Editorial: Reviewing the gender-quota mechanism

Author Richard Bach, in his book Illusions, writes: “Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they’re yours.” 

So it is for women. Women’s Day highlights the peaks of being a woman; but also highlights the troughs yet to be scaled. We are proud of how far we have come and yet lament how far we have yet to travel.

The female participation rate in the workforce and in tertiary studies has grown over the past decades; women lead the European Commission, the European Central Bank, the European Parliament and even the World Trade Organisation. But this was not reflected in the Maltese parliament.

The founder of the Times of Malta, Mabel Strickland, was instrumental in getting suffrage into Malta and, even in 1931, she stressed the importance of female political representation.

The 2019 Consultation Paper chaired by Carmen Sammut came up with four main pillars of reform, pointing out that, after 70 years, representation in parliament was still around 10 to 14%. Clearly, things would not happen on their own: a gentle nudge was needed.

The Labour government, with the support of the Nationalist Party in opposition, voted for positive discrimination – a mechanism to ensure that there were enough women in parliament. Unfortunately, the quota was only one of the measures proposed in the consultation paper – and it is impossible to say how things would have worked out had all the recommendations been adopted.

What we can do, however, is accept that it did not work out as planned and that there were unintended consequences, not the least of which was that voters were told not to bother wasting their vote on women who would be elected through the quota anyway. 

The Labour government, with the support of the Nationalist Party in opposition, voted for positive discrimination – a mechanism to ensure that there were enough women in parliament

European Parliament president Roberta Metsola called the quota “the biggest insult to women” – and the figures bear her out. Eight women were elected in the Maltese 2017 general election but, with the quota, in 2022, only four were elected directly. A dismal half!

There were other consequences too, as MP Claudette Buttigieg said recently. She had been elected on her own steam before 2022 but only got into parliament through the quota. 

She described it as a box-ticking exercise with women being “used as a token” of equality. It is not just words: she stated she would refuse to be elected through the gender-quota mechanism in the next general election. Credit to her for taking this principled stand: but her decision should be the first step in a review of the current system and why it has not worked.

The quota used in the 2022 election may have been introduced with the best intentions but it was meant to be backed up by other measures, starting with training for female candidates, their inclusion in the political world from an early stage and support from the political parties.

However, that is only part of the problem that had been identified in the consultation paper – one of which was one already well known. 

A part-time parliament restricts those elected, something also mentioned by Metsola. The calls for a full-time parliament have oft been repeated, with Malta the only EU country where the Speaker is full-time and the MPs not. Her argument is that a full-time parliament would allow more women to be involved but much more needs to be done. 

Changing the role and perception of women will not happen overnight: they are challenging something deeply ingrained by religion and culture. 

Women have come a long way and have succeeded well beyond expectations. Let us recall Bach’s words: argue for your limitations and they become yours.