In the past women struggled to obtain the right to vote and to gain a respectful position in social and political life. This struggle won, and today on both countries the U.K. and the U.S. women granted similar rights as men. Since the 1990s until now, the status of women improved totally from life of isolation and domesticity to better life. The British women similar to them counterpart in the U.S. participated in decision-making and gained high representation in elected offices and benefited from better conditions in employment, in addition to high education. Women’s position in the political spheres raised and supported by parties that implemented similar mechanisms to stop discrimination against women in education, employment, and politics. The proportion of women still not qualified with men but statistics showed that the number of women intensified compared with previous decades. The status of women in both countries improved in all social and political life even they didn’t achieve gender parity with males in politics.
I. General Background of Women‘s Under-Representation in Britain:
Before the 20th century, women lacked the right to stand for political participation and to involve in decision making and public affairs. At the beginning of the 19th centuries, the British electoral system was far from democratic. It was male suffrage and did not provided the means for fair and equal representations. The right to vote and be voted was restricted to men. Women had no role in the political sphere of the country (Krook 134). They believed that the vote threatened women purity and innocence. Instead, women should focus on their domestic and most public roles. According to anti-suffrage arguments, if women got the chance to vote, they would either: (a) vote as their husbands or (b) vote as a group. In general speaking, they agree that vote is not necessary for women and they didn’t need it (Childs).
Women’s representation in the British institutions remained law in for many years before the 20th. Female presence in politics considered impossible which males dominated the political fields (Russell, Lovenduski and Stephenson 2). This led to the law proportion of women in political institutions. Also, many obstacles decreased the number of women politicians. First, the political parties impacted women presence in politics, because they controlled the nomination process, and they can interfere in the political debates concerning the issues of participation and the nomination process (Sawer, Tremblay and Trimble 23). For that, women’s representation in the UK politics can be affected automatically by parties. Second, the UK lacked written constitution and the constitutional provisions that govern the selection procedures of candidates. This reason helped political parties to choose and suggest individuals to stand for public office, rather than choosing bodies to operate for particular public function (Russell and Colm 589). In addition, political parties treated as private associations, and their works subjected to self-regulation, private law and the basic requirements of natural justice that imposed on non-incorporated associations (ibid). Political parties affected women’s nomination and selection for many years.
Moreover, from the beginning of suffrage in 1918 until the Second World War, women’s share of candidacies was small and legislative seats were even fewer; the latter never reached 2.5 percent (Sawer et al. 86). In fact, Women’s had underrepresented in UK political institutions as a result of many obstacles the major men’s domination over the political arena (ibid).
• Women‘s Suffrage in the UK:
Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom gained throughout the early part of the 19th century when women became politically active. John Stuart Mill, an open advocate of female suffrage, was elected to Parliament in 1865, and he supported the inclusion of women suffrage (Nelson 13). The issue of women’s suffrage brought to the fore after defeating by all-male parliament under a Conservative government. Until 1832, the Reform Act stated 'male persons', and through property ownership, few women voted in parliamentary elections, even though this was not common (Heater 107). Single women received the right to vote in the local government under the Municipal Franchise Act 1869. This right extended to include some married women in the Local Government act 1894 (Heater 136).
During the later half of the 19th century, campaign groups for women’s suffrage formed to lobby Members of Parliament. In 1897, these groups unified and formed the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) 1, who sought to gain support, they arranged public meetings, in addition to writing letters to politicians (Cook 124). In 1907, the NUWSS organized its first large march and called the Mud March comprised 3,000 women walked through the streets of London from Hyde Park to Exeter Hall to support women's suffrage (Smith 23).
In 1903, a number of members of the NUWSS escaped and established the Women's Social and Political Union2 (WSPU). They chose to use other methods to attract public attention since the national media lost interest in the suffrage campaign (Scott 693). This started at a meeting in Manchester's Free Trade Hall in 1905, in the presence of Edward Grey, the 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon, a member of the newly elected Liberal government (Purvis and Holton 112). Then, Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney, previous members of the NUWSS, interrupted him and shouted out, 'asking him when the Liberal Government enfranchise women?'. When they refused to stop calling out, the police forced them to leave and the two suffragettes arrested at the end. As a result, they sent to the jail, because, they refused to pay their fine; they stayed ten days. The British public shocked and noticed the use of violence to win the vote for women (ibid).
