But Dion's plan for women in politics intrigued me... until I actually read it. What's most interesting is what is missing... Dion commits to, among other things,
- ensure gender parity in appointments to the Senate
- ensure gender parity on nominations to the boards of Crown Corporations
- commit to running a minimum of 33% female candidates in the next election and continuing to increase their representation in subsequent elections until at least 50% is achieved
- make immediate progress on having a more gender-equitable Cabinet, including the appointment of women to key portfolios
So what is missing?
Selection and Cabinet.
I supported Chretien's policy of appointing female candidates, and think Dion's on the right track but I think it's not good enough.
Running women candidates is not the same as electing them. It's not the same as appointing them to cabinet.
Dion seems to be willing to foist them on Crown corporations, the senate, the riding associations... but apparently doesn't seem to have the confidence in women to guarrantee them same access to his own cabinet.
Call me crazy, but if there were some sort of notional allocation to cabinet (beyond the usual Status of Jim Abbot and Women gig) I will bet you that 50% candidate target would be easier to hit... and I will also bet you that those female candidates would have a better chance of winning.
Come on Stephane, put you're money where your mouth is.... My daugher may just run one day, I'd like her to be a Liberal...
4 comments:
I'm confused by your post.
You say that Dion committs to immediate progress on having a more gender-equitable Cabinet, including the appointment of women to key portfolios.
Then you deride him for not saying that he will have a more gender-equitable cabinet, even though he did say that he would.
Don't be confused.
I am wondering why Stephane can set a number for the Senate, Crown Corps, candidate selection... but not for cabinet?
It seems everyone needs 50% except the Govenor in Council.
I agree with Hammering Jow.
I am not sure Dion is going farther than anyone has gone before, we had a lot of this in the early 90's.
the notion that if there are more female mp's then there more to choose from for cabinet is tautology, not an argument or a strategy.
The real question is how do you get more women elected?
Further, it has always struck me a bit cheeky to suggest there should be a candidate quota, but balk on the question when comes to cabinet.
If women are important enough to merit a quota for ridings, why not cabinet?
And i stand by my point that if you're going to propose 33% of candidates need to be women, and you're prepared to enforce that, don't you risk labeling those appointed candidates as tokens?
Any campaign manager will tell you one of the best ways to build candidate profile to create a legitimate candidate for cabinet.
In the end the question stands.
If candidate Dion thinks women are good enough to merit an allotment for electoral candidates, crown corps, etc, why does he stop when it comes to his own potential cabinet?
It's a legitimate question. What's the answer?
Post a Comment