The EU Justice Commissioner, Viviane Reding, is threatening to push through a mandatory “gender quota” - an obligation for all publicly listed companies to have at least 40 per cent of their boards composed of women by 2050. The government (together with the United Kingdom and others), while receptive to the need to have more women in decision-making positions, is resisting the imposition of such a policy. This has elicited protests from the Opposition Labour Party, which would introduce such quotas if it were in power, and various women’s groups in Malta. Maltese business supports the government’s stance.

The facts are that only three per cent of directors on Malta’s publicly-listed companies are women. Eight per cent of Malta’s top civil servants are women, while 28 per cent occupy posts one level below. Malta comes a measly eighty-third out of the 134 countries surveyed in the gender equality stakes. In Norway, where before obligatory gender quotas were introduced 10 years ago, only about six per cent of women were on boards; today that figure stands at 34 per cent − a remarkable increase in such a short time.

The arguments in favour and against mandatory gender quotas are finely balanced. The best analysis I have seen was provided by Marlene Mizzi, a member of the Board of The Today Public Policy Institute, who set it out as follows: “The school of thought in favour of quotas for women believes that increasing numbers of women in the group is beneficial to the advancement of the female gender. On the other hand, those who oppose think that women worthy of advancement would proceed irrespective of artificial pushing and shoving.”

Briefly, the major arguments for and against are as follows…

Arguments against

• Quotas are by definition discriminatory, as women are preferred to men. Women have been fighting against discrimination for many years. It is therefore ironic that this same unfairness is being resorted to by those who have fought it so vehemently. Dressing the concept up as ‘positive action’ does not change the unfairness of the concept.

• Quotas are undemocratic because it is not the electorate or shareholders who are deciding who should be elected, but an artificially devised system. Many argue that the will of the electorate must not be hindered or warped in any way.

• Quotas give importance to gender, not to qualifications and/or the capabilities of the person. They defeat the concept of meritocracy. This could backfire on the many capable women whose capability would be tainted by the system. Many women oppose the quota system for precisely this reason. The ‘token woman’ label is shunned by women who believe that it is the quality of the member which should be sought, not quantity according to gender.

• Women elected through the quota system may face lack of respect from their peers, as they are not perceived to be as competent as their elected male counterparts. They could even alienate other women members who had worked their way up the hard way and had been elected on their own merits. In Norway, quota candidates on boards were soon given the title of “golden skirts!’’

• Quotas warp the concept of representation and may actually hinder women in the long run. The concept seems to suggest that women are there to represent women, while men are capable of representing both men and women. This in turn suggests that women’s presence is not based on ideas, qualifications and capabilities and vision, but on gender.

• Quotas pose a risk to the female gender as a whole. While there may be merit in having a quota system in order to increase numbers − a system which has worked in some countries − this may backfire on the very gender it is trying to promote. A woman appointed through the quota system who does not perform due to her incompetence for the position – just as many men are incompetent and do not perform – gives a bad name to her gender, not only to herself. Her incompetence will be attributed to the fact that she is a female, and not to her personal capabilities, as it should be. Unfortunately, this is not the case with incompetent, non-performing, incapable males. As unfair as this is, we all know that this is the situation and that is why positive discrimination is dangerous, and the quota system all the more so. The American diplomat and playwright, Clare Booth Luce, stated: “Because I am a woman, I must make unusual efforts to succeed. If I fail, no one will say – she doesn’t have what it takes. They will say – women don’t have what it takes.’’

Arguments in favour

• Quotas are not discriminatory, but compensation for the time women have been disadvantaged by society and culture. For centuries, women have had to accept rejection from occupying their rightful place in decision making positions be they political, corporate or any other sphere from which they were practically barred.

• As society is made up of both men and women, the correct representation in any group is one which consists of both sexes. It is argued that women can represent women’s interests better than men and that therefore the absence of women in decision-making positions is detrimental to society in general. Mixed representation is the best formula for any group achievement.

• Women bring a different baggage of experience to that brought by men and analyse issues differently, leading to a more complete picture in any situation. Women are equal to men but different, and this difference is an important input.

• Voters’ or shareholders’ rights are not violated by the quota system since nominations are usually monitored, controlled and manipulated anyway.

• The adverse reaction to quotas may be understandable and even acceptable, but considered to be of a temporary nature and overshadowed by the long-term benefits of a more equal and fair gender representation.

• The success of quotas in Norway.”

Marlene Mizzi, a prominent businesswoman and leader in her own right and former chairman of Sea Malta concludes, on balance, that “the arguments against quotas are far stronger, and nurture the interests of the female gender better than do arguments in favour”. I personally agree. The overriding consideration must remain merit, not the achievement of artificial quotas no matter how politically tempting a solution this is. There are some outstanding Maltese women in their thirties and forties who should make it to the top of their professions without the need for an artificial helping hand.

The answer surely is to encourage the process. Apart from the absolutely fundamental need to extend family-friendly measures to encourage women in the workplace, one way of doing this is for the government to publicly set non-binding but challenging targets to guide the progressive achievement of increased posts for women in specific fields of business (this in conjunction with the Malta Chamber of Commerce) and the public service. As an intrinsic part of this initiative, an annual progress report should be presented to Parliament so that the whole process is transparent and timely steps to alleviate areas of weakness in both the private and public sectors are encouraged.