RECENT ARTICLES

Return to home page


A WOMAN FOR PRESIDENT


Jocelynne A. Scutt*

In 1999, European Commissioner Emma Bonino won hands down in a popular vote for President of Italy. Described as a 'devil-may-care politician', Emma Bonino was arrested in 1975 after establishing a family planning centre including information on abortion, a crime at the time. Twenty years later in Afghanistan, she was kidnapped by the Taliban as a reprisal for her vocal support of women's rights. In 1998 she staged a three-day protest outside the Prime Minister's residence, protesting day and night against the government's withdrawal of funding from the Radicals' national radio station.

Despite the people's support, Emma Bonino lost out to an elderly gentleman. He gained the post by the 2/3rds plus one system, where Parliament controls who becomes President of Italy.

Upon gaining the support of his former colleagues, veteran Treasury Minister Carlo Azeglio Ciampi said, 'I hope I am up to the job.'

Signora Bonino described the result as 'the kind of wheeler-dealing in smoke-filled rooms from which Italy still needs to be freed'.

On 6 November, Australians are confronted with a 'choice'. Voting yes means entrenching the smoke-filled-room option as the determiner of 'our' President.

Proponents of the 'Prime Minister chooses, 2/3rds Parliament endorses' model contend it gives women not only an even chance, but a greater chance to be promoted to the post. This belies logic, history and present day reality. It also runs counter to the presidential nominating system.

Under the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill, the Prime Minister chooses half the committee and appoints the Convenor, with the casting vote. Political parties and state Parliaments appoint the rest.

Prime Ministers have a poor record in appointing women to committees. With monotonous regularity since the early 1980s incoming Prime Ministers announce the setting up of a 'register of women' from names can go forward for government boards and committees. If Prime Ministers recognised the talent, capabilities and even the existence of women, the registers would be unnecessary. Why, after all, is there no register of men? The 'old boys network' does the job.

Political parties have a poor record of preselecting women for safe and winnable seats. The ALP affirmative action policy, even if it works, mandates 35 per cent of women only. The Liberal and National Parties don't even have any affirmative action plan, much less a policy. Women, as we know, are 52 per cent of the population. If the track record of political parties is so poor for getting women into Parliament, how will it be any better for the Presidential Nominations Committee?

How likely that state Parliaments will appoint women? The record of Parliaments around Australia in putting women on boards and committees, or in ministries or other parliamentary positions is poor. Why would it change for the Presidential Nominations Committee?

Even if women do appear in equal numbers on the committee, will this secure an equal likelihood under the 2/3rds model of a woman becoming President - or anywhere near it? History and research say no.

The 'cloning effect' ensures that men in positions of power most often select people like themselves. In settings dominated by an ethos that assumes the masculine norm is 'better', women may be just as likely to select men as women. Thus the committee's choice won't be even handed.

As for nominations, even if they do come from 'the public', it will be the names that are 'known' that will count. How will they be known? By being from the 'right' profession, moving in the 'right' circles, belonging to the 'right' clubs - in short, being one of those who assiduously position themselves for 'high office' throughout their careers.

The idea that the Prime Minister won't ensure that 'his' candidate's name is on the nominations list is absurd.

Then, there's the casting vote - made by the Prime Minister's appointee.

Even if this system did work to favour women equally as men, is it fair?

That the Australian people should not know:

· who is nominated for the post of President;

· what the choices are;

· who the committee chose, and why;

· what the nominated candidates stand for, believe, and intend to do in the office;

· what the 'chosen' one stands for, believes, and intends to do,

is unacceptable.

Some contend that statespeople such as Lowitja O'Donoghue would have 'more chance' of being President under the 2/3rds model than by election. Yet just as women generally have been rarely preselected for winnable or safe seats by political parties, and rarely been appointed to boards and committees or parliamentary posts by Prime Ministers, Premiers and governments, Indigenous Australians - women and men - have been shut out. Only two Indigenous Australians have even made it into Parliament. This is not because the Australian people have not voted for them. It is because the political parties have not preselected them for safe and winnable seats. Senator Bonner learned this, when he was moved down the Liberal Party ticket to an unwinnable position - and lost.

In the entire history of Australia, never has a woman or Indigenous Australian (male or female) been Governor General. Only twice have women been Governors. Only once has an Indigenous Australian made it. Why should Indigenous Australians and women believe that the proposed system will be any different?

The proposition that Indigenous Australians would be more likely to become President by Prime Ministerial choice is a slight against the Australian people, and against Indigenous Australians.

Millions of Australians have enormous respect for Lowitja O'Donoghue, Pat Dodson, Marcia Langton, Pat O'Shane, Mick Dodson, Gartjil Djekkura, Marjorie Baldwin, Marie Andrews, Irene Watson, Gwen Baldini, Faith Bandler, Evelyn Scott, Ellie Gaffney and many, many more. That respect has come not because any of them belongs to 'the right clubs'. It exists because we have seen them in action, their courage, humour, wit and resilience, their commitment to this country and to the spirit of the land. Our votes would count far more than taking a chance on getting the nod from a Prime Minister through a closed system, away from public scrutiny.

Research done by Senator Ryan in the 1980s and more recently by Carmen Lawrence, MP, shows that when women have the chance to stand for Parliament, they do better than their male counterparts. Once in, they are more respected. The electorate is more likely to recognise women's abilities than political parties and Prime Ministers. Maybe that is partly what's driving the 2/3rds model.

It's not just a question of the equal right of women to be President. It's about the rights of us all. Australian women and men have a right to be represented by a woman as President, equally often as a man.

The Australian Constitution speaks of members of Parliament being 'chosen by the people'. When the vast majority of Australians say we want a President chosen by the people, don't we have that right?

Voting no means demanding more than getting a few girls into the backroom. It is the one way of making clear our refusal to 'go along to get along' - to go along with the old boy network, to get rid of a foreign monarch whilst entrenching a process that lacks transparency, is an affront to democracy and ignores the wishes of the people

. JAS, October 1999

* Dr Jocelynne A. Scutt is a lawyer and author. Her books include The Sexual Gerrymander - Women and the Economics of Power.

TOP OF PAGE


Return to home page