After this media success, the WSPU's plans became violent. This included an attempt in 1908 to attack the house of David Lloyd George's (even he supported women's suffrage). The suffragette Emily Davison protested by riding a horse in 1905, of the King George V during, she fell down and died four days later. The WSPU abandoned their struggles during World War I (Leventhal 432). The National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies employed 'constitutional' methods during their struggle, continued to lobby during the war years, and agreement developed between the NUWSS and the coalition government (Cawood and McKinnon-Bell 71). On 6 February, the government passed the Representation of the People Act 1918, women over the age of 30 were first enfranchised (Fawcett and Garrett 170). About 8.4 million women enfranchised, in Britain and also in Ireland. In November 1918, the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918 enacted, allowed women to be elected into Parliament (ibid). Also, the Representation of the People Act 1928 extended the voting franchise to all women over the age 21, allowing women the right to vote as men (Stearns 160).
II. Women's Representation in Elected Offices:
Women’s representation in political office intensified generally in many of British institutions in the 1990s. The progress in the number of women’s representation was extremely never seen before, because, the political parties adopted varied positive action3 measures “quotas” to guarantee women’s selection as candidates. Where this form of action has not been taken by all parties, women‘s representation remains low compared with men (Russell, Lovenduski and Stephenson 17). Although one of the earliest contexts in which formal sex equality was achieved women gained the right to stand for Parliament in 1918 and even earlier for the Local Government they still constitute a mere fifth of MPs (McHarg 141).
1. Women’s Parliamentary Representation:
Women’s right to stand for election to Westminster improved in the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act of 1918 that gave women over 30 the right to vote (Childs) and the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 which reduced the voting age of women to 21, the same age as men (Norris and Lovenduski 101). Thus, the general election of 1919 saw seventeen women candidates, embraced a number of Suffragettes, the famous one Christabel Pankhurst, a previous member of the NUWSS (Childs). The first woman to be elected to the House of Commons named Lady Nancy Astor, the American-born, but Countess Markievicz, a Sinn Fein MP refused to take her seat. Astor considered the first Conservative woman to sit in the House in 1919, and then she followed the elevation of her husband to the House of Lords (Russell, Lovenduski and Stephenson 17). The general election of 1919 permitted women to enter the political sphere, and Nancy Astor was the first woman who granted the right to site in the House of Commons.
From 1918 to 1983, the proportion of women MPs saw little progress, less than 5 per cent of all MPs were women. The first significant progress appeared in the 1987 election, when the number of women MPs rose to 6.3 percent, raised to 9.2 percent in 1992 (Norris and Lovenduski 101). The House of Lords contained a lower number of women because the chamber composed of hereditary peers, who inherited their titles until 1958. In 1999, the government banned the right of most hereditary peers, as a result, the proportion of women doubled but it remained lower than that in the chamber, from 8, 4 percent To 16, 7(Russell, Lovenduski and Stephenson 19). In contrast, the Conservatives increased their number in the 1992 election, and the most shifts occurred in the Labour Party, where the number of women doubled from twenty-one to thirty-seven MPs, representing 13, 6 percent of the parliamentary party (Norris and Lovenduski 101). The number of women increased substantially in both houses compared with previous years.
Women’s political representation in British politics improved in the 1997 General election 120 women MPs (18.2 percent) contrasted with the percentage of women MPs in the 1980s. The numbers of women MPs increased in the House of Commons after the 1997 general election that represented a significant advancement never seen in the previous parliaments (Child 1). Yet, the British Parliaments of 1997 and 2001 provided some opportunities for Labour’s women MPs to substantively represent women (Sawer, Tremblay and Trimble 162). The Labour party increased considerable efforts to promote women’s political status, starting by 1997 election, which women’s progress improved rapidly. The Labour implemented quotas 4 from 1990 for women in local, regional and national party office, whereas, positive action applied firstly in 1988 for candidates selection. Thus, each constituency required to select one woman in its Parliamentary candidates (Russell, Lovenduski and Stephenson 20). For instance, in 1992, the number of Labour women elected was only thirty-seven (representing fourteen percent of Labour MPs), and to achieve their goals, Labours held an Annual Conference in 1993 that supported its policies until 1996 to secure gender parity in the Parliamentary party (McHarg 144). As a result, thirty-five women selected by constituencies from all women shortlists5 (Russell, Lovenduski and Stephenson 20). The Labour party policies supported women presence in politics as Margaret Wilson states:
The Labour party was the only viable political option open to women who wished to seek change within the foreseeable future. It was viable because of its history and record of the way in which it has attempted to address the needs of women…[T]he Labour party supported a policy of equality for women, which provided an ideological basis from which to develop a women’s policy that addressed the needs of women today(84).
