped to defend the rights of women and help them progress in their political careers. In 1946 it created the ‘Commission on the Status of Women’, followed soon after in 1952 by a Convention advocating the right of contribution of women in politics and following since then a series of conventions to remind the world that women have a say in the International scenario. In 2007, a new ratification of Resolution 1325 of the Security Council (2000) was passed, of which one important clause states the following: “Reaffirming the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in peace-building, and stressing the importance of their equal participation and full involvement in all efforts for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security, and the need to increase their role in decision-making with regard to conflict prevention and resolution.”

Promotion to increase the number of women in politics is done in several ways. Only Sweden has over 50% of the government representative body, women. In the EU only one out of every five members in a parliament is a woman, and it is the aim of this new millennium era to increase that proportion. In the Beijing World Women’s Conference in 1995, the EU has sat in action the plan for ‘Gender Mainstreaming’ and has since then fashioned the EU policy towards equal rights and opportunities between genders. In brief the EU commission commits itself to a “cross sectional task” to promote this fairness thoroughly. In fact in the Amsterdam Treaty ratified in 1999, the signatories abide to extend “equal opportunities for men and women in all areas of policy coupled with the continuation of positive activities (specific promotion of women) until equality has actually been achieved.” Thus this mainstreaming program makes it a priority for all EU policies to be checked and planned according to the consequences that they will have on the equality between men and women alike. The same principle will also be employed when measures for future evaluation are taken in consideration.

The above table shows the low percentage of Women participation in Europe at International Levels. When one sees the statistics recorded seven years later in 2007, we notice that in the case of the European Parliament there is no percentage increase but in the European Commission there is a 10% increase of women participation.

Different organizations, not only in Europe but also globally, are now advocating methods on how to balance this difference in percentages. By looking at the government appointed by the new French president Nicholas Sarkozy in June 2007, it includes 36% women compared to 20% previously. Also in the UK, the reshufflement of the government by the new Prime Minister Brown, resulted in a less dramatic change then in France, rising women’s participation from 28% to 33%. International instruments such as the Beijing Platform for Action 1995 (BPFA) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) provide clear plan of actions on how to empower women in the politics. Some examples include: •Programs within social groups to increase self-esteem and encourage women to take-decision making positions, •The creation of training groups to offer help and guides for women who wish to enter a political campaign •Provide training to both genders to improve relations between men and women on working places •Ensure respect for diversity and encourage “the appointment of more women to national and international posts, including Special Envoys, Resident Coordinators and other operational positions.”

A very popular method to increase women in international affairs is to implement ‘Quota regulations’ in national parties, since for an effect to result on the international front, one must cater the problem at home. In spring of the year 2000, Belgium was the only EU member with such a regulation and after its elections, women’s participation percentage increased positively. Thus ‘Quotas’ became an important asset in the EU agenda for gender equality. In France the same happened, demanding that political parties must present equal number of candidates for European elections as well as for the Senate. Sanctions for who deviates from the quote by 2% are implied. Awareness campaigns by NGO’s encourage voters to vote for female candidates. In the UK, what is known as the “Emily’s list” provides financial support for election campaigns to female candidates, while the EU provides them with free materials for their campaigns such as templates for ads both on printer journals and on TV.

"It is imperative that women contribute to important decisions concerning international security. They must be present at negotiating tables, in parliaments and ministries, and at summit meetings. Organizations like Women In International Security are invaluable for helping increase the influence of women in foreign and defense policy making, and for building the next generation of women leaders". – Madeleine Albright

As Madeleine Albright, one of the founders of WIIS (Women in International Security) said, women are an asset for modern decision taking process. They need to become protagonists and be acknowledged for their job. WIIS is thus one of the main advocates for more equality regarding women’s participation in politics and using its links and well established network, it helps to promote awareness amongst different social groups. Condoleezza Rice and Angela Merkel are the only two prominent women of modern politics. In May 07, we also saw the harsh presidential elections in France, during which, Ségolène Royal, had the chance to become the first French President, and during 2008 we so the political campaign of Hilary Clinton who was running as one of the favorites for the American Presidential elections.

Richard Wagner, news director of WCHS - TV in Charleston West Virgina, reported; “I feel that at present there is still an atmosphere of discrimination against women in the media from men in the media who see them getting in easier than they did, from viewers who think all they are is a pretty face and from management who look at them only as a statistic that needs to be filled in on an EEO form”. Differences in Media coverage of genders still persist and journalists are becoming more subtle in criticizing women politicians who are challenging the status quo of the male dominated politics both at national and International levels. In early decades, after the women got the vote, media was quite crude and blunt with women politicians. Caption read as: The Last few buttons are always the hardest. (1920)

Women politicians still have to confront journalists who instead of questioning them regarding their campaigns, they ask them personal questions about their families and private life in general. Reporters still perpetuate in using terms that focus on women’s appearance, behavior and their traditional role as wives and mothers to describe them as politicians. While the Media objective should be to analyze politicians and their policies per se and through a constructive critic lens, on the wider scale, men politicians receive coverage regarding what they say and what they believe should be done in regards an issue, while women are still subjects to critics on their choice of clothes and what ‘they feel’ in regards the issue at hand. An example is that of the Finnish President Tarja Halonen’s, who during her first state visit to Sweden the media were more enthralled with her plain looks and bad fashion sense, than with the substance of her visit. Also Elizabeth Dole’s ability to serve as commander-in-chief was question because she “likes to coordinate the color of her shoes with the color of the rug on stage". ‘Substance politics’ is still not associated with women’s entrepreneurship in politics.

Another interesting incident happened in 1997, when 101 Labour women were elected in the British parliament and the front-page headlines figures a title of “Blair’s Babes” with a photo-montage of all the women and Blair beaming in the front. This act by the media was quite a back stab to the new authority that thee women held but also belittled them in regards to the possessive apostrophe used and the sexual implications of the term ‘babes’.

Women are still belittled by the media as it is the case of the Danish minister who was cited as: “Sweet and involved – but also a bit naïve (...) Henriette Kjær has the heart, there’s no doubt about it, but she fails to demonstrate the results in practice. A sweet smile from a minister in the very best broadcasting time will not help the outcasts and the redundant.”

Media also hits upon martial status of female politicians. If one is married she is said to have ‘abandoned’ her family but on the other hand, for “Annette Schavan, received negative media coverage because she is unmarried. She was also said to be lesbian (which she denied) and ultimately she lost to a male candidate.”

According to different studies by Gidengil and Everitt both in the year 2000 and in 2003 speeches by female politicians in Canada for example, are more ‘filtered’ and journalists are more prone to paraphrase what a woman politician said, then it happens in case of a male politician. Also, it happens that female politicians are less quoted then male politicians. As a study by Aday and Devitt in 2001 regarding the US elections, shows that Elizabeth Dole was quoted directly 44.5% of the time, compared to 56% for Bush, 63% for McCain and 67% for Forbes.

The spincity factor still marginalizes women, making history still more popular acclaimed, while herstory has to struggle to achieve some sincere interest without any discrimination or satire involved.

Also the EU funded a very important project called “Portraying Politics” that investigated how women are portrayed in the media, hoping that this analytical study raises awareness. The following Tables were in fact scanned from the Report about the project.