All-women shortlists are a short-term necessity for delivering power and parity in politics

On September 5 the ballot opens for the Labour Women’s Network 2014 elections – alongside this week’s publication of the Counting Women In report “Sex and Power in 2014”, which confirms what we already know about the current underrepresentation of women in politics.  One of the recommendations in challenging this is that of increasing opportunities for women in all areas of politics.

A mechanism to encourage this is All-Women Shortlists (AWS) – which are at the very least controversial.  Understandably so – their existence angers me.  I have a similar feeling about Foodbanks.  The very fact that there is a need for AWS and Foodbanks to exist in 2014 does nothing to convince me that we are a progressive society.  But exist they do, and with excellent purpose.

Why do AWS meet with such resistance?  I regularly find myself in debate about this with male and female Labour colleagues. The same arguments come up: AWS are discriminatory against men, elections should be based on meritocracy, AWS are undemocratic.  A couple of weeks ago similar views were expressed by Austin Mitchell MP, so it is little wonder that the rest of us have doubts.  So let’s examine the three arguments I encountered.

1. “AWS are discriminatory against men”.  Well – yes they are, in that they don’t allow men to stand for selection. An alternative way to look at this is that politics is discriminatory against a lot of people – I have yet to meet anyone of the opinion that BAME people are appropriately represented in any party, for example. Women represent 51% of the UK population, yet constitute only 23% of MPs, and only 13% of local authority leaders – so women are a good place to start if we want any of this to change. At present, Carlisle has an excellent PPC Lee Sherriff who come 2015 will be the first woman MP Cumbria has ever elected.

2. “Election should be based on meritocracy.” The obvious response to this would be pointing out the number of white, well-connected Eton educated men currently populating Parliament. I want to know my elected representative was successful due to their commitment to the job, their values and their determination to create change which reflects these values. I fail to see how, by extending participation at senior level to a more diverse range of people, AWS contradict meritocracy. Lucy Rigby and Amina Lone, to name but two of Labour’s amazing PPCs  work with enormous skill, commitment, and passion to make a difference, and the ability to engage with people to create change. This represents a meritocracy.

Business organisations which have women (not even parity of gender, just women as well as men) in senior positions do better than those who have male only boardrooms. I want this for our PLP as well – I want it to be stronger and produce better outcomes for its stakeholders. It is also important to remember that AWS are a short term strategy not a long term solution. When parity is achieved, they will cease to exist. I find this as exciting as picturing a UK where foodbanks are unnecessary.

3. “AWS are undemocratic”. AWS came about through democratic process. MPs both male and female voting in favour of them. The NEC govern their use and implementation. For Labour colleagues still unconvinced, considering AWS in relation to Clause 1 might be helpful:

“The party shall bring together members and supporters who share its values to develop policies, make communities stronger through collective action and support, and promote the election of Labour Party representatives at all levels of the democratic process”.

This “bringing together” of members and supporters to participate in politics at all levels is surely democratic. Take for example the work of Movement for Change, the organisation I work with which sits within the Labour movement. Our model of leadership has encouraged the introduction to public life of people who were excluded by traditional politics.  Young mums have successfully influenced policy change on high cost credit, refugee women have organised themselves into a political Council, women who have experienced domestic abuse have held senior politicians to account, and more.  Choosing to shift the focus from traditional leadership and to look for leaders outside of this narrow sphere is democracy in action.

The Sex and Power 2014 report concludes that AWS are essential for the creation of a representative government. AWS  represent the values and rules of the Labour Party. Their long term effects are yet to be seen, but it is certainly reasonable to predict that when women see other women in positions of power, they will be encouraged to work towards stepping up into public life themselves – at whatever level they wish to. As often as hearing support for AWS from Labour colleagues, I have heard it described at best as a necessary evil, at worst as unfair, sexist, a reflection that women are not as capable as men to work effectively in public life. Perhaps if we as Labour members find it difficult to accept a short-term mechanism which encourages a more diverse movement, we need to ask ourselves some very searching questions about what the real issue is that troubles us about encouraging women into public life.