The Conservative Party applied different systems for women rather than adopting quotas as Labours do. As a result of their poor records and pressure from some activists, they implemented training for activists in equal opportunities selection, and “shadowing” or “mentoring” schemes for women perspective candidates with existing women MPs (Russell, Lovenduski and Stephenson 20). They ensured the equal treatment between men and women, and they granted the equal opportunities for local selection committees, who held the final say in selection (McHarg 148). In 2005 election Conservative women MPs remained virtually static at 8.6 percent. More female Conservative candidates selected, but again they concentrated in hopeless seats. Conservative women’s MPs proportion in the parliament remained low compared with other parties.
The Liberal Democrats introduced a policy of 'zipping' 6 in 1997, whereby the party changed male and female names on each regional list. The party representation intensified from two to ten MEPs, half of whom are women, this policy supported by the National Party Conference in 1997, but it affected the party’s poor representation of women at the recent general election (Russell, Lovenduski and Stephenson 30). Moreover, in 2001, the Liberal Democrats refused to adopt All Women Shortlist (AWS) policy and decided in 2002 to abandon Zipping for European elections. Also, it changed new measures such as establishing a Gender Balance Task Force 7 that charged with designing positive action policies for women seeking selection to encourage and support them, and the party kept its rule which guaranteed that at least a third of shortlisted candidates should be female (McHarg 148; Norris and Lovenduski 8 ). Although the Liberal Democrats' measures proved reasonably successful the party got four female MPs in 2005, this led to increasing their proportion of women to 16,1 percent (McHarg 149). The Liberal Democratic-designed varied measures to increase women’s presence in the party.
Figure 1. Women MPs since 1945 until 2015 by Party in the United Kingdom.
Source: UK political Info, a Resource for Voters, Students, Journalists, and Politicians. Women MPs Since 1945 Until 2015 by Party in The United Kingdom. Web. 10 Jan. 2016.
The following chart shows the proportion of female MPs in the British parties from 1945 to 2015, female representations intensified rapidly among parties with varied percentages. The Labour party holds the high amount from previous years compared to other parties: the Conservatives and the Democrats, this difference occurred since the 1997 General election, which the Labour Party implemented (AWS) for women selection candidates, whereas, the other parties adopted other measures such as training, zipping and the Gender Balance Task Force but all those measures failed to raise women’s representation as positive action improvement. Another increase occurred in the 2001 election, the Labour party gain the first high amount of women’s proportions. After all, the Labour party remained the first and the most party that supported women presence in the British politics in contrast to the Conservative and the Liberal Democratic that lowered the number of women by rejecting the adoption of positive action measures. Despite this increase women still remain fewer than one in five MPs in the UK.
Figure 2. Female and Male MPs by parties in the United Kingdom
Source: UK political Info, a Resource for Voters, Students, Journalists, and Politicians. Female and male MPs by parties in The United Kingdom. Web. 10 Jan. 2016.
It is concluded from the following chart that shows the number of female and male proportion by parties in the United Kingdom that female MPs proportions remain lower compared with male ones. Even parties implement several measures to select more female candidates but this didn’t achieve gender parity in party politics. While the Labour party that held a plurality of seats in the House of Commons which helps women’s chances to gain more seats. There have been fewer women candidates in the Conservative Party and in the Liberal Democrats than in Labour, whereas, male gained more seats at every single election and the gap between male and female grown larger.
1. Women in the Local Government:
Since 1970, the British Local Government saw an evidence increase of women’s participation. The percentage of women that held elective office in Local Government grew steadily. The number of women Councillors in county and district Councils in England and the Assembly of Wales intensified from12 percent in 1964 to 17 percent in 1977 (Shaul 492-5), and from about 15% in the 1970s to just over one-quarter of all councillors (26%) in 1999 (Norris 3). women became more visible in Local Government and more women held the office of Councilor or mayor than in the past (Shaul 492-5). Also, more advances started from 1997, and more women served in government under Tony Blair than the total number of women ministers between 1927 and 1997. Thus, the numbers of women in Cabinet became also unprecedented. Margaret Thatcher8 considered the only woman in her Cabinet, and none appointed in John Major’s Cabinet. Tony Blair first cabinet comprised five women, whereas, his last one contained eight. In Gordon Brown’s first Cabinet in 2007, Jacqui Smith was appointed the first woman Home Secretary (Childs).
