Patronage and group support is ok but manipulation has a broader meaning. In case of women and those who are in villages, it will be more prominent.

I am not against Womes’ Reservation Bill. What I want is that government should reach out to the masses with its education schemes. Also, these schemes should not focus on mere reading and writing but should inculcate sense of belonging and morality.

Since the WRB ran into such rough waters, the Election Commission proposed that all political parties should mutually agree on the percentage of seats where they will mandatorily field women candidates in parliamentary and Assembly elections. Failure to do so would result in punitive action to be taken by the Election Commission, even up to derecognition. Left parties have criticised this formula, but the opposition is on the grounds that this is a “compromise formula” that will only ensure tickets for women, not guarantee their victory. However, this seems to me to be the weakest argument against the proposal. The more serious objection to it should be on the grounds of the anti-democratic nature of this kind of policing by the EC, a body not accountable to the people in any way. The principle of parties ensuring female representation internally has worked elsewhere, in the Nordic countries, and in the African National Congress, for example. But in these cases it has been a self-regulating move. In 1980, parties in Norway and Sweden proposed legislation that would commit all political parties to a minimum of 40% women on their electoral lists, but failing the success of this bid, various parties introduced the practice unilaterally. There has been no attempt to police the practice except through the sheer pressure of democratic politics.

It is one thing to say that Parliament as an institution of state should at least formally serve as a forum representing all interests and identities, but quite another to insist that political parties as part of political society, should also be modeled on the same pattern. Parties exist in a democracy precisely in order to represent sectional interests. The absurdity of this proposal, that the EC should have the right to regulate the internal matters of political parties, would be immediately evident if the suggestion had been that all parties would be forced to give a percentage of their seats to dalits or upper castes, to Muslims or Hindus, or to working class people. Why does it not seem absurd when the category here is women? The suggestion can seem reasonable only if “women” is evacuated of all political content, as if it is a neutral category that exists independently of all political considerations. And this is most definitely not the case.

Palak – it is possible that some or many elected women might be manipulated by male relatives, but this would not be true for all elected women. It is a chance worth taking, because I dont think all elected male politicians function as resolute individuals, uninfluenced by powerful men in their families, or by other powerful political figures, generally. My point is that all politicians are influenced by powerful figures/groupings/their own parties to a greater or lesser degree, and the voting for them takes this into account. As the old Hindi song goes, yeh public sab janti hai! When people vote for a person, they know what configuration of political forces they are voting for. If a powerful, politically active male fields his wife or daughter-in-law, the woman will lose or win according to *his* support in the area. Just as when a young male contests elections, he wins or loses according to the support his political patrons have. In short, I believe the point about being “manipulated” is always overstated for women, as if it is unique to them. Democratic politics is entirely about patronage, group support etc. for everyone, male and female.

in all sincerity, i agree with the quota within quota system for women’s reservation. i liked your previous post. however, not everyone clearly has the time to read such a lenghthy chapter from your book. i think it will do your cause better if you simply answer the three-four questions raised in the previous article. not all of them were emperically grounded and i think, shivam vij raised an intersting and though provoking question.

people go through kafila to browse through alternative opnions and suggestions, not get entangled in academic discussions that will cater only a few of your friends in a seminar. i hope you don’t mind my suggestion.