The Indian Experience with Reserved Seats for Women

In India, women's quotas were not written afresh on a blank slate. Various types of quotas were already inscribed on it. India has a history of more than 55 years of constitution-backed quotas for various marginalized groups. Article 15 (1) of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, sex, caste, and place of birth. Article 15 (3) and (4) state that nothing in this article shall prevent the state from making special provisions for women and children and for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Article 334 provides for a reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and the nomination of the Anglo-Indian community in the House of the People and in the Legislative Assemblies of the states. Originally intended to remain in force for only 30 years, this provision has now been extended by three constitutional amendments for 10 years each in 1980, 1989, and 2000. This suggests that quotas, if introduced, would be difficult to withdraw. However, this does not mean that the same would be true for gender quotas, nor does it imply that we should not support them. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are assertive groups who constitute a significant voting bloc. Women, divided among various castes and races, have yet to assert their identity as a decisive constituency in politics.

In India, quotas are applicable in admission to educational institutions, in employment in the public sector, and in representation in local self-government institutions, state legislatures, and Parliament. There are proposals for quotas for Most Backward Classes among the Other Backward Classes, for employment quotas for economically backward upper castes and religious minorities, and for extending employment quotas to the private sector. All these proposals have led to a controversy. At present the ceiling on various quotas stands at 50% but there are persistent demands by various sections to raise these limits in order to claim a larger share of the pie. There is also a counterdemand from the opponents of quotas, insisting on the withdrawal of caste-based quotas. The chances of raising the ceiling beyond the existing 50% mark are rather slim. These demands have reduced the legitimacy of quotas as a measure for affirmative action. Quotas now appear more like unreasonable populist measures for gaining popularity among certain caste groups. This overloading of the quota discourse has had some negative impact on the issue of women's political quotas. Therefore, although the 73d and 74th Constitutional Amendments providing a 33% quota for women in local self-government institutions were enacted unanimously, a similar provision could not be extended to the state legislatures and Parliament, although the political parties supporting parliamentary quotas have enjoyed a majority in the Indian Parliament for the last four general elections. Indian discourse on quotas is extremely polarized and politicized and is rarely discussed dispassionately on its merits. To complicate the matter further, in this society with caste-based quotas, the Census Reports of India do not report data about castes.

We need to remember this backdrop while discussing the issue of gender quotas. If we have quotas for so many deprived sections of Indian society, it is quite logical and completely justifiable to have quotas for women as well, who without doubt are a deprived section in terms of all human development indicators. Moreover, women are not as organized as other groups, like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, which are qualified for quotas in education, employment and electoral representation.

In 1993, the 73d and 74th Amendments to the Constitution of India provided for a reservation of 33% of seats for women in local self-government institutions. This created more than 1 million slots for women. Both these amendment bills were passed in the Parliament unanimously without any discussion or debate and without any demand from women's groups. At the time of the 1996 General Elections to the XI Lok Sabha, all major national political parties committed themselves to extending similar quotas at the state and national levels. Nonetheless, the Women's Reservation Bill with this provision has been controversial for the past nine years, even as the parliamentary arithmetic has remained in favor of the political parties officially supporting this bill, in the XI, XII, XIII and XIV Lok Sabha. Note that these parties have not initiated any measures for increasing women's representation within their own ranks, nor have they nominated more female candidates for elections.

The reason behind the smooth sailing of the 73d and 74th Amendments providing women's quotas in local bodies, on the one hand, and the controversy over the Women's Reservation Bill providing quotas in state legislatures and the Lok Sabha, on the other, is that the former did not pose any direct threat to the interests of male members of Parliament and state legislatures while the latter threatens their own survival. The way women's quotas on the local level were introduced, by skipping the preparatory phase altogether, is a cause for grave concern. All political parties and women's organizations were caught unaware as the gates of the political arena were suddenly thrown wide open to women. A space for more than 1 million elected women representatives was created all over India, when not even all the political parties combined have that many female activists. Therefore, the quota originally intended to create space for women instead created a vacuum generating a force of suction that pulled into politics all the women standing on the brim of the political arena. Many of them were political activists in their own right, while others were close relatives of shrewd male politicians who were prompt enough to step aside and push them forward. This led to the phenomenon of proxy women representatives in local bodies and made women's quotas appear as a form of state-sponsored feminism.

