Women legislators and the state

Dilara Choudhury
.........................................................

Once again the State of Bangladesh has revealed its character. By baring its soul, it proved beyond anybody's doubt that it is indeed a patriarchal state and it does not give a heed to half of its population -- namely -- women's hopes and aspirations. Why am I terming it as a totally patriarchal state? Because there are a hundred and one reasons I can cite to back up my statement. But for the purpose of this write up I would only take up one issue.

The issue is whether or not there can be a power sharing arrangement between the male and female population of the country. The obvious answer is: why not since Bangladesh is a democracy? Power sharing is the essence and very foundation of democracy, especially with the marginalised groups. There are many marginalised groups in Bangladesh of which women constitute the largest. As a matter of fact they constitute fifty percent of the electorate. If democracy is to function and margilanised groups are to be integrated into the system then what better way there is to start it by sharing power with the women? This apparently difficult task becomes easy if there is effective women's representation at every stratum of country's power structure, especially in the Parliament, which is the vital forum for the discussion of all public issues.

In this context I raise the issue of women's effective representation in the parliament in the backdrop of BNP-led coalition government's recent proposal to amend the constitution in order to expand the Jatiyo Sangsad from present 300 to 450 seats of which 50 would be reserved for the women. These reserved seats for the women would be allocated through the proportional strength of various parliamentary parties. The move is quite sudden and the arguments are that increased number of seats would make the parliament functional and the enhanced quota of reserved seats for women would make their representation effective. The Bill would be placed before the parliament during the next session and with two-third majority it would be like a breeze for the government to have it passed.

In the face of the proposed amendment there have been mixed reactions. Newspaper articles have appeared both for and against it. However, most have written on whether or not the expanded Parliament would help make our present dysfunctional parliament functional. But, so far, not much has been said or written about women's reserved seats issue although there are many questions that need to be raised and discussed. First thing that comes to mind is why did the government raise the number from previously women's reserved seats of 30 to 50? In what way is that number without a meaningful election method going to make women's representation in the Parliament effective?

It is to be noted that this issue of ensuring effective women's representation in the parliament is, at least, one-decade old. Numerous seminars, roundtables, dialogue and discussion meetings have pointed out the fact that -- women's reserved seats that are filled indirectly (in reality by nomination) do not ensure women's meaningful voice in the parliament. It is a common knowledge that indirectly elected (rather selected) female MPs failed miserably in having any impact either in policy formulation or raising women's issues on the floor of the parliament. So far, no sound women leadership, as expected, has emerged even after years of "training." They basically served as the vote bank of the party that captured the majority in the parliament. Now by introducing the proportional allocation -- the vote bank phenomenon may be done away with but would these women legislators be able to put an end to the path that propagated women's subjugation in home to their subjugation in the parliament?

Can the increase of number of seats without changing the method of election make them more effective? These questions have not been analysed and not much have been written and said whether or not these indirectly elected women from the reserved seats would be able to confront, work and achieve success with regard to the gargantuan task that lie ahead in the 21st century in the backdrop of the globalisation and its negative effects on the women. Majority analysts have not touched upon the issues. Although a little deeper look and a thoughtful analysis reveal that when they do not have a geographically designated constituency from where they are elected it is impossible for them to discern the hopes and aspirations of their constituents.

How can then they be conscious about how the vast majority of women are getting affected by the negative impacts of globalisation? Surely, they would be quite oblivious that there exist a large number of women in both organised and unorganised sectors due to the demand of cheap labor by multi-national companies without any societal or state sponsored security. And that women rights are violated on daily basis beginning from rape, sexual harassment, persecution, discrimination, trafficking, illegal migration to exposure to HIV and AIDS. They would also be quite unaware about the predicaments of the working women face in their workplace like transport problems, lack of women's physical needs and baby care centers, inadequate maternity leave and so on and so forth and their daily juggle between the work and household task. How much sensitive would they be about the domestic violence and lack of status of the housewives within the perimeters of their households? Who will then look after these issues and formulate policies to address their concerns if they do not know the hearts and minds of her constituents half of which are women.

This is not to say that the male legislators are not concerned about these issues but undoubtedly it is the women who can feel other women's pain, their inspeakable sorrows, their frustrations, their disappointments, their misfortunes and their tragedies than the men do. Women legislators without a constituency and direct election would, thus, be unable to shape public policies that are more caring and nurturing. Most important of all they would not be able to develop leadership, gain expertise, knowledge, and tools so that they are ready to "play a brokering role for change through a synergy of partnership with government (state) and with civil society so that the market forces can be shaped to work in favor of women and gender equality." This is indeed critical because without such partnership national development in the backdrop of globalisation would remain as elusive as ever.

Moreover, besides having difficulties in legislative and leadership tasks indirectly elected legislators also face impediments in performing as individual legislators. If they are not directly elected and have no constituencies then they would also fail to do the following: to act as a medium of communication to maintain link between the legislature and the constituents; to establish the vital linkage between the capital and her constituents, which a legislator with a constituency does by physically moving and contacting the constituents; to bring constituents' individual demands before any member of the executive; and lastly, to maintain their salience as a legislator, as most constituents would not be able even identify them as legislators. It is obvious from the above discussion that only the increased number of reserved seats without direct election would in any way enhance women's leadership quality, efficacy in legislation, especially legislation dealing with women's issues and their role as individual legislators.

It is, thus, no wonder that women's organisations have rejected the proposed amendment. Some have brought out processions protesting the reintroduction of 50 'sets of ornaments' instead of 30. But unfortunately civil society by and large has remained ambivalent about it. It is, thus, with deep regrets and sadness that we point out the "inertia" of the civil society to vigorously take up the issue although one many recall that civil society members as well as some male legislators were by the side of the women's organisations when they waged the movement for increased number of directly elected reserved seats for women, especially since the fall of Ershad regime in 1990. They know that there have been some differences of opinion among the women's organizations about the exact number of seats but there were no two opinions about modus vivendi in electing the female legislators. On two areas there was a consensus: that the number of seats should be increased and that the method of election should be direct. But now that a Bill is about to be placed before the Parliament, which would bring the old wine in a new bottle -- no strong voice of protest from the civil society is discerned. No one that I know of has critically analysed that once the bill is passed women's effective representation or ensuring of their voice in the highest tier of the power structure would be muffled and the opportunities sealed for at least another decade.

By going back on its pledge to introduce the direct election principle and ignoring the demands of the women population the BNP-led government is trying to induct a mechanism for women's political empowerment which instead of enhancing women's overall power and status would, on the contrary, put the clock backward. And tragically, as mentioned earlier, there has not been any large-scale protest against this action. It is, thus, amply clear how entrenched the patriarchy is in Bangladesh. Needless to say that the whole episode would have a serious repercussion on those who believed and wanted to bring about a qualitative change in male-female power relations. I am afraid a large number of women would now become indifferent and cease to work for the cause. There would be a sense of resignation that would not augur well for the society at large. Perhaps the state of Bangladesh wants such a situation where it would be less problematic to push its patriarchal agenda without being "disturbed" by the trouble-mongers.
.........................................................
The author is Professor, Govt and Politics, Jahangirnagar University.