Kenny Farquharson: Waiting for women to make a difference

Published on Saturday 19 April 2008 19:44

A REMARKABLE picture made the front pages of newspapers all over Europe last week. Carme Chacon, a seven-month pregnant 37-year-old, had just been appointed Spain's first female defence minister, and she was photographed, hand on her bump, inspecting armed troops. Chacon was one of nine women in a cabinet unveiled by newly elected Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. There were only eight men.

Does having more woman in politics actually change the way we are governed? Zapatero clearly thinks so, but the evidence is mixed to say the least. The theory is that women in power will pay more attention to practical measures that will help families and children. The major flaw in this argument can be summed up in three words: Margaret Hilda Thatcher. At university during the early 1980s, I recall radical feminists arguing that Thatcher should be discounted from the debate about women and politics because "she isn't really a woman".

It should be obvious that getting more women into power is a good thing for democracy – parliaments should be representative of the people they serve. But the belief that a woman will by definition be a more empathetic politician than a man is crass and sexist. If you really think all women are instinctively caring, sharing, gentle and maternal you really should try to get out more.

When the first Holyrood Parliament was elected in 1999, 37% of the 129 MSPs were women, one of the highest proportions in the world. This was largely down to a Scottish Labour Party decision to have women-only shortlists in some constituency selection battles. The proportion of women in Holyrood has since fallen to 33% – but we are still doing better than Westminster, where less than a fifth of MPs are female.

The SNP, which has traditionally been blessed with great political matriarchs such as Winnie Ewing and Margo MacDonald, has always rejected positive discrimination. As a result, only a quarter of its MSPs are now women, whereas women make up half of Labour's Holyrood contingent. Two of the four main parties are now led by women. We have our first female Lord Advocate. Overall it is still a record of which we can all be proud.

Yet given that we've had so many women making our laws, have these laws been better?

After nine years of home rule it's hard to find evidence of a political revolution. Some milestone policies have clearly reflected a caring agenda – free personal care for the elderly, for example. And it's possible that the high proportion of women at Holyrood helps keep at bay the schoolboy boorishness that characterises the atmosphere in the more male-dominated corridors of Westminster. But in policy terms there hasn't truly been a concerted focus on the needs of families and children. In fact, it's arguably one of the disappointments of devolution that our education system is still failing boys and girls in large swathes of urban Scotland.

In the heady days of the late 1990s during the process of setting up the Scottish Parliament, there was much talk of what "the new politics" would be like. At the time I had two pet theories about this. Both turned out to be completely wrong. The first was that left-wingers across party divides would find common cause and become a political force to be reckoned with, transcending party politics. The second theory was that something similar would happen with women MSPs – surely the bonds of sisterhood would prove to be more powerful than mere party allegiance? Prominent SNP figures such as Roseanna Cunningham had close friends who were senior figures in the Labour and trade union movements. Surely once in power, this would produce a new power nexus in politics?

It didn't happen. Female MSPs I have asked about this come up with two explanations – one fairly reasonable and one extremely depressing. The reasonable one is that the power of the party whips in modern politics is just too strong, and the tribal enmities of Scottish politics too highly charged to allow any meaningful cross-party co-operation. The depressing explanation is that the women simply didn't like each other. If anything, the dislike between women of different parties was more corrosive than between the men.

Depressing, yes. But this shouldn't be an excuse for a lack of action on equal representation for women. More women in politics is an unalloyed good on the simple grounds of fairness. So it's right that our Parliament should follow family-friendly hours and provide child care for MSPs (of both sexes) who are parents. And the time has now come for the SNP, Lib Dems and Tories to re- examine their candidate selection procedures to ensure that they can emulate Scottish Labour's 50-50 split.

Holyrood boasts some superb women. Margo MacDonald is a national treasure whose refusal to be diminished by her Parkinson's Disease is an inspiration. Nicola Sturgeon is perhaps the most gifted Scottish politician of her generation – although she needs to work on a curious mannerism when talking that makes her look like she's headbutting someone (it could be an Ayrshire thing). Say what you like about Wendy Alexander – and everyone does – no other MSP has a finer mind. Annabel Goldie is a glorious amalgam of Hattie Jacques and Miss Jean Brodie whose primary policy interest is the plight of recovering drug addicts – not a group known for their tendency to vote Tory.

They do Scotland proud, and we need more of the same.