Phoney numerical quotas for women do nothing for guaranteeing competence – and overlook the biological factor in how women view and pursue careers.
The criteria for candidate selection for the African National Congress (ANC) as Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Provincial Councils (MPLs) for the 2019 election included being an ANC member in ‘good standing’; having experience, education or skills to make a valid contribution in legislatures; having no criminal record, no history of corruption or ill-discipline and no other breaches of the party’s code of conduct.
The ANC was, however, also ‘under pressure’ in compiling its lists to match another criterion after the ANC Women’s League (ANCWL) said it would lobby for the appointment of five women as premiers, and a woman as the deputy president of the country, and for 50% of MPs and MPLs being women.
There are 30 ministers, 14 of whom are women, and 34 deputy ministers, 16 of whom are women. But judging by the appointment of provincial leaders – only two of the ANC’s 8 premiers are women – any consideration of gender equality obviously fell to the bottom of the priority list.
Of course, in looking at the lists of people in top positions, there is no reason why there could not have been more women than men. There are few lights of particular competence or skills that would make one gender preferable over another. There are obvious party political reasons for some of the choices and this is particularly evident in the dominance of men in the provincial leadership. But, as noted earlier, the imperative of gender equality in provinces has obviously fallen away.
If the ANC leadership really wanted to signal its virtue it would have chosen slightly more women than men to reflect the fact that women make up about 52% of the population.
Prior to the 2019 election, the ANCWL made it clear that ‘(we) would appreciate it if we have more than 50% by having five women premiers and then four men comrades’. The choice of the word ‘appreciate’ suggests that the women in the ANC still see themselves as dependent on men to elevate them.
Saying that the ANC must achieve numerical equality demonstrates two things: it is clearly not natural for men to elevate women to a position of equality, and it can only be done in the context of phoney numerical quotas and loyalty to the ANC rather than competence and experience.
In one respect, the ANC has achieved equality in its choice of members of parliament: the women in its ranks are as bad as the men. ANC women no longer have to prove that they are better than men. This is not to say for a moment that there aren’t capable women in the ANC’s ranks. It is just to say that a significant number of women in the parliamentary hierarchy have been too awful for words. Bathabile Dlamini, Tina Joemat-Pettersson, Lynne Brown, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, Susan Shabangu and Nomvula Mokonyane come to mind, here.
Loyalty to the ANC is a much easier criterion to apply, clearly.
The ANC has been lauded internationally for this ‘equality’. Yet it is misplaced as a true measure of equality.
In the private sector, the numbers are not as impressive as in government. Some companies in South Africa have targets and even quotas, but competence and skill do have to be factored in. So why are there not more women at the top of the corporate pile?
Even in Scandinavia, which provides couples with very generous child-care leave and attitudes to women are probably the most egalitarian in the world, the number of women CEOs is only a little over 20%.
In South Africa, 30% of senior positions are held by women and one in 40 CEOs of top companies is a woman.
Women undergraduates outnumber men by about 3:2. However, women are less likely than men to enrol for post-graduate degrees. And most female graduates still tend to gravitate towards the arts.
One view is that we still live in a patriarchal society. Thus, because women don’t see other women in positions of seniority, they are disinclined to seek them themselves.
In this era, however, it is doubtful that not seeing women in positions of leadership deters young women from entering any given area of study. The fact that gender equality is so dominant in social discourse and has been for some years makes this unlikely in the majority of cases.
There is a considerable number of women in the medical specialities, in law and in accounting faculties, all of which were considered male-dominated professions in times gone by. The same is true of departments such as geography.
One academic has suggested that because academia is still dominated by men to the extent that it is, the Commission for Gender Equality has threatened universities with sanctions if they do not employ more women.
‘Good grief!’ as Charlie Brown would say. Applying sanctions to universities to make them appoint women just because they are women is a recipe for a qualitative disaster.
Certainly, companies have to avoid creating ‘boys’ clubs’ where – even if discrimination isn’t intended – women worthy of positions may not be recognised sufficiently because they aren’t part of the club.
However, there is a factor that is little considered and which may be significant in women not being represented at the higher levels of corporate life: biology.
Biology doesn’t mean women can’t do certain jobs or have been socialised to do certain jobs. What is meant is that women who may make it to senior levels work extremely hard to attain such achievement from their mid-twenties or early thirties.
However, after the age of 35, the risk of bearing a child with abnormalities rises exponentially. In any event, most women will have their first child at least by their mid-thirties. Generally, as a matter of choice or as a matter of need, women then interrupt their careers or work part-time for a few years.
This may lead to regression in the path up the corporate ladder; but these days that has become less of a problem, as men understand the situation and accommodate it accordingly.
But there is another reason why women leave the corporate track. Women may have worked intensively for a decade or so and have then had to cope with the complexities of having children. Then, in their late thirties or early forties, when they consider their career prospects, they decide they don’t want to live that one-track life with long hours. In other words, senior management positions look very unattractive, and women change direction.
The fact that husbands may be in traditional jobs gives women the financial certainty that allows such change. But women are less linear in their approach to their careers.
If this thesis is anecdotal and has not been tested through methodical research, put it to women you know and see what you get.
Sara Gon is the head of strategic engagement at the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, become a Friend of the IRR if you aren’t already one by SMSing your name to 32823 or clicking here. Each SMS costs R1.’ Terms & Conditions Apply.