Quotas are good for democracy

Many European governments give women candidates a leg up in the competition for parliamentary seats. Britain should do likewise

Special report: House of Commons
Women make up just 12% of new members of the Commons elected last month - 12 out of 98. In total, 118 women were returned, 18% of all MPs.

The number is down slightly on that achieved in May 1997, when 120 women were returned. The proportion remains high compared with the past, but the outcome must be disappointing for all those seeking to increase women's representation.

The Queen's speech promised a bill making it legal for parties to take "positive action" to redress this. The principle has also been approved by Tory leadership-hopeful Michael Portillo. The political mood is shifting, so how should the law be changed?

Parties elsewhere in Europe have used quotas for years, which explains how they achieve a far higher level of women's representation than the UK. They have a lot to teach us.

Labour's problem began in 1996 when two male party members challenged the all-women shortlist policy by using the Sex Discrimination Act.

They complained that official policy barred men from applying for selection in half of Labour's winnable seats and such treatment would not be permitted in the context of employment.

The case hinged on whether the selection of political candidates fell into "the employment field" as defined by the act. The tribunal's ruling was that selection of a party candidate amounted to "an authorisation or qualification" needed for the "profession of MP". This made all-women shortlists unlawful under section 13 of the act.

Labour had argued that MPs are not employed; they do not have an employment contract, for example, and their selection is a democratic process quite unlike that for other jobs.

After the ruling there were suggestions that the party should appeal. Though it did not, a subsequent ruling in a higher court confirmed the tribunal.

So if parties want to use all-women shortlists, a change in the law is needed. However, it is going to have to comply with EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights. In fact there are many European models we could follow.

The use of positive action is well entrenched in Scandinavia. In Sweden, which has the world's highest representation of women in its parliament, the constitution forbids discrimination on grounds of sex.

But it states that this does not prevent action which is "part of a strategy in order to achieve equality between women and men": for example, a quota system. In Norway a similar protection is offered by an equality act which goes further and actually enforces 40% quotas on public bodies, though not in parliament. An unofficial quota of 40% women in the cabinet has applied since the mid-1980s.

Parties' freedom to select whom they want is seen as an essential part of democracy. In Sweden parties are completely unregulated, with no protection given to potential candidates who consider the selection process discriminatory.

The argument goes that if they do not like it they can join another party, and that parties ultimately will be punished at the ballot box. In fact, public opinion results in parties seeing promotion of women as being to their electoral advantage.

The Germans take a different approach. The constitution protects gender equality and party freedom. Party members' complaints about discrimination in the selection process have to be dealt with internally rather than in the courts. Yet German parties are highly regulated.

The constitution requires parties to apply democratic principles in their internal organisation and stringent party and electoral laws define candidate selection. These require, for example, that parties choose candidates by secret ballot and that local members, not the national party machine, have the final say.

Again, there is a belief that democracy, not the courts, must govern who is elected, including whether quota systems are used. In fact, most parties across the political spectrum use quotas.

The French have adopted the most radical approach, after the law was changed by Lionel Jospin's left-of-centre coalition government. France uses an electoral system similar to the UK's and suffered historically from low numbers of women in the national assembly.

Though positive discrimination was permitted in the job market, a court ruling in 1982 found it unconstitutional for the electoral process. However, in 1999 the constitution was amended, enabling a far-reaching new law to be passed last year. Parties are now legally obliged to put up equal numbers of male and female candidates for local government, regional and European elections.

In 2001 this move resulted in a 22% to 48% leap in women in lo cal councils. In parliamentary elections, parties will suffer a cut in their state funding if they do not put up equal numbers of male and female candidates. The race is now on to find women for the 2002 elections.

Elsewhere in Europe the notions that candidate selection is "employment" or that party quotas breach European law are regarded as absurd.

The French system may be restrictive, but other European countries consider parties to be democratic organisations with a right to use positive action where their members support it. And they do - because they know this responds to the widespread public demand for more women in parliament.

• Meg Russell is in the constitution unit at University College London and is author of Women's Representation in UK Politics: What Can be Done Within the Law?

Today's best video

  • The NSA files trailblock image


Find your MP

Today in pictures