Author – Rashmi Bhushan

The institutionalisation of Panchayat Raj through the 73rd Amendment Act is one of the most remarkable changes in the history of decentralisation of power. It has been more than two decades, to be precise completed 27 years on 24th April, that this amendment has become a justiciable part of the Constitution. The state government is under constitutional obligation to adopt the new Panchayati Raj System. One of the most remarkable features of the act is that it provides reservation for hitherto marginalised communities; SCs, STs, and Women. And the act also gives the state government a discretionary power to provide reservation for backward classes in a panchayat at any level. Of late, we have also seen that many of the state government has given 50 per cent reservation for women candidates. Introduction of gender quota at this level of governance is not only a step to counter the abysmal political representation of women but also a move to achieve women’s empowerment and development. The issue of gender quota is full of conflict. There has been a study which shows that gender quota is nothing but the perpetuation of patriarchy. Women candidates have no agency, as they get selected everything is done and look after by her husband or any male member of her family. Women candidates are just like a rubber stamp. Instead of bringing political equality and fair representation, it brings a more insidious practice that is tokenism. Unfortunately, we do have instances to support this argument. But can we dismiss this whole idea of gender quota which has a primary aim of bringing gender equality and fair representation of women?

Why do we need gender quota?

While we debate around benefits of a gender quota, the first and foremost question that surface on the table is that do we even need gender quota? Cannot men represent women’s need? The plain and simple answer to this moot question is NO. As we live in a society where gender is a crucial feature that orders our lives. Different gender is going to have different kinds of preoccupation concerned perspective that needs to be represented in politics. And the idea that all of those can be represented by an all-male political representative— is the real problem.

And secondly, the recognition of everyone as political equals is something democracy stands for. So what does it say about the nature of democracy if it seems incapable of treating men and women equally in making political decisions that affect our lives? Even if the women representatives do not bring the kind of changes they are expected to bring, there is a basic question of citizenship, that is, what does equal citizenship mean? It doesn’t only mean we have equal right to vote, it got to surely mean that we have an equal right to participation in the political system. In the case of gender, no male politician could bring any of such benefits to women citizens regardless of their policy preferences and agenda. Women representatives stand as a symbol or political role model for other women. They become the symbol of bringing justice in society, a kind of justice that won’t be androcentric in nature but takes women’s concerns and their idea of justice into accounts.

Gender Quota and Tokenism

Does gender quota enhance the political engagement of women? Or is it just a symbolic measure? The very famous nomenclature called “Mukhiya Pati”, time and again, surfaces while we discuss the political reservation of women at a local level. Mukhiya Pati is the husband of the woman elected representative (Mukhiya) who does all the work except the signature. He does everything from attending meetings to the discussion of the programmes. Women candidates are just nominal heads and Mukhiya Patis are the real head with all the agency and power to take decisions. Undoubtedly, the phenomenon of Mukhiya Pati has discredited the gender quota system. It has created hysteria among some of the scholars that gender quota, instead of fighting patriarchy, perpetuated the patriarchal norms. I believe this kind of approach to gender quota is not only unfair but also paves the way for patriarchy to dominate the public spaces. No doubt, Mukhiya Pati exists and that is detrimental to the very purpose of gender quota but we do have studies which also show us another side of the story. It has been seen that pressure on women representatives eases when we have more women in politics. More women in the political arena make each other feel the importance of their woman identity. When women are less in number in political space, they are more likely to adhere to the political stand of the party as a leader with no contribution to her gender identity. But when women representatives are large in number they start recognising their women identity and start talking openly about issues that need to be addressed or that were under-addressed. Gender quotas have been claimed to increase the self-esteem, confidence, and motivation of women in general. Gender quota does recognise women’s intrinsic, inalienable right to power, resources, and opportunities. It has generated the political advancement of women and not only produced a numerical increase of women in elected bodies. Gender quota has enabled women to exercise their own agency in decision-making power and that has actually led to the empowerment of women. Agency in relation to empowerment implies not only actively exercising choices but also doing that in ways that challenge power relation. And the gender quota system is one of a few instruments available that challenges the power relation in the political arena and shifts it in favour of women. Scholars have pieces of evidence that support the claim that women, in general, feel a sense of self-worth when they get to recognised in public space. A small instance of that is when a woman Mukhiya goes out in public space people recognise her and greet her in a way that makes her feel important. This kind of small act does bring empowerment from within.

Gender Quota and Intersectionality

At the national level, India has seen some powerful women politicians like Indira Gandhi, Sushma Swaraj, Sonia Gandhi, Smirti Irani, Harsimaran Kaur Badal but the question is who are they, where do they come from? They are Upper caste women who either come from a political family or have been connected to some sister organisations of the party. Undoubtedly, women representatives are bound to face social, economic and psychological obstacles. Upper caste women only face obstacles that are sexist/misogynist in nature. UC women still can navigate the system, for they are backed by political patrons or family members.

There are categories of women who suffer multidimensional oppression. They don’t only suffer gender oppression or they are not at caste disadvantages, they suffer both caste and gender oppression in a way that complicates not only their existence in open public spaces but also inside the space that is reserved for their gender/caste. The meta construction of womanhood blatantly ignores the caste-gender oppression of non-dwij (lower caste) women. Unidimensional gender quota system problematises the politics of representation for lower caste women as it fails to create a conducive political space for those who are at the intersect of gender and caste. Lower caste women are at the intersection of two disadvantaged identities and as various studies suggest that the reserved constituencies are more likely to elect Brahmin and Bania women candidates. In fact, it has been observed that reserved constituencies are more likely than unreserved constituencies to elect Brahmin and Bania women candidates relative to members of marginalised caste women. We are also familiar with the violence that a lower caste woman representative has to face when she takes in charge of the office. If there will be more women from marginalised caste the fear of violence would get lessened. The political intersectionality needs to be taken into account in gender quota system as unidimensional gender quota leaves the lower caste women at a greater risk of being completely neglected while the formulation of policy for women’s empowerment and development.

So the popular debate around gender quota must make a shift from its requirement argument towards an argument of intersectionality within gender quota. Liberal democracy like India must not have a second thought for the implementation of the gender quota system, along with measures beyond quotas like education, at a national level. Gender quota system at Panchayat Raj gives us a fair amount of evidence to support our demand for it. The capability approach to development will not only empower women but it will eventually lead to the overall development of the nation.

References

1. Phillips, 1995, The Politics of Presence, Oxford and New York, Clarendon Press.
2. Dahlerup D. 2006, (ed): “Women, Quotas and Politics”, London:
3. Karekurve-Ramachandran, Varun, and Alexander Lee. 2020. “Do Gender Quota Hurt Less Privileged Group? Evidence from India”. American Journal of Political
4. Jayal Niraja Gopal, 2006, ́Engendering local democracy: the impact of quotas for women in India‘s panchayats Democratisation, Vol.13, No.1, February.

Author – Rashmi Bhushan is a research scholar at Hyderabad Central University

Image credit – DNA India