Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1080741
17 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 10 FEBRUARY 2019 INTERVIEW "it is likely that they will look at the women candidates with the highest number of votes after the last elected MP on each district, and then select the ones with the highest number of votes." This is admittedly all tentative… but would you support that sort of arrangement? Yes; I would support it… be- cause we are trying to overcome so many centuries of cultural disadvantage, that something has to change in quite a radi- cal way for the balance to be redressed. It is not something we can sit back and wait for to happen on its own. Gender bal- ance hasn't achieved itself, on its own, in the 50 years since Independence…. at least, not at national level. But at party level, in the case of the La- bour Party structures, we have seen it happen in a relatively short period of time. So I like to evaluate the Labour Party's attempt, within its executive group, as a pilot study. From that perspective, the findings are positive and constructive. Having said this, the two con- texts are not interchangeable. A party is a party, and a coun- try is a country. But what can we take from that initiative – scientifically, in an empirically informed manner – and apply it to the context of Parliament? After all, I would be surprised if the two main political par- ties oppose these measures. Internally, even the Nationalist Party has introduced measures, of a different kind, to facilitate female activism within the par- ty. Not as explicitly as the PL, perhaps… but then again, the Labour Party has always been ahead in gender issues. Not just male-female issues, but gender orientation as a whole. But the point remains: the two parties both recognise the need to take measures to address this issue within their own structures. Why not extend that to Parlia- ment? There is, however, an intriguing historical paradox in all this. We talk of 'centuries of cultural disadvantage'; yet a woman (Agatha Barbara) was catapulted into parliament in 1945 – the first-ever election in which women could vote and contest – and went on to eventually become President. Likewise, Mabel Strickland led her own party (and owned her own, powerful media empire) throughout the 1950s and 1960s. It seems that Malta used to accept the basic idea of women in politics – and even in positions of high power and influence – until quite recently. Why, then, is it so hard for women to get elected today? With regard to Agatha Bar- bara and Mabel Strickland: I think it's very important to look into the narratives of those women, to see what triggers were conducive to their success in politics. Often it is not just a question of being a woman or a man. In sociology, we call it 'intersectionality'. One's gen- der identity would intersect with one's family background, perhaps, or other social factors. Agatha Barbara, for instance, grew up in extreme poverty; that might have motivated her to really fight to make a change. When women got the right to vote in 1945, she would have seen it as a golden opportu- nity. Surely there would have been intersectional factors in the case of both two women… as there surely must also be in the case of women in Maltese politics today. But we need to be careful to identify these fac- tors correctly… If I may propose one such factor myself: would you agree that women in Maltese politics may feel they have to work harder than their male counterparts – to be more assertive, get more results, etc. – precisely because they are women, and therefore have to 'justify' or 'defend' their position in the face of cultural prejudice? I wouldn't exclude that pos- sibility… and not only when it comes to 'defending' or 'justify- ing' their position. If it is harder for them to get into that posi- tion in the first place, because of all the cultural inhibitions, and so on… then they will prob- ably feel they have to 'make the most of it' while they're there. I experience this myself all the time: once I've managed to sort out the children, and all the household duties are done – and I have a very good sup- port structure – then, if I go to the gym, or go out with my friends… I'm going to make the most of it. Onto the issue of quotas per se. Marlene Farrugia – one of Malta's nine female MPs – has come out against quotas, arguing that women don't need such measures to get elected. Instead, she argues that that female representation could be increased by introducing 'family friendly' measures, like (presumably) childcare centres, baby-changing facilities, etc. At the risk of a controversial question... doesn't this argument simply buy into the (traditionally male) view of women as essentially 'mothers first', and everything else afterwards? Personally, I think those facil- ities should be in place anyway. There is a possibility that MPs today – including men – might need a moment to, for example, give a hand-over to the person picking up the children by car. This happens to me all the time where I work, at Univer- sity. Somewhere, I think there should be a room to change a nappy, or a ramp to go up with a pushchair. To me, these are basic facilities that should be there already, irrespective of gender balance or quotas. But in no way do I see that as asso- ciating the female with the role of child-carer… Not even in the context of an initiative to increase the number of women in parliament? The way I understand it, Farrugia's argument assumes that if you're a woman, you're going to: a) have children, and; b) bring them with you to Parliament. Yet plenty of women choose not to have children; and plenty more have husbands or carers to look after them at home… I don't see it that way my- self. If, in future, there are more women in parliament… it doesn't automatically follow that they'd use those facilities all the time; but yes, I do see it as important that they are there. Because, if you're an MP, you're going want to fo- cus on your key performance indicators… not on things like, 'Oh-my-gosh, what am I going to do because the chil- dren are here, and there's no nappy-changer?' All the same, I don't think facilities such as nappy-changers, in them- selves, will be the factor to really entice more women to parliament. It wouldn't entice me, for example. If I need to change a nappy, I'd do it any- where, nappy-changer or no nappy-changer… blindfolded, even [laughs]. But then, there are other issues that might. Family-friendly hours, for in- stance. That makes a big dif- ference… even to men. Even so, however: on their own, family friendly hours are not enough. It cannot be in iso- lation, but has to come ac- companied by other changes. Some people have objected to the new parliamentary hours, for example, because they might have an impact on their private practices. But why do they place more value on their private practice, than on their parliamentary work? Probably because the remuneration, es- pecially as a backbencher, is very poor. It does not dignify the work and the job title. This is also why I think it's impor- tant to talk about a package of measures, rather than just about quotas, or facilities, etc. What I firmly believe is that the political arena, in a democ- racy, is where the electorate is represented by Constitution. If, in this country, we really believe in gender equity… our parliament should really re- flect that. not achieve itself PHOTOGRAPHY BY JAMES BIANCHI