Skip to content
Home » Blog » Women in Politics: How Far Does the Power Extend?

Women in Politics: How Far Does the Power Extend?

Women in Politics: How Far Does the Power Extend? 

After last year’s election, Rwanda maintained its position as the national parliament with the greatest proportion of seats held by women, with 61% of the MPs elected being female. Following the genocide, which left the population skewed to an estimated 70% female, the Rwandan Constitution decided in 2003 to set a quota to reserve 30% of parliamentary seats for women. In the 1990s, women made up an average of 18% of MPs, but by the 2008 elections, 56% of seats were taken by women, and this increased to 64% following the 2013 elections.

Legislating for greater representation of women sounds positive. Many female politicians have faced great struggles to get into power, meaning that women are highly underrepresented in the majority of governments. The global average for the proportion of women in parliament is only 24% (IPU, 2018). But, what does greater representation really mean for women?

One would expect that, with more women in power, women’s issues would be raised to the forefront of the policy agenda. Since Theresa May has been prime minister, she has tackled issues of domestic violence, the gender pay gap and sex education. Evidently this will manifest itself in different ways through different women. Margaret Thatcher infamously ‘broke the glass ceiling and dragged the ladder up behind her’, only promoting one woman to cabinet in eleven years.

For Rwanda, a notable achievement has been the ‘Law on the Prevention, Protection and Punishment of Any Gender-Based Violence’ (2006), which among other things, makes polygamy illegal and sets out a legal definition of rape (which includes marital rape and outlines punishments for offenders).

However, as argued by Delvin and Elgie (2008), increased representation often has little impact on policy outputs. Progress on gender-related issues significantly preempted the dramatic increase of female MPs in Rwanda. Achievements prior to this include: Category One status for rape or sexual torture in the post-genocide prosecution guidelines (1996), a law giving rights to pregnant and breastfeeding mothers in the workplace (1997), a law to protect children from violence (2001), and the gender-aware Rwandan Constitution itself, which first implemented the quota (2003).

Aside from policy, questions are also raised about how women in politics influence social expectations of women. A concern with the various attempts to ‘empower’ women is that there is a ‘feminisation of responsibility and obligation’ (Chant, 2008). Increased responsibility, alongside the social obligation to continue with ‘reproductive’ domestic work, means that such policies are often detrimental to women, forcing them to become overworked.

Uvuza (2014) interviewed female Rwandan MPs and found that, despite their public power, women were expected to maintain their domestic responsibilities. In some places, such as South Africa, parliaments have adapted by changing their working hours and calendar to allow for MPs to partake in ‘reproductive’ responsibilities alongside their public role. In Rwanda, however, no such changes have occured, with lacking childcare facilities in parliament adding to the difficulties facing female MPs.

In the UK, similar questions could be raised. In the lead up to the 2017 elections, Theresa May did an infamous interview with her husband, Philip, on The One Show. Memorably, the Prime Minister revealed that: “There’s boy jobs and girls jobs, you see”. Her husband confirmed “I definitely do the bins”, adding: “I do the traditional boy jobs, by and large”. Despite his wife doing the “traditional boy job” of being Prime Minister, it is clear that challenging the stereotypes in politics doesn’t necessarily mean they are challenged in the private sphere.

Some consider Rwanda’s approach to the representation of women as rather tokenistic. It could be argued that a struggle for meritocratic representative election would be more effective method of giving women a voice, and the outcomes would be more fruitful as a result. However, the issues facing women are pressing: tokenism may help ensure they are resolved sooner rather than later.

By Alice Bell

 

 

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER: THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR ONLY AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS OR OPINIONS OF COMPASS MAGAZINE AS A WHOLE OR THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *