|
PDF
Jackie Steele; Manon Tremblay
Prior to the creation of Canada’s newest Territory of Nunavut in 1999 a
proposal was developed by the Nunavut Implementation Commission to promote
gender equality in the new territorial legislature by creating electoral
districts that would each elect one man and one woman. The resulting assembly
with gender parity would have been a world’s first but this proposal received
only 43% of the vote and was defeated. This article looks at events leading
up to the referendum and factors that contributed to its defeat
The Territory of Nunavut which means “Our Land” or “Our Home” in the Inuit
language of Inuktitut is in the Canadian north and covers over 1.9 million
square kilometers, representing almost 20% of the total area of Canada,
and constituting the largest territorial or provincial administrative jurisdiction
in Canada. This vast arctic territory is inhabited by the Inuit, a people
whose culture and ways on the land have allowed them to live in conditions
that most Canadians would consider inhospitable. Heavily dependent upon
financial transfers from the federal government, the Territory of Nunavut
has a mixed economy for which an emerging cash economy and the relationship
to the land continue to be essential.
In December 1995, during discussions that preceded the creation of Nunavut
as a political entity separate from the Norwest Territories, the Nunavut
Implementation Commission (NIC) put forward a proposal on gender parity
that was ultimately brought to the representatives of the federal government,
NWT and Nunavut Tunngavik for consideration. The proposal first defended
the idea that “as groups, men and women have had different relationships
with the laws and institutions created through public policy, and have
had different life experiences…The call for balanced representation in
politics is therefore more than a call for recognition of shared interest,
it is a call for recognition for equality for a historically mistreated
group in society”.1
Secondly, the paper argued that the proposal employed a model of dual-member
constituencies that has been used in other provinces, and would be better
suited to the Canadian legislative model than proportional representation.
Finally, it argued that dual-member constituencies would have pragmatic
benefits in countering the adoption of an unworkably small legislature.2
According to the proposed model, the electorate of Nunavut would have
two votes to choose the two representatives of their riding, one to be
chosen from a list of female candidates, and one to be chosen from the
list of male candidates. Each electoral district would have had two representatives
in the Legislative Assembly, namely the woman and man receiving the most
support respectively. Consequently, the proposed model would have led
to a legislative assembly with gender parity: a world first. In May 26,
1997, the NIC proposal was submitted to a popular plebiscite posing the
following question: Should the first Nunavut Legislative Assembly have
equal numbers of men and women MLAs, with one man and one woman elected
to represent each electoral district? Although only 43% of the electorate
supported the proposal, a mere 39% of Nunavut residents actually cast their
vote.3
Given the strong support among most of the Nunavut elite, and in particular,
among all of the main Inuit organizations and the vast majority of prominent
Inuit leaders, three questions emerge about the plebiscite and its defeat:
-
What was the nature of the discussions among the political elite prior
to the plebiscite?
-
What led to the decision to delegate the matter to the population at large?
-
How do we make sense of the arguments that emerged during the discussions
and debates for and against the gender parity proposal?
Competing Traditions of Equality
The Nunavut Implementation Commission was attempting to render operational,
in terms of political representation, the theoretical ideal of gender equality.
This was asserted in terms that understood gender differences as socially
affecting the life experiences and views of both men and women, and of
the value of having both groups contribute to the governance of the society.
The commitment to gender equality was repeatedly linked to the symbiosis
of men and women in society and the fact that the survival of the Inuit
people had relied on the collective contributions of men and women. According
to a former senior official of the NWT Status of Women Council, it was
a means of both symbolically and practically institutionalizing the theoretical
commitment to the equal value of the contributions and life experiences
of both men and women as the foundations of society. Indeed, the information
pamphlet sent to all Nunavut homes, Building Our Future Together: Information
About Gender Parity, clearly stated, “In traditional Inuit culture men
and women were equal partners, each respected for their skills and knowledge”.
The equal representation of both groups would advance the public good.
Conversely, the opponents of the gender parity proposal took the liberal
democratic view of representative democracy in the First-Past-the-Post
trusteeship model wherein 'homo politicus' is a single universal entity
devoid of social markers. The assumption was that equality was best ensured
by ignoring sexual, racial or other differences. Placed firmly at the individual
level, it was defined in terms that relate to the individual merit and
ability of a disembodied person to represent and advance the general interests
of the population at large. In this view, good laws and public policy were
seen to result of the equal opportunity of all individuals to compete for
the role of representing the society at large. To that end, equal representation
was measured in terms of the procedural equality of competition. The Director
of Community Affairs and the Women's Directorate, MLA Manitok Thompson
was selected by the NWT Nunavut Caucus to advance this view, and the idea
that the proposal was both discriminatory (against men) by reserving seats
for women who may not be the best representatives, and discriminatory against
women for assuming that women could not get elected without representational
guarantees.
According to NIC Legal Counsel, John Merritt, the Nunavut Act passed by
the federal parliament in 1993 had referenced the creation of the new Territory
in accordance with the existing procedures used in the NWT, and as such,
the decision to adopt a new form of electoral system was seen to require
that the federal parliament amend the Act to allow for a different electoral
procedure to be adopted for the first election. Thereafter, the new Territory
would have been at liberty to amend its electoral system as the executive
saw fit. If the House of Commons were to amend the Nunavut Act in order
to support the new system with gender parity, the issue might have taken
on national implications. Already the Liberal Women's Commission had shown
an interest in the developments in Nunavut. In an interview Mr. Merritt
suggested that the federal Minister of Indian Affairs, faced with strong
opposition from the Nunavut Caucus, made the political decision of requesting
a popular plebiscite in order to have a clear mandate from Inuit society.
Competing Traditions for Gender Relations
While the terms of the debates championed by the political elites for and
against the proposal centred around the theoretical foundations of “gender
equality” and “equal representation”, the discussions among the population
seemed to have also focused more squarely upon the practical impact the
proposal might have upon the roles of men and women in society. Reflecting
fears that the proposal might threaten traditional roles, proponents and
opponents argued that gender parity would either strengthen or weaken the
family. The former likened the Nunavut Legislative Assembly with the home
and defended the equal contribution of both fathers and mothers in politics
with the foundation of a stronger Inuit society and culture; conversely,
given the central role of women in caregiving and in the maintenance of
family relations, the latter group suggested that families would suffer
if women were encouraged to participate in politics.4 Jens Dahl notes that
women's opposition to the proposal often reflected their deep-seated commitment
to maintaining strong families, and a fear of increasing social problems.5
The practical implications of a mere 12 women being engaged in the responsibilities
of Territorial governance fell by the wayside in what became a more symbolic
discussion around the proper sphere for women and men within Inuit society.
According to Suzanne Dybbroe the maintenance of cultural identity is a
process related to symbolic control.6 So while many invoked traditional
Inuit culture as having historically respected and valued the contributions
of both men and women on a par without regard for their gender, others
argued that men and women had distinct, yet complementary spheres of influence.
Increased unemployment among men and the more prominent role of women as
breadwinners was such that many men saw gender parity in politics as a
further encroachment upon men's traditional roles within Inuit culture
as the provider of income, information and power within society. While
conservative groups suggested that gender parity was an “import” from the
South, the invocation of imported Christian principles to oppose the proposal
often went unquestioned. Former NIC Commissioner Clara Evalik criticized
the role of religious groups in playing upon the fears of the communities
in an attempt to defeat the proposal.
In effect, the discussions that resulted from the gender parity proposal
were such that the population was being asked to define which version of
'Inuit traditions' (pre-contact, post-contact or a mixture of both) should
form the basis of gender relations and democratic practice in their new
Territory. From the perspective of the population, this hardly constituted
a 'clear question' given that the previous fifty years had seen tremendous
upheavals in Inuit society in terms of their connection to the land, contact
with the South, the influence of Christianity, and the economic re-structuring
of the family and society. It is not surprising that the proposal met
with both forward-looking optimism, as well as with rampant fear if we
consider that the current generations had experienced, and will likely
continue to experience a tumultuous period of social, economic, and cultural
transition during the first few decades of the Territory's development.
Lessons from the Nunavut Experience
The first lesson relates to the role of values in influencing political
events. More specifically, it highlights two competing ideals of equality
that advanced alternative visions of how a society and its institutions
should be politically organized. Clearly there is no shortage of mechanisms
for guaranteeing women's representation in Westminster and/or other systems
in as far as there is a genuine commitment to women being equally represented
in practice. That the proposal of a two-member, gender-balanced assembly
was not ultimately adopted in Nunavut does not point to any inherent incapacity
of the Westminster model to adapt to modern realities, nor to an inability
to take multiple identities into consideration in its representation of
the political community. Rather, in as far as they are compatible with
the priority given to the representation of geographically dispersed communities,
the Westminster model did not prove to be inflexible towards efforts to
advance women's representation. The NIC was genuinely committed to the
ideal of equal representation for men and women; the mechanism best suited
to institutionalize that principle was then designed to accommodate this
ideal.
The novelty of a binominal representation system with gender parity cannot
be overlooked, nor can we overlook the strength of the ideas guiding the
political structure prior to the reforms. The gender parity proposal would
have not only politically recognized the gendered differences of the human
population, it would have affirmed the relevance of these realities to
the pursuit of good governance. Similar to the challenge posited by feminists,
this Inuit ideal of collectively-grounded gender equality would have taken
the concept of “homo politicus” and made it gendered/bi-sexed. Consistent
with the Inuit elite's conception of traditional Inuit culture, with modern
values of sexual equality, and with the legal theory of equality and spirit
of (Charter) Section 15 equality guarantees, if adopted, the proposal nonetheless
had far-reaching consequences for the practical exercise of political power.
