In what could potentially be a significant step towards women’s empowerment in India, the Rajya Sabha* yesterday passed the ‘Women’s Reservation Bill’ with 186 votes. Also known as the Constitution (108th) Amendment Bill 2008, it seeks to reserve 33% of the seats in the national and state legislatures for women. The Manmohan Singh government had hoped to have it passed on March 8, International Women’s Day. But intense opposition by the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Samajwadi Party (SP) and Lok Jan Shakti Party (LJP), and their disruptive unparliamentary behavior led to the House being adjourned for the day. Seven Members of Parliament (MPs) were suspended and House marshals brought in before the bill could be passed on Tuesday evening. Because it is a constitution amendment bill, it also needs to be passed by the Lok Sabha** and ratified by 50% of the State legislatures for implementation.
Though the bill has certain shortcomings and could end up providing only an illusion of empowerment, it is a positive step in the right direction. At present only 59 out of the 545 MPs in the Lok Sabha are women, whereas the number is 21 out of 233 MPs in the Rajya Sabha. Bringing more women into the political process at all levels of government would help reduce gender inequalities and give meaningful representation to a significant section of the population. Women participation at the panchyat (village) level has grown significantly since a similar bill requiring 33.3% reservation for women was implemented in the ’90s. It can also be argued that female representatives and leaders would be more sensitive to women’s issues. However, power corrupts, and political calculations might force such women to be no different about women’s empowerment than their male counterparts.
This reservation requirement could be interpreted as interference in the free and fair election process. The voters would potentially be given a restricted pool of candidates to decide who can serve them best. But as favoritism in rampant in Indian political parties, the voters do not have a fair choice of candidates at the moment either. If party tickets were merit based, and grass-root party workers could grow up within the party through their work on field, that would be a fair argument to make. The women’s reservation requirement would only change the set of options available; the quality would continue to be debatable.
One of the most prominent objections to the bill is that it would only create more ‘Rabri Devis’. In 1997 Lalu Prasad Yadav, then Chief Minister of Bihar, resigned on charges of massive corruption and ‘appointed’ his wife Rabri Devi as the Chief Minister. She had no prior political experience and was seen as being his puppet and surrogate. It is feared by critics of the Women’s Reservation Bill that instead of giving power to the real dis-empowered women, the 33% reserved seats would pass on to wives/daughters/relatives of the sitting MPs who would have to give up their seats. But this is largely because political parties in India do not have a democratic process for selection of candidates. Election/seat tickets are usually given to those who come recommended and are favored by the party leadership. It would be a real test for the political parties to ensure that such ‘Rabri Devi’ incidents are not repeated when filling the 33% seats. One way to do that would be to introduce internal party democracy and ensure that each time one third of their candidates are women. But that could be a big problem for smaller parties with only a handful of MPs, as a considerable number of their male members would have to give up their seats.
Another problem with the bill is that it would diminish the accountability factor. As the 33% seats would be randomly selected by rotation, the serving MPs would have no incentive to work for their constituencies. They would not want to invest in and develop their constituencies as there is no guarantee of re-election. Even in case of potential ‘women-puppet-candidates’ the male candidates in the background would not be held accountable for not fulfilling election promises and neglecting their constituencies. It would give only those men indefinite power.
But such arguments assume that women are completely dependent upon men to enter politics and take up leadership positions. Instead of giving more power to the men, the bill could actually be a chance to bring good women leaders from the grass-root levels into the larger picture. Such constitutional guarantee could motivate more women to enter politics and make a difference in society. It might not happen during the first couple of elections, but as the reservation process falls in place and garners public confidence it might actually achieve the empowerment that it intends.
Nonetheless, it would be foolish to expect a sudden momentous change in the Indian political environment. The Bill is no guarantee that Indian women will soon be free of all the social inequalities and discrimination. It would require cultural and social changes at a much deeper level. The Women’s Reservation Bill’s passage in the Rajya Sabha is only one baby step forward. It should not make women’s rights activities and the truly concerned complacent. Now more than ever they would have to work hard to ensure that women are properly represented at all levels of government. The women candidates have a greater responsibility of proving the necessity of the bill and bringing in a breath of fresh air into the Indian political system. The Women’s Reservation Bill is a great opportunity that cannot be missed.
______________
(*Upper House of Parliament; **Lower House of Parliament)
