On a global scale, we also need this same representation in organisations like the UN: Under Koffi Annan's guidance beside the rhetoric, women were only 37% of those in proffesional positions, UNIFEM was the only organisation for women and the one with the smallest budget(a pitiful one too) and there was a very small gender component to other agencies.

So thanks for bringing up this subject, this is a crime of inequality of status and thus violence against women.

This is a great article which brings up a very important question with some compelling arguments.

Without playing devil's advocate, it seems that the reasoning motivating Mitchelle's argument for quotas is the claim that women are only better represented by other women:

"Women require representation from other women who have common interests based on a shared historical disadvantage and because of the unique social roles women tend to fill such as the emphasis on their household abilities and child-bearing responsibilities."

The philosophical question that this raises is one similar to the debate about whether or not proportional representation (PR) electoral systems are better than non-PR systems. One part of the argument for quotas given hints at a belief that the composition of government matters to such an extent that parliament should be a microcosm of society. The alternative, of course, is that parliament and society are engaged in a principal-agent relationship to such an extent that what matters most are the decisions that governments make -- if these decisions are representative, then everything else is less important. We are more inclined to believe the latter. Once one starts taking the path of defining "representation" in terms of the actual people in parliament and government being a microcosm of society, then such an argument may be a slippery slope. It may begin to beg the questions: when and where should one draw the line? Should the next step then be to establish quotas along other social cleavages such as race, ethnicity, sexuality and so forth in order to get the right balance in parliament?

The above argument against quotas gains strength if one does not believe that there are any "real" intrinsic differences between men and women. Thus, there is nothing "innate" about being a woman that makes a woman a better representative for the interests of women. A man can represent such interests just as well; after all, men have women as their mothers and spouses and there is no "war" or conspiracy by all men against women. This is especially true in a world of increasingly weakening demarcations of acceptable gender roles.

We have made reference here to the controversial statements by former Harvard president, Lawrence Summers, to make the additional point that advocating for women's rights is not a straightforward process and it is easy to get into pitfalls and arguments that may open the space for more discriminatory attacks against women.

At this point, it is worth noting that that the motivation behind the arguments presented here is not to support the status quo -- there are definitely many gender imbalances in the distribution of power in Africa and all over the world that need redressing. The true intent, however, is to suggest that there is something undemocratic about advocating for any electoral system that imposes a specific composition of government, not least in the case where such a composition depends on beliefs or assumptions about differences between sexes. To be fair, Mitchelle's article emphasizes "women's issues" more than it does "representation". However, we believe there may be other ways of reaching the goal of better involvement of women without making electoral systems less democratic via the limits that any system of gender quotas would have to impose on the electorate.

"All of my adult life, I have preached the virtues of power sharing between men and women. The arrangement seemed not only fair, but also obvious: Women populate half the democracy; we should occupy half the positions of leadership - both for gender equity and because women, a natural resource, should be mined for energy.

Now when I think of women in leadership, I think of it not only as the fair thing to do, but also as the only thing to do. In a few short years, the world has become very unstable. Terrorists attacked us on our soil; in response, we waged war against Afghanistan and Iraq. The formerly robust U.S. economy will soon sag under the biggest deficit in its history. Corporate greed has wiped out whole companies, along with hundreds of thousands of jobs. Millions of Americans continue to live without adequate health care.

When I look at the issues we face, and when I think of the changes we need, I am as convinced as I have ever been that our future depends on the leadership of women - not to replace men, but to transform our options alongside them."

What is sad, to me, is that we are even considering putting a quota system in place at all. The quota system may put women in positions of power, but what women need is not power but respect from their male counterparts. What does it matter if there are women in power and they go back to their homes still prisoners of societal norms that debase them? I believe that attitudes and cultural views of women need to changed for there to be any real progress concerning women in politics, else we would merely be mowing the lawn, not uprooting the plant that put us in this mess in the first place.

Africa has some of the highest rates of female political participation in the world today. However, the talk on introduction of quotas attempts to move debates of women and political participation to encompass a variety of arguments for having women in politics. Among the arguments in support for gender quotas is the demand for gender balance, focus on women’s interests and to tackle the discriminatory practice of politics.

Gender quotas will not solve all the problems of women in politics. The mere definition of gender quotas is ambiguous because there is no distinction as to what level of politics is being discussed. However, quotas are an excellent example of expanding the idea of proportional representation in political system. Though many issues in politics are gender neutral and either gender can address them, women’s concerns require women to represent themselves. Quotas are not a discrimination of men but an answer to the historical under representation of women.

While, women on the continent have risen to high political positions with vice presidents in Zimbabwe, Uganda, South Africa and Gambia. There is still less representation in parliament and other political institutions. Gender quotas represent the change in politics to deal with structural discrimination that will afford women the opportunity to participate in political institutions. The growing change in politics to focus not on equal opportunity but on equality of result is what quotas try to address.

Yes, quotas focus on the numerical representation of women instead of the merit of women because education and resources are no longer strong hindrances to women who want to be involved in politics. Women now have good qualifications and strong political beliefs. Our understanding of merit in politics has to be broader than levels of education. Instead we should try to tackle the direct discrimination that allows for the under representation of “qualified� women in politics.

If quotas go with the electoral system set up in a country and are correctly implemented they could successfully lead to true women’s representation. Thinking that women will serve, as symbolism is still assuming that politics is only for men and women will not be actively involved. We need to change our attitudes about the capabilities of women, by providing them with a mechanism that will take away some of the disadvantages that women have faced. Quotas will lead to proportional representation.

Mitchelle Ajida