It would have instituted a new reality wherein men would not only theoretically,
but also practically lose their assured dominance over the exercise of
political power in society.
Our second observation relates to the fact that the advent of a new legislative
assembly does not necessarily produce a new “political opportunity structure”
for women. Rather, it remains crucial that those advancing women's representation
retain the support of the political elite with decision-making power. The
goal must be a commitment to both consciously eliminating the informal
mechanisms that have gate-kept women out of politics, and purposefully
advancing the election of women to political office. When examining the
creation of new institutional structures within constitutional monarchies
with Westminster-style governance, it is imperative that we look to the
source of decision-making power. As David Smith has effectively demonstrated,
this means that we look to the actors exercising the executive power of
the Crown.7 In the Nunavut case, the decision-making power was ultimately
exercised by the tripartite group representing Inuit civil society (Nunavut
Tunngavik), incumbent MLAs (the Nunavut Caucus of the NWT government),
and the interests of the federal Liberal executive (the Minister of Indian
and Northern Affairs). This political elite was empowered to decide the
rules and principles according to which the new assembly would be constituted,
and the presence or absence of gender equality as a foundational pillar
of the legislature. The failure to obtain a consensus between the former
two groups led to the decision by the latter for a plebiscite.
The third important observation regards the theory and practice of women's
representation. A vast amount of literature suggests the existence of a
link between descriptive and substantive representation and draws upon
the notion of “critical mass”
8. The assumed relationship is increasingly
challenged given the sheer diversity of women and/or of women's views.9
In the case of Nunavut, the views of one prominent woman in a relatively
small political community was enough to derail the adoption of an electoral
system that would have ensured an equal role for men and women in the Territory's
decision-making body. Clearly, Minister Thompson had the right to advance
the views of the Nunavut Caucus through the political system. From the
perspective of the population, however, the fact that she, as a woman,
could be so vehemently against the proposal led to confusion as to who
constituted the legitimate voice of women's equality concerns. If her views
worked against women's equality interests, can she be understood as substantively
representing women?
In other words, does feminism have a monopoly over the substantive representation
of women, and if so, what are the second-order implications concerning
the ability of a society to ensure the expression of both feminine and
feminist voice. Clearly, this exposes the theoretical tensions inherent
to assumptions about critical mass or the idea that the substantive representation
of a group will automatically flow from its descriptive representation.
Suzanne Dovi and Charles Taylor frame the issue in terms of questions of
authenticity; the former has advanced the idea that only those individuals
who have deep and ongoing connections to their communities can claim to
represent those interests; in particular, Dovi asserts that not just any
black or Latino will do.10 In the context of the gender parity proposal,
not just any Inuit or any woman could claim to be an authentic representative
of Inuit culture or of Inuit women's equality concerns. An anonymous former
NWT Status of Women Council official expressed her disappointment and discomfort
with the fact that their efforts to lead an educational campaign in favour
of gender parity was proactively undermined by their own Minister, creating
confusion and making the debate seem divisive and counterproductive. While
the Minister was likely seen as a legitimate voice by more conservative
portions of the population who either subscribed to the individual merit-based
notion of equality and/or who feared changes in gender roles, for the majority
of the Inuit elite involved in the creation of the territory, she was seen
to be harming the collective interests of women and Inuit society; as such,
the arguments she advanced on behalf of the Nunavut Caucus were not recognized
as legitimate.
Rather, for proponents of gender parity, Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association,
the NWT Status of Women Council, NIC Commissioners, and the Nunavut Tunngavik
Directors were seen as the legitimate voices advancing Inuit women's and
Inuit society's collective interests. Criticized for having failed to understand
the tenets of the gender parity proposal, Manitok Thompson was seen to
have reduced the debate to a mechanical view of democracy that relates
to the equality of electoral competition, rather an equality of outcome
for all citizens. Current Minister of Finance and Government House Leader,
Leona Aglukkaq expressed her disappointment that the former Minister did
not address the realities affecting women such as high rates of homicide
and domestic violence. Generalizing from her own experience and denying
the effects of systemic barriers to women's participation, Manitok Thompson
asserted that if she could get elected, any woman could. Former Nunavut
Caucus member and current Minister of Education Ed Picco affirmed his belief
that there are no systemic barriers to women; at the same time, he recognized
the difficulties relating to strains on the family, frequent travel, and
the fact that in a small political community, politicians have virtually
no privacy. Member of Parliament Nancy Karatak-Lindell observed the impact
of small northern communities; given that women would be in a position
of running against a close or distant male relative or other respected
men in the community, she felt that the ongoing hierarchies of age and
gender in traditional Inuit culture would discourage women from running
for office if there were no proactive measures in place to validate their
equal ability to govern. Continuing to support the position of the Nunavut
Caucus at the time, Minister Picco did however acknowledge the degree of
individual power formerly held by Ms. Thompson; he suggested that had she
not lead the campaign against the proposal, the results of the plebiscite
might have been very different. Ultimately, without a clear sense as to
who had the right to speak on behalf of, or in the interests of women's
equality, the fact that there was a prominent woman speaking against the
proposal only added to the other ideological positions relating to gender
roles, traditional Inuit culture, as well as to the procedural barriers
such as a lack of time and resources for popular education.
