Sunday, August 27, 2000		Article

THE Women’s Bill, pending for four years, seems to be going nowhere. The simpler suggestion of the EC that political parties give a fixed percentage of tickets to women as an alternative to the 33 per cent reservation provided in the Bill hasn’t drawn an encouraging response. Whereas major political parties find it politically expedient to voice support for the Bill, they aren’t enthusiastic about binding themselves even to a lower percentage for ticket allocation.

Critics dub it as hypocrisy. But the parties’ dilemma is obvious. Whatever may be the moral compulsions of having more women in legislatures, there is the ever intense pressure for tickets from men. And the chances of women candidates winning are commonly rated lower than that of men.

The phenomenon of women not coming up to the level of men in politics should cause no surprise; the position is prevalent world-wide. Even in countries like the USA where women otherwise have made impressive gains vis-a-vis men in the job market, they are lagging far behind men in politics. The real inhibiting factor, it seems, is biology itself, not so much gender bias. Men and women are different, and the culture of politics as it currently obtains, gives a definite edge to "manly" characteristics.

Many feminists say that there is no substantive physical or mental difference between men and women. But to rest the case for equality of women on the physical and psychological equivalence of sexes would be resting on a shaky foundation.

Men and women differ biologically. The main reason is that on average men produce more than ten times as much testosterone as women. And this chemical profoundly affects physique and behaviour, mood and temper.

At conception, every embryo is female. But a surge of testosterone, coming around six weeks after conception, turns a little over half of the embryos into males, the rest remaining female. The second major surge of testosterone comes to boys at puberty.

Testosterone effects both the body and the mind. The body differences the chemical causes are the obvious genitals, body hair, the ratio of muscle to fat , and so on. On the mental side, it engenders combativeness, an urge for dominance and power, even aggression. An overwhelming majority of those involved in rash or drunken driving, brawls and violent crimes are men. And this is largely attributed to their much higher levels of testosterone.

It is this sharp difference in the levels of testosterone between men and women which makes men take more to risky ventures than women. That’s why activities such as military duty, wrestling, boxing, hazardous explorations, and gambling tend to be disproportionately male. Again male presence is pronounced in professions such as venture capitalism and playing the share market.

Politics is again a very combative calling, with never ending power struggles. It is saturated with ego, conflict and risk. To secure political power and to retain it, practically no holds are barred. Little wonder, after a century of adult franchise in democracies where women from nearly half the electorate, the number of female politicians remains disappointingly small.

Mahatma Gandhi had led a uniquely civilised campaign for the country’s independence, a campaign with no parallel in history for its humanity and transparency. This had encouraged many an Indian woman to enter the political arena. But this unrealistically high moral tone of politics could not be sustained for long. Indeed our politics has been steadily degenerating into the unprincipled, with the intensification of scramble for power and scarce resources. The creeping in of corruption and criminality is making matters worse.

How well do women fit in this scenario? Can they match men in this sort of game? Or as in sports, they could have separate competitions.

Not that women are not good at governance. The qualities associated with low testosterone — sympathy, cooperation, conciliation, risk aversion — boost good governance. But then women have to climb the grisly ladder of politics, and here the average woman is handicapped biologically vis-s-vis her male counterpart. Women leaders like Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, or the Bangladesh Begums are different because of their particular family background.

Admittedly, low turnout of woman into politics may not be endemic to it; the phenomenon has more to do with the culture of politics. In countries like Sweden or Iceland women’s political participation is considerable, and could well reach parity levels in the foreseeable future. But that calls for a near transformation of the culture of politics. It’s rather a hen-and-egg situation: larger women participation should usher in politics that is defined by more forbearance then you can’t have larger participation without politics itself veering towards the benign.

In this context, the Bill to reserve 30 per cent seats for women in Parliament and state assemblies was a move in the right direction. More women in legislatures would be a welcome influence. Already women’s reservation in panchayats is having a salutary effect, besides providing them with the much needed political training. But stakes in panchayats are low, and it is easy for influential men to manage puppets. Stakes in Parliament and state assemblies are far too high for men to withdraw in favour of women.

Apparently the Bill erred in taking up too ambitious a target for reservation, though on strict moral and humane grounds even parity can be justified. A lower percentage, say 10 per cent — introduced more as an experimental measure than any final picture —had brighter and quicker prospects of becoming law. The EC’s suggestion of a fixed percentage of tickets to women by political parties, if agreed to, would also mark a welcome breakthrough.