SPEECH BY THE PRESIDENT OF IRELAND, MARY ROBINSON, TO COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONFERENCE, 9 FEBRUARY 1995
SPEECH BY THE PRESIDENT OF IRELAND, MARY ROBINSON, TO COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONFERENCE, 9 FEBRUARY 1995
EQUALITY AND DEMOCRACY: UTOPIA OR CHALLENGE?
Madame Chair, Distinguished Delegates,
It is a great honour and a privilege for me to be invited to give the keynote speech at this, the opening session of the Council of Europe Conference on the theme, Equality and Democracy; Utopia or Challenge?
As has been pointed out, this Conference is not part of the formal preparatory process for the Beijing Conference but it is no less valuable because of that. A commendable feature of the lead up to Beijing is that the United Nations and member Governments recognise that preparations must range from the formal conferences in the different regions of the United Nations to less formal fora such as this and to locally organised NGO activity. All are important. I was pleased to participate as General Rapporteur in a similar exercise sponsored by the Council of Europe in 1993, preparatory to the World Conference on Human Rights.
In a very real sense the broad process leading up to a World Conference is as significant as the event itself. It encourages different forms of participation and opportunities to share experiences. The very fact that this gathering is not tied to agreeing a common platform means we can have a more open exchange of views and ideas. We can stand back a little and look at some of the deeper issues in relation to equality and democracy as this Millennium comes to a close. We can take on board the enormous potential of cyberspace, of all the new information technologies, to increase forms of access and participation. At the same time, there is a focus to our discussion.
The mandate of this conference, deriving from the decision of the Third Ministerial Conference on Equality in October, 1993, asked that it focus on the human rights aspect of equality and on the question of equality and democracy. The Council of Europe is pre-eminently qualified to highlight the human rights aspect of equality because of its leading role in the protection of human rights and its progressive work on equality. In recent very welcome initiatives it has engaged in work to combat racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and intolerance and on 1 February the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities was opened for signature. These measures show that the Council remains vigilant in responding to renewed intolerance and in protecting the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the vulnerable and marginalised.
Given my own background I have a special affinity with the issues being dealt with at this Conference: the human rights of women and the relationship between equality and democracy. It is important that these themes are given fresh and practical impetus and that this input to Beijing takes its place along with the proposals from other fora on social, economic and other issues.
However, I should enter a modest disclaimer here. As I have not taken part in any of the specialist groups or working parties preparing for the Beijing conference, I am not aware of the details of specific proposals being prepared in that context. Therefore, I offer some personal reflections rather than an informed and authoritative keynote address on these themes. My approach will be to ask some questions within the subject matter of each theme and perhaps to stimulate our thinking from the beginning on what conclusions or strategies we wish to see emerge from this conference.
Sub theme 1: New Dimensions of Democracy and Citizenship
As you are aware, within each theme three different subjects will be considered in detail. The first deals with the challenge of "parity democracy". Since this is not a familiar term, it will need to be explained and understood. That in itself would be an achievement of this conference. My first question, however, is more basic: what lessons are we going to learn from over a century of experience? In September 1993 I joined in celebrations in Christchurch, New Zealand, of that country's proud record as the first to grant the vote to women. However, recent figures indicate that in 1994 women accounted for only 11% of the total parliamentary population of the fifty-four countries which form the European and North American region of the United Nations. This was a decrease on nine years earlier when the figure was 16%. In the European Union, I understand that less than one-quarter of decision-making posts in trade unions are held by women. It is a similar or worse situation in employers' organisations and in the government services. One positive feature was the increase in the proportion of the European Parliament which is female: from 20% in 1989 to 25% in 1994. These figures are not particularly encouraging.
The main practical barriers to women participating equally with men have been identified and can be summarised in simplified terms as the four "C"s:
Culture - in that the whole ambience of politics has tended to be overwhelmingly male.
Confidence - in that it is said that women lack the assertiveness and in-bred aptitude for power of male politicians.
Children - in that women both bear children and continue to exercise the main responsibility in relation to rearing them.
Cash - in that women tend to lack resources and financial autonomy.
However, identifying impediments to equal participation is less than half the battle. Indeed, there can be a tendency among women as well as men to feel comfortable with this perceived reality, to resign themselves to the inevitable.
So the real question is: is this imbalance inevitable? Or is it a democratic deficit which requires to be countered by effective strategies?
As we have seen, parliaments with a serious imbalance between the sexes in their composition are the norm. They function. They even discuss issues of equality and reform. They are defended on the basis that they result from the purest form of democracy: universal suffrage.
However, as Franklin Roosevelt once said: "Democracy is not a static thing; it is an everlasting march". I doubt if he was thinking specifically of the issue that we are discussing but his words are apposite nonetheless. An argument is now being made that the idea of democracy must be deepened in a structural way to facilitate equal participation. New features would be introduced in the democratic model requiring fair representation of both genders on the basis that this diversity in the human race must be recognised and must replace the more abstract idea of the citizen as the individual subject of democracy.
A group of specialists has been studying this question under the auspices of the Council of Europe and their work will no doubt feature in your discussions. It is in this context that the concept of parity democracy becomes relevant. This is described as the full integration of women on an equal footing with men at all levels and in all areas of the working of the democratic state. It is based on the existence of two equal sexes, almost like constituencies, each of which is entitled to representation. It would follow that democratically elected bodies should include men and women in equal numbers and, presumably, that positive action measures including quotas should be applied to this end. Clearly, different approaches to this idea will be elaborated at this conference and I am certain that it will arouse much discussion here and elsewhere.
