I've just seen this woeful Twitter video
from our Prime Minister, where he tells us that:
"If we want to achieve a truly representative Parliament, then we cannot rest until 50% of MPs are women."
This has to be Boris at
his absolute worst! Knowing the sort of character Boris is, we all know he
doesn't really give two hoots about whether 50% of MPs are women - he's just
making this disingenuous appeal because he thinks it's what people want to
hear. But even if we grant him this sincerity, then once broken down, his
statement is incoherent. The Parliamentary system is not set up to be
representative on account of resembling the demographic of society; it is set
up to be representative on account of reflecting the voting preferences of
society. Desiring Parliament to resemble the demographic of society on
arbitrarily chosen traits like sex misses the point of the democratic process.
There are lots of xenophobic people in society, but we don’t want a proportion
of Parliament to be xenophobic; there are lots of religious fanatics, football
hooligans, polyamorists, adulterers and drug addicts in the
Some might object on grounds that sex is a different category of consideration, and that desiring a more equal representation of males and females in Parliament is to be lauded. Ok, even though that’s not a good counterpoint – let’s grant it for the sake of generosity. But even allowing for this, the desire for equal representation between males and females is still a preference that goes against the grain of the electoral system, because MPs are elected from 650 individual constituencies, and an individual person cannot resemble a demographic. If 1 individual cannot resemble a demographic, then 1 x 650 individuals cannot resemble a demographic without seriously departing from the rubric under which the electoral system is mandated. To do this would mean straying into something that selects on a different kind of preference to the one in which voters are being asked to participate.
Attempts could be made by political parties in the selection stage to artificially increase the number of women standing as candidates for election, but this no longer necessarily reflects the preferences of the electorate. If there is not a 50-50 split between male and female MPs when Parliament reflects the voting preferences of society, then why does Boris’s preference that this is redressed trump society’s revealed preferences after they have voted in their own constituency for the candidate of their choice? How does Boris (and the like) know that the current ratio is unjust and needs correcting? What if there are many other complex factors involved in the process, and that, actually, the fact that men outnumber women in Parliament occurs for perfectly reasonable reasons based on a complex range of preferences and considerations – Boris and other party politicks have no justification for imposing their preference over ours. If enough people do care significantly about having more women in Parliament then we can expect that to be reflected in constituencies, when more people could vote on the basis of sex than anything else.
My instinct is that, however prudent or infelicitous, what people mostly care about when they vote is the party of the candidate, and the perceived qualities, polices and ethics of the individual candidate and their party. Even those who care a lot about how many women there are in Parliament are unlikely to see that preference supersede the other factors at an individual constituency level – and it is therefore always likely to be the case that the revealed preferences of the electorate (at the individual level) are more representative than artificial attempts to make Parliament resemble the population demographic.
