Indirect elections
Opted into power indirectly by male colleagues, women councillors are unlikely to yield real political authority
The writer is a practising lawyer and teaches law at two colleges in Lahore
Following a two-year long debate over questions of legality, constitutional mandates and practical limitations, the local government elections (LG) in Punjab are set to finally take place in September this year. We may credit the Supreme Court’s resilience in having the ECP commit to an election schedule or preventing the provincial administration from backtracking from necessary amendments to the election laws. Deliberations are underway. Candidate lists are being finalised. Promises are being made that the most worthy of party workers will be awarded tickets for the election.
These developments are noteworthy. The LG system has stood in abeyance for the past seven years. It is hoped (and may be naively so) that the upcoming elections shall set in place stronger foundations for democracy, effective channels of accountability, better service delivery, and the political empowerment and training of public representatives at the grass-root. What exciting prospects, one would exclaim.
Yet the formula of devolution and democratisation laid out in the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 has been employed before. The Act, much like earlier counterparts, proposes a three-tiered structure of local government, elected through a mix of phased out direct and indirect elections to general and reserved seats. The Act reserves seats for four generally under-represented categories — women, peasants/workers, youth and non-Muslims. Elections to these seats at the very first tier of local government — the union council — were to be conducted directly under the original enactment. However, an amendment made through Ordinance to the 2013 Act this past month has scrapped the direct modality of elections to reserved seats at the union council.
What does this mean for the political participation of women in local governments? Female members of union councils are now to be indirectly elected to the two seats legally reserved for them, by eight (expectedly all male) returning candidates on general seats. Some have attempted to rationalise the amendment by arguing that it provides a cost-effective and convenient mode of election to women (and peasants etc.), who otherwise lack the financial resources and social capital to carry through the rigours and challenges of an open, competitive election. This may be partly true. Yet the amendment comes at a cost to the cause of women’s political empowerment, one that significantly outweighs the value of the concessions provided.
Gender quotas in political bodies are justified as a necessary measure, required to ensure women representation in key decision-making bodies. Yet as a mere number opted into power indirectly upon the whim of male colleagues, women councillors are unlikely to yield real political authority. To be effective, it is essential that at the very grass-roots of political activism and representation, female politicians maintain a direct and real link with a constituency, which continually holds them accountable for promises made and operates as a bulwark against undue opposition or censure. Indirect elections, however, divorce a politician from an electoral base, and therefore the fountainhead of political power. Where political success depends on patronage from party leadership or other members, rather than the will of the electorate, women councillors are disabled from developing the independence and maturity to eventually contest and win an open and competitive contest. Accountability is due not to the electorate but to such benefactors. The system then breeds room for nepotism and corruption while in many ways reinforcing existing (gender) disparities of power. This can hardly be the logic behind reserved seats.
Why has the recent amendment to the LG law moved me to such critique? Surely, the criticism is equally applicable to seats reserved for women in the national and provincial assemblies, filled through indirect elections. Yet the change in the modality of elections at the union council level is particularly problematic. As the very first tier of representative government, the union council is a breeding ground of political consciousness and activism. True political empowerment of women at the union council, through direct access and accountability to the electorate, can help build a pool of more able and independent female candidates for positions of authority at higher levels of government. Empowerment at the grass-roots then is key to mainstreaming women in politics. The transformative potential of gender quotas will otherwise be difficult to realise.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 28th, 2015.
These developments are noteworthy. The LG system has stood in abeyance for the past seven years. It is hoped (and may be naively so) that the upcoming elections shall set in place stronger foundations for democracy, effective channels of accountability, better service delivery, and the political empowerment and training of public representatives at the grass-root. What exciting prospects, one would exclaim.
Yet the formula of devolution and democratisation laid out in the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 has been employed before. The Act, much like earlier counterparts, proposes a three-tiered structure of local government, elected through a mix of phased out direct and indirect elections to general and reserved seats. The Act reserves seats for four generally under-represented categories — women, peasants/workers, youth and non-Muslims. Elections to these seats at the very first tier of local government — the union council — were to be conducted directly under the original enactment. However, an amendment made through Ordinance to the 2013 Act this past month has scrapped the direct modality of elections to reserved seats at the union council.
What does this mean for the political participation of women in local governments? Female members of union councils are now to be indirectly elected to the two seats legally reserved for them, by eight (expectedly all male) returning candidates on general seats. Some have attempted to rationalise the amendment by arguing that it provides a cost-effective and convenient mode of election to women (and peasants etc.), who otherwise lack the financial resources and social capital to carry through the rigours and challenges of an open, competitive election. This may be partly true. Yet the amendment comes at a cost to the cause of women’s political empowerment, one that significantly outweighs the value of the concessions provided.
Gender quotas in political bodies are justified as a necessary measure, required to ensure women representation in key decision-making bodies. Yet as a mere number opted into power indirectly upon the whim of male colleagues, women councillors are unlikely to yield real political authority. To be effective, it is essential that at the very grass-roots of political activism and representation, female politicians maintain a direct and real link with a constituency, which continually holds them accountable for promises made and operates as a bulwark against undue opposition or censure. Indirect elections, however, divorce a politician from an electoral base, and therefore the fountainhead of political power. Where political success depends on patronage from party leadership or other members, rather than the will of the electorate, women councillors are disabled from developing the independence and maturity to eventually contest and win an open and competitive contest. Accountability is due not to the electorate but to such benefactors. The system then breeds room for nepotism and corruption while in many ways reinforcing existing (gender) disparities of power. This can hardly be the logic behind reserved seats.
Why has the recent amendment to the LG law moved me to such critique? Surely, the criticism is equally applicable to seats reserved for women in the national and provincial assemblies, filled through indirect elections. Yet the change in the modality of elections at the union council level is particularly problematic. As the very first tier of representative government, the union council is a breeding ground of political consciousness and activism. True political empowerment of women at the union council, through direct access and accountability to the electorate, can help build a pool of more able and independent female candidates for positions of authority at higher levels of government. Empowerment at the grass-roots then is key to mainstreaming women in politics. The transformative potential of gender quotas will otherwise be difficult to realise.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 28th, 2015.