It's not about Rosy

There was an animated discussion via my facebook on the underrepresentation of women in the new parliament, following the General Election of August 17.  The debate was stimulated by the fact that probably the one woman from the winning UNFGG who has come to Parliament off her own bat (not because of male spouses, siblings or parents), Rosy Senanayake, lost her seat in the preferential voting.  The number of women in this Parliament has decreased to eleven, from thirteen in the previous one.    The national lists of all contending parties are also devoid of significant numbers of women, and what caused the FB furore was the fact that some of us were advocating that  the Prime Minister (and other leaders, though that was not quite so explicit) uses the national list to increase women’s representation, and perhaps bring people like Rosy back into Parliament.

There are some people who think Rosy is arrogant – but by and large most people think she did a good job as an MP and during her 100 days, and that she stood by the UNP when others were leapfrogging between the two parties.  But really, the argument is not about Rosy.   The questions that are being raised are against the backdrop of ‘good governance’ principles.  First, is it against good governance to  bring in people who have not won the preference of the voters?  The President warned against doing this, and there are fears that others who were also rejected, and undesirable (the name of the former Minister of Higher Education keeps propping up!) might then creep in. But then, is it good governance to have 52% of the country’s population underrepresented in Parliament?  And shouldn’t the National List nominations be used to redress some of the imbalances that the electoral system might create?

Interestingly a newspaper carried a news item that was headlined No regrets: Rosy, reflecting some of the usual reactions to discrimination say in labour force participation, or political participation – if the women themselves don’t mind, if they prefer not to enter the work force, why should we?  I heard this argument yesterday while discussing a funding proposal on women’s empowerment with a leading NGO specializing in micro finance and small business development  and that was not the first time, neither will it be the last.  But if you read the article you will recognize that election campaigns are fought on a cutthroat, individualistic basis, and that parties themselves have no commitment to supporting women candidates get elected. 

Many of us signed up to a hurriedly drawn up petition to the Prime Minister asking him to consider bringing in more women via the national list.  As with many things,  we are too late.  We should have petitioned him and the other parties at the time of nominations. The Vote for Women campaign did not have a huge impact - there just weren't enough women to vote for!. The Elections Commissioner has declared the National Lists closed, so nothing can come of the petition even if it is read.  And that is unlikely.  As one of my facebook friends said, no one really cares.