The new devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland offered the greatest opportunity to increase women's representation in recent years, because these were new institutions there were no incumbent candidates or established traditions, also, it offered an opportunity for women to be involved from the start of establishing bodies which would be hospitable to their needs (Russell, Lovenduski and Stephenson 23).
Women's increasingly active participation in Local Government increased opportunities to achieve an important step towards the realization of gender equality as a result of the new laws implemented. The new laws in local government offered a new electoral process and proposals that political parties introduce a quotas system in their candidate lists to present more opportunities for women. Thus, to intensify women’s participation, the government should support political parties that advance women’s rights and that have a clear gender policy on the new developmental framework; and put pressure on parties which have no gender policy or quotas (Haysom 2-3).
2. Women in the European Parliament:
Less than 20 years the European Parliament evolved from a consultative body into the most powerful interstate assembly in history. The European Parliament now holds equal legislative power with the governments in many key areas, can adapt many lines in the European Union (EU) budget, and veto the governments' nominee for Commission President, also, can dismiss the Commission. The UK considered one of the countries that joined to the European parliament, and it increased the representation of women MEPs (Member of the European Parliament). Thus, the UK classified only eleventh in terms of women’s representation in the parliament. Moreover, the main reason behind the increase of women’s representation in the European elections on 10 June 1999, for instance 21 women and 66 MEPs, or 24.1% female, compared with 29.9% of women MPEs across the Whole European Parliament (Norris 3) returned back to the changes that occurred in the electoral system; which was based on single-member constituencies to a system depended on regional party lists (Russell, Lovenduski and Stephenson 29). In fact, these results achieved because the Liberal Democrats implemented an effective positive action mechanism for these elections; and other parties realize the need to include women candidates in each region. Although, the Labour Party won seats in 1999, which adapted more proportional electoral system resulted. These changes offered an opportunity to raise the number of women representatives in the European Parliament (ibid).
4. Women in the Judiciary:
For over twenty years many proponents supported officially increasing diversity in the judiciary in England and the Assembly of Wales, because 'a diverse judiciary is an indispensable requirement of any democracy. As a result, a policy known by a new Judicial Appointments commission created in 2006, to reform the Judicial Appointment process and encourage applicants for judicial office (qtd. in Malleson). In the late 1990s in England and the Assembly of Wales, the need for greater numbers of women, and minority ethnic groups in the judiciary conveyed through the language of a 'diverse judiciary'. Thus, the Lord Chancellor's Department and its replacement, the Department for Constitutional Affairs in England and the Assembly of Wales, and Judicial Appointments bodies sought to achieve diversity in the Judiciary. Indeed, the promotion of diversity considered a legislative duty for one of the Judicial Appointments bodies in the United Kingdom (Feenan 494).
Significant changes in official attitudes occurred where Senior Judges acknowledged that the perception of the judiciary as old, white, upper-class, male, and undermined public confidence in the Courts needed to be addressed. As Lord Taylor, a Lord Chief Justice expressed in 1992 that: The present imbalance between male and female, white and black in the Judiciary is obvious…I have no doubt that the balance will be redressed in the next few years…Within five years I would expect to see a substantial number of appointments from both these groups. The Lord Taylor's prediction of relatively fast and extensive change occurred in the judiciary as appointing large numbers of women remained low (qtd in. Malleson).
In 2008, the proportion of women candidates in the eligible pool for salaried legal posts stated to be 21 percent. The new Judicial Appointments Commission described its first year's in 2008 as 'encouraging' despite the fact that they represented an overall drop in the proportion of women appointed from 41 percent to 34 percent. The expectations that the new judicial appointments process would lead to greater diversity had not fulfilled. The Chief Justice Elias of New Zealand highlights clearly on the failures of the apparent promises of change in the 1970s and 1980s:
We bought into the lie that the advancement of women in the legal profession was just a matter of time and numbers. And that merit would out … the insistence on 'merit' (which is self-reflective) and the blind faith (against the evidence) that self-correction is only a matter of time and numbers, must now be seen as denial (12).
The most recent report of the Equality and Human Rights Commission on women in positions of power discovered that in a number of areas of public life, including the judiciary, the proportion of women in post remain static or decreased since 2005. Furthermore, the report concluded that the progress to reach and achieve gender equality in the judiciary need 55 years; up from 40 years in 2005 (Malleson 383). Women’s representation in the Judiciary remains low compared with other elected offices.