Оригинал материала
"Why has there been no real progress toward improving women's status in all spheres of life?"
By Nadezhda Shvedova, Ph.D. in Political Science
One could say without exaggerating that an understanding about the need for gender balance in society found its place in a variety of significant civilizations during the 20th century. It is no accident that the struggle for gender equality, against discrimination on the basis of sex, for raising the status of the part of society that is discriminated against -- women in particular -- won widespread support across the world, in the US, and also among the governments of the majority of the world's states.
Ten years ago, the "Women's Convention" (CEDAW -- the UN convention on liquidating all forms of discrimination against women) was known to few in Russia. But on December 7, 2000, the twentieth anniversary of the ratification of the Convention was publicly noted by our government, with the participation of nearly all the leaders of the ruling political parties of the country, and not just anywhere, but in the beautiful Hall of Columns -- isn't that progress?
However, even 20 years after the ratification, the same question still confronts women in Russia: why hasn't there been real progress toward improving women's status in all spheres of life? It's clear that there is no simple, unanimous answer. It seems that among a wide variety of factors, the most important ones are the following:
1. The relative weakness of the women's movement.
2. The lack of political and state will to carry out the goals noted in the documents from the Beijing Conference, and affirmed by the Special Session of the UN in New York.
3. The existence of problems regarding the methods of promoting ideas about equality between the sexes. Most of the measures adopted do not take the male factor into account.
4. The lack of an actual national mechanism on matters of promoting women's interests.
5. Women's paltry participation in decision-making.
In actuality, the problem of equality is a basic problem at the root of what kind of society we are building.
Equality was, for a long time, considered to be basically a women's problem. But in fact, it is more of a men's problem. The thing is, men see themselves not as representatives of the male sex, but as representatives of humanity in general. (Although this is not true of all men.) Gender chauvinism, or male chauvinism, is as incompatible with civilized society as democracy is incompatible with the Soviet system. It is time to start a movement for the emancipation of men -- that is, for the freeing of men and society from the idea of male superiority, from their unearned privileges, which undermine their spirit and professionalism. And the most harmful of all are gender stereotypes. It is wrong to identify masculinity with rudeness, insensitivity, and cruelty. These characteristics come about as a result of psychic wounds received at an early age, social defects, and distorted impressions about real masculinity. However, aggression is made into a quality that characterizes the male sex, and in that way, it becomes a social ideal for men, and women adopt it as a criterion for evaluating men's personalities.
What rosy possibilities could one imagine, if men were able, with women's help, to make such a change, and alter gender stereotypes in perception and behavior: it could be possible to have a future without wars; men would live longer; more children would grow up physically and mentally healthy. Women would be healthier and happier, and would have fewer causes for fear; they would be better mothers. And all this would be an achievement in human evolution of the highest degree.
Until such time as the role of men is not reviewed, no significant changes are possible. It is not coincidental that in 1993 the General Secretary of the UN said that it was impossible to achieve any concerted growth without significant changes in both male and female roles.
International gatherings, and the documents adopted at them, signify that women understand the need to struggle together. Therefore, they unite. It seems that women in Russia are thus far struggling almost alone, or in separate groups. The movement is relatively isolated, and has relatively weak opportunities for coordinated action and political mobilization at the local level.
Why do we not notice -- or if we do notice, why do we not react to:
--the liquidation of the President's Commission on women's issues, families and demography;
--the liquidation of the consultative Commission associated with the Duma's Committee on women, family, and youth affairs;
--the fact that the State Council is composed of men;
--the fact that we are selling oil at higher prices, and that because of this, more women and children are freezing and going hungry;
--that finally, as long as we tolerate prohibitions on certain professions to women, and in so doing, contribute to the worsening of men's and women's health, and offering 'indulgences' to private and state employers alike, for harmful production methods, and unhealthy working conditions (that is, we are unconcerned about work safety);
--finally, what prevents women from uniting around a law on state guarantees of equal rights and opportunities for women and men?
It is time for women to pose the question of the "women's budget" (based on the experience of many countries) to the government and legislative bodies (that is, the question about altering priorities towards the benefit of humanity). In a word, to demand that the state fulfill its obligations and promises to its people, in full view of the world community.
In Russia, meanwhile, women make up a little more than seven percent of Duma members. And 7% is the number from the national report on the number of women receiving an income from property ownership. It is clear that the redistribution of power, responsibility, and access to resources are very unequal in Russia. Besides which, at the regional levels of power, there is an evident tendency toward gender asymmetry in the local legislatures. Here are some telling statistics: from 1995-1999, there were elections to legislatures in 88 subjects of the Federation, including 10 in 1995, 29 in 1996, 33 in 1997, 17 in 1998, and 7 in 1999. In several subjects of the Russian Federation during that period, there were elections twice: in some regions this was a result of the time running out for the local legislature's period of service; in others it was because of deputy rotation.
Of all the subjects of the Russian Federation, only in the Republic of Mordovia was the legislature elected in 1995 still in session. Elected in 1994, its period of service extended until December 1999.
The number of people in the legislatures of the subjects of the Russian Federation (RF) range from 11 deputies in the Taimyr (Dolgano-Nenetskom) autonomous district, to 174 deputies in the republic of Bashkortostan.
Elections to legislatures of the subjects of the RF were largely carried out under the majoritarian system. Only in four subjects of the Federation -- Krasnoiarskii district, Kaliningrad region, and the Koriak and Ust'-Ordynskii Buriatian autonomous regions -- were elections conducted in a mixed system, to a single house legislative body.