In order to have a full appreciation of the case for introducing parity democracy it is, of course, necessary to move to the second subject under this theme and bring in "a gender perspective" on the functioning of democratic institutions. What is society losing by not having that parity? What contribution would it bring to the broader debate on the malaise and scepticism about modern representative government and parliament? What differences would it make to have a balance between women and men at every level? Would the views of women, their way of organising and their interpretation of social priorities have an impact on the structure of modern societies? What kind of adjustments would men need to make, both in their involvement within the home and in the structures of society as a whole?
This brings me to the third subject area under this theme, the question of "universalism versus cultural relativism in regard to human rights". This, I believe, is one of the most difficult and sensitive areas. The principle of the universality of fundamental human rights has been accepted, but what weight is to be given to different cultural values and perspectives in the context of participatory democracy? Cultural values are important, and need to be accorded due respect in so far as they do not undermine the universality of fundamental human rights. Drawing that line can be difficult at times, and in order that the debate is not one-sided in relation to cultural values it would be important that there was an honest appraisal of the perceived defects in our Western societies stemming from materialism and exploitation of women in advertising, prostitution and other areas.
There is a clear link here with the issues to be discussed under:
Sub theme II: Citizenship and full enjoyment of human rights by women.
Recent international conferences, in particular the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, have re-emphasised the universality of human rights. And yet the reality for many women is that they are regularly victims of abuses of the most basic human rights: they are denied civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. Not surprisingly, growing numbers of women in all regions of the world have been organising to end gender-based violence, and to have violence against women viewed as a human rights issue. Despite this, we must ask why in a number of areas violent abuses against women tend to be treated as private or culturally based practices outside the scope of human rights standards and the competence of human rights implementation machinery? We need to look closely at the reports and studies on combating violence against women and at the effectiveness of the existing enforcement machinery. We need to try to reduce the trauma and pain of women who as victims seek redress. For far too many women the experience is that they become victims again in that process.
It is an obvious fact, of course, that violations of human rights of both women and men continue right up to this present moment. The question might be asked: of what value are guarantees of human rights when they are so easily disregarded? Why trouble ourselves to discuss the human rights of women if they will, in any event, continue to be flouted? Yet, I believe it is important that we develop the international guarantees of human rights and that we consider how rights can be formulated to the benefit of women and how procedures for enforcement can be improved. Such rights set norms which stigmatise certain conduct and which are bound to deter States who wish to participate as respected partners in the international community. We have not abandoned the criminal law in our own States just because it has not eliminated crime. In other words, I am convinced that the emphasis placed by the United Nations and the Council of Europe on the articulation and protection of human rights has served to reduce the violation of these rights and, consequently, the discussion of equality between women and men in this context is not only worthwhile but essential.
By far the most comprehensive instrument bearing on the rights of women is the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. I understand that the analysis and reflection which is a part of the Beijing process will include a review of the many reservations which States have made to the Convention and which are undoubtedly limiting its effectiveness. I also note that the question of a right of individual petition to the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women is topical at present.
One issue you will be discussing is whether equality deserves to be recognised as a separate right under the European Convention. The Convention as it stands guarantees the enjoyment of its rights and freedoms without distinction on any grounds including sex. This guarantee, of course, applies only to the rights and freedoms in the Convention: there is no general right to equality in other matters. In this respect, the position might be said to lag behind that in many democratic States in Europe and elsewhere. Many countries, in their constitutions, confer equal rights explicitly on women and men. Many also have legislation prohibiting discrimination in the private, non-Governmental sphere on grounds of gender and on other grounds. It is not surprising, therefore, that the European Convention, based as it is on the traditional view of human rights, is being re-evaluated from this standpoint.
Democracy is a cherished institution, central to human freedom, but it remains imperfect and incomplete in some respects. Social exclusion in many countries means that large numbers of citizens do not participate in the democratic process either as voters or candidates and do not see it as making a difference in their lives. I note that a recent draft of the Programme of Action to be considered by the World Summit for Social Development contains a commitment to make political processes more inclusive of all members of society. But the under-representation of women in political office, while it could be considered part of that general problem, is also of a different order because here we are talking about half our citizens.
The different use of time also constitutes one of the most significant divisions between men and women in their domestic, working and political lives. In so far as this division is a cornerstone of an outdated industrial society, which is changing rapidly, women have an opportunity - for the betterment of society as a whole - to support a reallocation of time that creates a better balance in the activities of men and women.
Another difference in the level of participation of women and men in modern civil society is in work done on a voluntary basis. Despite other pressing commitments to family and work, women play a dominant part in a whole range of voluntary bodies especially those operating at local and community level. I am fully aware of the concerns about exploitation which can arise, but I also believe we should examine closely the extraordinary harnessing of energies and the sense of enterprise which can be fostered in this way. In my capacity as President of Ireland, I have been able to witness the changing and invigorating climate of effective contribution by women. There are countless examples of women empowering themselves at the grassroots level. One of the striking details which remains in my mind from the women's groups and networks I have visited or who have come to see me is their manner of organising and functioning. In contrast to many of the formal structures of organised society, which are based on precedent and are hierarchical, women seem to devise instinctively structures which are open, enabling, consultative and flexible. I have observed a similar modus operandi in women's groups and networks in the developing world. Is there not a strong case for thinking that those formal structures and decision making processes of society - whether political, business, trade union, public service or whatever - could benefit greatly from the style of decision making and leadership operating in such women's groups. Perhaps they provide the best evidence of the benefits of parity democracy.
In responding to the question whether equality and democracy is utopia or a challenge, I have to be honest. It depends. It depends on whether you convince yourselves on the core values behind this conference, and then on whether you have devised practical strategies to convince others. I am, of course, an optimist on both counts!