91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳

By Karen Fletcher Is having more women in "positions of power" the best strategy for achieving women's liberation? Some in the women's movement believe so, and are actively campaigning for more women to enter parliament. The newly-formed Australian Women's Party (AWP) is contesting the next federal elections on a platform with two key policies: "constitutional change requiring equal representation for men and women in federal parliament" and for intervention in the republic debate with a view to changing Australia's constitution "to ensure equal representation for men and women at all levels of government". No doubt the founders of the AWP, several of whom were long-term activists in the Queensland branch of the ALP, and respected activists in the women's and labour movements, genuinely believe that this perspective will advance the interests of women. However, while having more women in parliament reflects a change in public sentiment it does not guarantee advances for women. That will depend on the political interests that women parliamentarians represent. For instance, the election of Elaine Nile from the extreme right-wing Call to Australia party to the NSW Legislative Council does not represent an advance for women's rights. Rather, it is a setback to the struggle for women's and gay and lesbian rights, as well as other progressive causes. The biology of Elaine Nile, Margaret Thatcher or Flo Bjelke-Peterson doesn't automatically mean that they are politically progressive, even on the women's question. The right wing puts women into positions of power — especially now as women candidates are proving good vote-catchers — to implement a right-wing program. Getting more women into parliament can aid our struggle only if the political positions these women and their parties represent advance women's interests. On the question of government there are other criteria to be considered. Many feminists argue that a number of institutions in capitalist society are designed to perpetuate the oppression of women. These institutions cannot be made "women friendly". They need to be fundamentally restructured or done away with in the interests of women. A genuinely alternative approach to the minimalist republic debate requires going beyond the framework of equal representation at all levels of government, to look at alternative governmental structures. As Pat O'Shane argued at the recent Women and Labour Conference in Sydney, we need to look at "the shape of the government of the future" so that "people themselves have power". Admittedly the AWP has only just formed and is in the process of developing its policies. However, an important question for any newly emerging party is how it orients to other parties. Given that some AWP leaders must have become disillusioned with the ALP's lack of progress on women's issues, it is surprising that the AWP's policy leaflet makes no criticism of — or even comments on — the Labor government's policies. In her speech to the Women and Labour Conference, AWP secretary Jenny Hughey's only criticism of the ALP was that it is male dominated. The composition of a party, including the composition of its leadership, is an important political question. But this too cannot be separated from the politics of the organisation. The central problem with the ALP is its politics, not the sex of its leadership. The ALP is fundamentally committed to running the system in the interests of big business, which means that it is a road block to the advancement of women's interests. Having more women in the ALP doesn't automatically change the political character of that party. The AWP needs to differentiate itself from the ALP, not on the basis of gender, but politics. As the ALP plays the woman card — trying to convince us that it champions women's interests — it's important that feminists evaluate the experience of the women's movement in relation to the ALP. History shows that many women who have made it into positions of "power" have used them to carry out the ALP's political strategy, and helped to coopt or tame the movement. Instead of using their positions to strengthen the women's movement, the goal of the sisters in suits changes to focus on their own careers. This strategy of "gender equality" is largely responsible for the de-mobilisation of the movement, and is now being justified by some as the way forward for women. There is a hard lesson we need to draw from the experiences of the last two decades. A political perspective oriented towards putting women into positions of power advances the material gains of only a tiny minority of women. The only way to bring about meaningful change for the majority of women is to strengthen the women's movement, to build a movement which is uncompromising in its struggle for women's liberation and is based on the grassroots participation, activism and organisation of the masses of women. This is the alternative perspective to that of getting more sisters into suits.
[Karen Fletcher is the women's affairs spokesperson for the Democratic Socialists.]