In Sverdlovskaia region, the regional Duma was elected on the basis of proportional representation, and the local Chamber of Representatives was elected on the basis of a majoritarian system. Three Federation subjects -- the Volgogradskaia, Vologodskaia and Sverdlovskaia regions -- used a deputy rotation system.
The election of deputies to legislatures in the subjects of the RF were largely carried out in single-mandate districts, formed on the basis of a single norm of representation.
On February 17, 1999, among the deputies elected to legislatures of the subjects of the RF, there were 354 women, and 3376 men, or 9% and 91% respectively. In several local legislatures, not one woman was elected.
It follows that in Russia there is a lack of political will to create a real, functional national mechanism on equal rights and opportunities for women and men. It has not yet been formed, although some of its elements exist: there is a working paper (kontseptsiia), but no law on equal rights and opportunities; only one department in the entire executive structures is occupied with women's, children's, and family issues, and it is, objectively speaking, not capable of doing gender analysis on all the decisions made by the federal executive structures. Besides which, women's programs are practically unfinanced, and indeed, programs aimed at women themselves don't exist.
The task of the moment is to work on creating a national mechanism, because without it, it will be impossible to fully bring into being the political, social and other rights of Russia's female population.
How can the number of women in elected positions be increased? Would quotas be a blessing or would they raise new problems? It must be noted that, until recent times, the issue of quotas was a topic that was discussed broadly in the world by men and women alike. Women hold varied views about the relative effectiveness of a quota system, its justice, and the results of its application. In May 2000, the state Duma held hearings on the issue of equal rights and opportunities for women and men, and in September of that year, a significant event took place -- a forum of women parliamentarians from the countries of the CIS and the Baltics -- at which was held a discussion of the bill "On state guarantees of equal rights and equal opportunities for men and women." Naturally, the issue of quotas arose there.
In general, quotas for women signify the exchange of one concept of equality for another. The classical liberal idea about equality included the concept of equal opportunities or contested equality. Granting women the right to vote was seen as the only essential thing. The rest was up to the individual woman. In other words, the formal barriers were removed.
Under the influence of feminism over the past several decades, another concept of equality received widespread attention and support, the essence of which is an idea about the equality of outcomes. The argument is that equal opportunities do not appear as a result of formal barriers being removed. Direct discrimination, as well as a series of hidden barriers, prevent women from being able to gain their fair share of political and other influence.
There is no single cure for increasing women's representation in parliament. However, world experience shows that the system of gender quotas in party lists and "friendly" electoral systems has had positive results, from the point of view of women's representation. Friendly electoral systems refers to those with proportional representation (using party lists).
This is not at all what Soviet quotas for women in the Supreme Soviet were about. Here, we are talking about quotas on party lists, where the parties are competing to represent the entire population, which means the parties should reflect the proportion of the sexes in society, representing female and male taxpayers alike.
The ruse appears when quotas are said to contradict democracy. Few would contest the fact that putting forward candidates is a critical moment in the electoral process. It is undemocratic when only male candidates are presented to the voters -- that means that for the voters, the first cut has already been made by those who control the advancement of candidates. Quotas are an instrument with which to prevent the limitation of the people's right to express their will.
Thus, new approaches, new strategies, and new methods of work are needed in order to achieve the principal of equality of the sexes. The strategy of a complex approach to the problem of equality of the sexes, supported by a large part of the world community, in particular, means that:
1. The government and political establishment should facilitate an active and visible policy of integrating the interests of the female population, aimed at strengthening equality between the sexes, in all political strategies and programs.
2. All political strategies and programs should be analyzed before the adoption of any decision, from the point of view of their possible gender consequences (that is, consequences for women and men respectively). 3. The issue of equality between women and men should be incorporated in all areas and at all levels of life. In this, a key role is played by political will, and the real frame of mind of politicians, and state structures that are supposed to be sensitive to gender and to adopt gendered approaches in practice. It is perhaps unnecessary to note that a law about equal rights and opportunities was adopted in Iceland in 1976, in Denmark in 1978, in Norway in 1979, in Sweden in 1980, and in Finland in 1987.
Laws about gender equality have already been adopted in Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia in 1998. In the countries of Northern Europe and in Lithuania, they also have the institution of an Ombudsman on gender equality. Evidently, there is a direct connection between the fact that in Sweden and in Norway, their parliaments are 40-44% women, and the governments are 47-50% women; women's share of income in Norway is 42.2%, and in Sweden it is 44.7% (the highest percentage in Northern Europe). And it is interesting that expenditures on education in Norway make up 15% of all state expenditures, and 11% in Sweden.
World experience shows that there are three basic factors that facilitate a general increase in women's representation in the highest levels of legislative power, in countries with so-called stable democracy. They are as follows:
1. the presence of conscious political will, which is expressed in the fact that a priority of party politics is to put forward the goal of increasing the number of women candidates for office in parliaments elected by proportional representation (in other words, a political party-based quota);
2. the presence of laws demanding that the balance of the sexes on political parties' candidate lists roughly reflects the balance of the sexes in the country;
3. changing the electoral system from a single-mandate system to one of proportional representation.
All of this must be taken into account, and the women's movement needs to think about it, if it is going to try to figure out its mission, and be productive. It is totally obvious that women are needed in power, inasmuch as their presence there is an objectively necessary condition for improving women's status in society as a whole, and thus the status of each woman depends on it. The mass female electorate needs to be made aware of this.