Iraqi Women and Voting Quotas

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2005-01-16 07:06pm

In a report on the election on ABC tonight there were several illuminating things about the elections that were interesting but the one they focussed on most and interested me was the following rule:

25% of the seats up for election are reserved for female candidates. Therefore women are guaranteed at least 25% legislative seats no matter how the voting turns out.

Now the news glossed this little gem over as they did your obligatory "Women Heroes" or "Founding Mothers" piece. Now, I have nothing against the female candidates, in fact some have some rather compelling stories like the Shiite candidate who lost her 17yo son in a prior assasination attempt and just escaped a second one yesterday. But it makes me wonder

Is it fair to force the government and the electorate to take 25% women? Are quotas fair in 'free' elections? And just so you're aware that the US is pulling a do as I say not as I do only 15% of our own Congress is female(The highest its ever been in 200 years). Even at the height of the Civil Rights movement we never saw any kind of quotas like that. Are we free of this kind of quota because we're more 'enlightened'?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-01-16 07:21pm

I can't say I have anything against this 'quota'. I don't see it as a problem, but I wonder how Iraqis feel about it?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-01-16 07:55pm

It's not fair in the strictest sense of the word, but fairness is not the highest goal to which a government should strive. The 25% quota is to protect the rights of Iraqi women, which, frankly, in an Arab Muslim country are in constant jeopardy. If more democracy puts the rights of a minority (which women technically aren't, but they have a similar status) at risk, then less democracy is better.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2005-01-16 08:01pm

I agree with RedImperator, after all, what it right is not always popular. That's when democracy needs to have its own restrictions. Even if it's not technically a very democractic thing for such a quota, I consider it a favorable step nontheless. I don't think there's anything wrong with mildly "impure" democracy (someone is really going to kick my ass for saying that) in certain rare situations.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2005-01-16 08:36pm

If they want to be fair, they should impose 25% quotas for men and women, "to avoid one sex dominating the Iraqi government". Of course, this will have the same effect.

I approve of this, preferably used along with a very broad declaration of rights.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2005-01-17 05:26am

Perhaps not an ideal solution but it could be a rather effective barrier against excessive fundamentalisation. I doubt many women would vote themselves back to the property and cattle state.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2005-01-17 09:41am

Considering the position of women in politics in other Arab countries I think this is a good move.

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2005-01-18 12:36pm

The Labour party here in the UK has a similar rule; they make sure that some percentage of Labour candidates are female by having all woman short lists in some constituencies. I don't believe that any of the other English parties do the same though.

It probably works rather better in a proportional representation system though, since it can potentially bar a man from standing to represent his own constituency in the Labour scheme.

On a slightly related topic, does anyone which election system Iraq will be using?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-18 12:43pm

The U.S. wants the first post-occupation government to be perceived as representative, and it wants that government to be as free of Jiihadist fundies as possible. So they want specific interest groups to be represented, including women.

I give it 4 years max to a Shia fundie government being popularly elected, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was a lot less than that .... but we can hope.