In London, Harriet Harman, Minister for Women and Equality as well as Leader of the House of Commons and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, is still talking about breaking glass ceilings and here, well if an EU survey, conducted last October is to be believed, we have not even caught up with getting beyond the kitchen sink, let alone reaching the ceiling.

Knowing that my subject matter might not only turn off male readers but also many women, I have decided to plod on and keep plugging what I have been promoting for years – quotas

Women who should know better are still dithering and being negative about quotas, when it has been established in countries where women have made inroads in politics, the judiciary and business that introducing quotas is the only thing that works.

It was reported in The Times on Monday that female speakers at a General Workers Union (that feminist bastion) seminar on women’s participation in the labour force “reluctantly agreed” that the introduction of quotas to get women into decision-making positions might be a necessity, even though it was not ideal.

I read that most of the speakers said that ideally, women should make it to decision-making posts on the basis of their own abilities, but until that time, it might be necessary to introduce quotas in order to bring about change.

By Tuesday it had changed from “not ideal” to most of the women agreeing reluctantly that quotas were “a necessary evil”.

What is it with these women giving out all this negativity? Those speakers have got it all wrong. Quotas do not mean that people who are less able get the jobs, but that the equally able are not skipped over because of their gender and the old boys networks. I have been explaining this for over a decade. Is it that hard to understand?

Besides, the majority of the speakers have got to where they are through their partisan leanings, so is that kind of push up the ladder OK?

Also, since when do we live in an ideal world and are all our male politicians and leaders examples of perfection? Wake up ladies, quotas probably a necessity?

It has been proven all over Europe that it is the only thing that works. Or are you too busy now that you have made it to worry about the ones left behind?

In 2002 I brought to readers’ attention the UN publication Women 2000, which spelt out that “the political parties have a responsibility to examine and reform their selection and promotion procedures for elective office to make them more gender neutral”.

It seemed that the much-maligned former Labour leader, Alfred Sant, was the only politician to take that on board. He had, in 2004, promised that quotas would be introduced if Labour were to be in government. He had recognised that quotas would address the deficit in female participation.

In 2008, he repeated his pledge and said that a Labour government would aim for a minimum of 30 per cent of public appointments and 20 per cent of diplomatic representatives to be women. But it seems that that the new breed leading the PL are not as progressive.

The head of the Labour Party’s business unit Marlene Mizzi, one of the ditherers, said she did not agree with quotas in principle, but this did not mean that quotas might not be necessary.

Her concerns were that there was a risk that women appointed to decision-making posts on the basis of a quota might be expected to deliver more in order to prove themselves, and an individual’s failure might be viewed as being a reflection on women in general.

What absolute nonsense. As she well knows women have always been expected to deliver more to prove themselves without any quotas in place and if she reasons that one female failure would reflect badly on all women, surely that applies today without the quotas.

Does Ms Mizzi think that her failure to secure a seat on the European Parliament reflected badly on her and on all other women? What kind of a message is that giving young women today – if you think you might fail don’t even try because you will bring down all the other women with you.

And surely the same criteria should apply to men. If it was a negative reflection on men in general every time a man failed, we would have very few men to vote for and that would give us more than what we would get with quotas.

As for the Prime Minister, Lawrence Gonzi has never been sold on the idea. In 2004 when Alfred Sant was promoting quotas, he was totally against them and like what some women are still maintaining today, said they should only be contemplated if all other strategies for greater representation failed.

Well what other strategies has the government been trying out since?

I remember going to an AZAD seminar on Women’s Day in 2002 to listen to Astrid Lulling, a then member of various committees of the European Parliament. She spoke about the many words and little action from men, that they would try to keep women out and how important quotas are.

She also told the meeting, which included Lawrence Gonzi, the then minister responsible for Social Policy, that quotas are included in the positive action that member states are required to adhere to. Of course we were not members then, but we are now.

Dr Gonzi had shown little interest and said he was worried that quotas would mean promoting women that were not up to it.

That obviously was not in line with EU thinking. Fifty per cent of the judges in Luxembourg were women thanks to the quotas. So are these judges not up to it?

We still do not have one single female judge here and we wonder why.

I hope nobody brings up the current sleazy saga as an example. All this pantomime is doing is emphasising how we women are sometimes our own worst enemies.

According to International IDEA (Institute for Democracy and electoral assistance) and the Univ. of Stockholm, the function of quota systems for women represents a qualitative jump into a policy of exact goals and means. Because of its relative efficiency, the hope for a dramatic increase in women’s representation by using this system is strong.

Rwanda is an example of the new trend to use electoral gender quotas as a fast track to gender balance in politics. It has superseded Sweden as the number one in the world in terms of women’s parliamentary representation – 48.8 per cent women against Sweden’s 45.3 per cent.

Given the slow speed by which the number of women in politics is growing, there are increased calls for more efficient methods to reach a gender balance in political institutions. Quotas present one such mechanism.

The argument is that real equal opportunity does not exist just because formal barriers are removed. Direct discrimination and a complex pattern of hidden barriers prevent women from getting their share of political influence.

Quotas and other forms of positive measures are thus a means towards equality of result. The argument is based on the experience that equality as a goal cannot be reached by formal equal treatment as a means.

If barriers exist, it is argued, compensatory measures must be introduced as a means to reach equality of result. From this perspective, quotas are not discrimination (against men), but compensation for structural barriers that women meet.

Meanwhile our Prime Minister is still producing the same old mantra “Women in Malta need to be given more space and opportunities to be able to contribute to society and we still have work left to do in this sector,” he said on Woman’s Day this year.

In 2005, he said “Malta has a serious problem where female participation is concerned – all across the board. Appeals are not enough and we need positive discrimination.”

But as Ms Lulling had told in us, in 2002, when it comes to promoting women, men produce many words but little action.

[email protected]