In the absence of a widespread debate about quotas, even after 12 years of implementation there is no consensus regarding what is to be expected from women elected through reserved seats. Some believed that women would purify politics, while others held that it would feminize corruption. Some crucial questions still remain unanswered. What is the objective of quotas: merely a sizable presence of women? Can the new recruits from reserved seats act as the agency for change, or would they end up internalizing the prevalent rules of politics? As I have said earlier, I would support gender quotas even if they did nothing else but increase the presence of women in the positions of power. Moreover, I do not subscribe to the tendency of holding women responsible for everything right from the moment they step into a seemingly powerful role. Can we legitimately expect women in reserved seats to owe a primary loyalty to the cause of women alone? But in that case, it would also mean that it would be okay if men were primarily loyal to men and Scheduled Caste representatives were primarily loyal to Scheduled Caste people. Do women alone represent women? The evidence proves the contrary. Should women primarily represent women? This would lead to their further marginalization rather than integration. How do we assess whether quotas are really leading to the empowerment of women? Can there be any role models for women representatives? Do we expect an ideal female politician to be any different from an ideal male politician? If so, then in what way? And who constitutes the “we”?

The success stories reported from all over India indicate that women's quotas in local bodies have mustered magnificent gains. The presence of 1 million is a number large enough to legitimize and assert the role of women as partners in the public sphere. Quotas work if they generate a large number of women in office. Quotas have given women activists access to political power. There are numerous examples of wives of male representatives who were put in office, but their number is gradually decreasing. Moreover, during the course of their tenure, these wives have been learning to shed their identity as a proxy for their husbands and are beginning to assert themselves. Many women from deprived sections in the community have been elected through quotas and have done a great job during their five-year term. Some have become role models for other female representatives. Especially in rural India, the presence of so many elected women has increased the self-esteem, confidence, and motivation of women in general. With the quotas in local government, a woman is now a mayor or a chairperson of a village council. She hoists the national flag on Independence Day and is saluted by everyone present at the occasion. This has brought about a dramatic qualitative change in the self-esteem of the average woman. This change is intangible and unquantifiable, but nevertheless it is very much there. Female representatives have led to antiaddiction campaigns, turning towns into liquor-free zones. Although the quotas have been supported by women's movement activists and academic women, there is still a deficit of input from these two critical actors. If there was enough input from the women's movement and from female academics, this critical mass might soon lead to critical acts. The election of women through quotas has initiated the process of empowerment in the political sphere that could spread to other spheres, too. It has started a process of challenging the patriarchal hierarchy in the private as well as public sphere. Now it is not uncommon to find a female municipal councilor whose husband or father-in-law serves under her as a teacher or clerk in the municipal school. This has considerably changed the status of female representatives in their family.

Some supplementary measures would make quotas more effective. Political parties should provide similar quotas for women at every level and in every wing and every decision-making body of the party organization. This would widen the pool of eligible women candidates, reduce the percentage of proxies, and improve the efficacy of women's participation. Gender sensitization of men would help them realize that there cannot be true liberation of men until women experience liberty. Political education of the electors, in addition to the availability of eligible candidates, is likely to reduce the number of proxy women. Capacity building of women as representatives and potential candidates may be organized by professional training institutes or even universities on a mass scale.

Should the United States Consider a Gender Quota?

Although an answer to the question of whether remaining countries should also adopt quotas for women cannot be generalized with a yes or no, under no circumstances should any country skip the preparatory phase prior to the introduction of quotas. The U.S. context is peculiar. While men's rights are guaranteed by specific language in the Constitution, women's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are secured only at the whim of Congress or state legislatures and the courts. The National Council of Women's Organizations has made a cogent argument emphasizing the need for an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The first and still the only right that the U.S. Constitution specifically affirms as equal for women and men is the right to vote. Even the 14th Amendment of 1868 guaranteeing all persons the right to equal protection under the law used the word “male citizens” and clearly excluded women in determining states' representation in Congress.

The United States remains the only developed democracy that has not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The ERA, proposed by the Congress in 1972, fell three states short of reaching the required 38 states necessary for ratification. Currently there is a renewed ERA initiative in the 109th Congress. If proposed and ratified, the ERA would ensure that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex. It would also empower the U.S. Congress to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation.

The fact sheet compiled for the new ERA initiative in the 109th Congress shows a gender wage gap in 2004, where women earned only 76% of what men earned. Only 9% of board members of media and high-tech firms were women; only 3% of executives from media, telecom, and e-companies were women. Women-owned firms get only 2% of all venture capital investment. Only 4% of the highest-ranking corporate officers are women. Less than 3% of federal contacts go to women-owned firms. Discrimination throughout the life cycle makes older women more vulnerable to poverty; the poverty rate of older women is nearly twice as high as that of older men. Nearly one in every seven women over 75 years of age is poor. The pension gap is even larger than the earnings gap. Retired women are only half as likely as men to receive any kind of pension.

The Dingell-Maloney Report of 2002 titled “A New Look at the Glass Ceiling: Where are the Women?” offered evidence that the “glass ceiling” in the management ranks of U.S. companies is hardening, not shattering. The report revealed that in seven of the 10 industries studied, full-time women managers earned less than their male counterparts and that the earnings gap between full-time female and male managers actually widened between 1995 and 2000. Only in five of the 10 industries studied did women hold a share of management jobs proportional to their share of the industry workforce. And where women do hold “management titles,” the positions are often in less-strategic, lower-paying areas of the company's operations.

Passing the ERA would help set the tone for equality in the workplace by writing into the Constitution what most Americans strongly believe: that equal rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. Ironically, in the absence of an ERA, though discrimination against women cannot be treated as unconstitutional, any positive discrimination in their favor can be easily dismissed as unconstitutional. This has been reinforced by the 2003 Supreme Court judgment on the policy of the University of Michigan's undergraduate program regarding affirmative action in admissions. Although it confirmed that minority applications may be given an edge in admissions, it ruled that the system devised to diversify the composition of the student body was unconstitutional “because it was similar to a quota system.” This leaves us in no doubt that without the ERA and CEDAW, any quota for women will also be treated as unconstitutional.

There is still some good news. Even without quotas, women in the United States have reached 15.6% in the House and 14% in the Senate. In 10 states, more than 30% of state legislators are women. Women's lowest representation is in South Carolina, at 8.8%, but this is still higher than the percentage of women in the Indian Parliament, where even the highest percentage has never touched the mark of 9%. Moreover, the number of women in the XIV Lok Sabha has dropped to 45 from 49 in the XIII Lok Sabha.

Party quotas will not be very relevant in the United States because party organizations have a limited role in the process of recruitment to state legislatures and Congress. Individual representatives are more important here than in a parliamentary democracy. In parliamentary democracies, the institution of political parties is much stronger and has the ability to promote or inhibit women's entry into parliament; therefore, a lot depends on a proactive role of political parties. In India, fragmentation of the polity in recent years has led to the emergence of coalition politics that has reduced each party's share in pre-poll alliances. In the rat race for the few crumbs, women get marginalized even further. So in a quota-ridden society like India's, women's quotas seem to be a natural remedy.

The situation of U.S. women is quite different on several accounts. Although worldwide, women are less likely to hold an economic portfolio, to be minister of defense, or to be their country's top foreign affairs representative, the United States boasts two female secretaries of state, Madeline Albright and Condoleezza Rice, representing each major political party. Secretary Rice's case is unique in that she is the first African-American woman to occupy such a high post.

In the United States, strong organic linkages exist among the women's movement, female academics, and female elected representatives. There is tremendous initiative on the part of women's groups and academic institutions in regard to women's political participation. There are several examples of local-, state- and national-level initiatives to strengthen and sustain women in politics. Academic institutions, like the Women and Politics Institute at American University and the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, provide training and online resources and conduct research to advance women's participation in public life. EMILY's List, the WISH List, the Women's Campaign Fund, the National Women's Political Caucus, the National Council of Women's Organizations, the Women's Appointments Project, the White House Project, the Women's Campaign School, the Women's Voting Guide, and a number of similar partisan, nonpartisan, and multiparty initiatives are striving for women's political empowerment. In India, such links are conspicuously absent even today, despite 12 years of implementation of women's quotas in local governments and some nine years of controversy over the Women's Reservation Bill.

If the United States makes any headway in passing an ERA and ratifying CEDAW, it will resolve many issues for women. Thanks to the long tradition of generations of the women's movement in the United States, women's work participation is high. Women have already entered many occupations traditionally associated with men alone. Only their fair share in positions of power is yet to be ensured. Guarantees of equal opportunities, equal pay, and protection from violence will ensure women's better access to and greater control over resources. This will create a level playing field, which may eventually translate into higher political representation.

An ERA would constitute a precondition for women's quotas. Given that, even without the ERA, the number of women serving in U.S. state legislatures has increased more than fourfold since 1971, I would go to the extent of saying that within 10 years of an ERA implementation, U.S. women will be in a position to attain the critical mass of 30% to 33% in the field of politics. If they do not succeed, then it will be a strong case for pleading for women's quotas.

Quotas per se are not enough for the sustained effective participation of women in politics. Some supplementary measures are essential for making quotas a viable proposition. These measures would go a long way in maintaining the high proportion of women even after quotas are withdrawn. Preparations before implementing quotas should aim at capacity building for women and attitudinal change on the part of men. Transformation at the institutional level is easier to achieve, but we need effective measures to bring about a similar transformation at the personal level, a concrete attitudinal change in individuals. Women's entry into the public sphere should be supplemented by a corresponding involvement of men in the private sphere and in occupations not traditionally frequented by men. This would lead to a redefinition of gender roles. There needs to be a scaling down of expectations associated with a demanding and confining notion that perceives women primarily as housewives. Women-friendly party organizations and parliaments, and a tradition of women (and men) mentoring women, are some ways of ensuring the sustainability of women's representation. Politics must become a coveted profession for women and men alike. We need a culture where it will be possible to evolve woman-friendly politics that will take cognizance of women's gender-specific needs in a patriarchal system.