The fourth lesson that flows from the Nunavut experience serves to remind
us of the force of conservatism with respect to any institutional reform
pursued in Canada as compared to other Commonwealth countries. The creation
of Nunavut resulted from over thirty years of persistent low-profile mobilization
by Inuit society.11 The devolution of power to the regional parliaments
of Wales and Scotland has been arguably less divisive than the ongoing
struggles for political sovereignty between Quebec and the federal government.
The rise of a new political and social contract in New Zealand in (1996)
and in Scotland (1999) was such that the First-Past-the-Post electoral
system was abandoned in favour of a mixed model. In stark contrast, at
no point during the elaboration of political structures of the new public
government for the Territory of Nunavut was the idea of abandoning the
First-Past-the-Post model seriously considered. This resistance to electoral
reform was likewise present during the process of municipal amalgamations
in Quebec; at no point was the idea of adopting proportional representation
seriously addressed for the amalgamated cities of Montreal and Quebec.
Although the current electoral reform process underway in Quebec has moved
towards a mixed-PR model, it is one which attempts to maintain the same
voting patterns of the current system by virtue of allowing the electorate
to exercise only one vote. Contrary to the audacity of the gender parity
proposal, the suggested mechanisms to feminize the Quebec legislature are
both weak and voluntary. Conservatism has likewise expressed itself in
the BC electoral reform process. Although the popular Citizen's Assembly
was open to innovation for its proposed BC-style STV electoral system,
and despite having gender parity in the composition of the Assembly itself,
equal representation for women was not selected as one of the values around
which to build a new electoral system.
Prospects for Gender Parity
Fully 61% of the Nunavut population abstained from voting in the gender
parity plebiscite. Several factors can be seen to have influenced this
result. It would seem that many voters were either unsure of what choice
to make, were perhaps turned off by the campaign-style fighting among Inuit
elites, and/or were out of the Land during the month when the vote was
held. The majority vote against gender parity can hardly be understood
as a clear mandate from the people, but rather, should have been taken
as an indication that more time and information was necessary. Given that
a popular plebiscite with such widespread implications had not been adequately
foreseen by the NIC or the decision-making elite, an insufficient amount
of time, energy, and resources were allotted to promote a widespread societal
discussion that could adequately explore the merits of the proposition.
What is perhaps the most ironic aspect of the Nunavut case is that various
elements found in the gender parity proposal have been apart of both Canadian
and provincial political culture to differing degrees for quite some time.
Not only have the House of Commons and the provincial legislatures previously
used a system of two-member ridings as late as the 1980s, moreover, certain
provinces (notably New Brunswick and Quebec) have designed their electoral
boundaries in order to facilitate the representation of particular social
identities such as language and religion.12 In the past few years propositions
have been made for the representation of Aboriginal peoples, be it in the
form of designated electoral ridings, Aboriginal reserved seats in the
Senate, or the creation of an Aboriginal Parliament. The most striking
example of this is, of course, the creation of the new Territory of Nunavut
itself. Motivated by the desire of Inuit peoples to express and protect
their distinct way of life, the creation of a 'public' government was an
acceptable solution given the assured demographic dominance of the Inuit
people within the chosen geographic area of the new territory. Contrary
to the position advanced by the Nunavut Caucus wherein race, creed, or
gender should not matter to political representation in the Assembly, the
explicit recognition of Inuit ways of being was the driving force between
the founding of Nunavut such that the Inuit would have political control
over their future.
In short, while the NIC proposal of a two-member, gender-balanced assembly
questioned the general premise of parliamentary representation in Canada,
it did so in such a way as to strengthen and ground it in the principles
of both traditional (geographic representation) and more modern (social
representation) democratic practice. Indeed, all of these developments
have aimed at creating a space for a form of political representation that
could accommodate territory as well as identities that relate to culture,
language, and gender. It is interesting, if disappointing, that while
the political culture of elites in so-called 'modern' democracies worldwide
have upheld the value of ensuring, to differing degrees, the descriptive
representation and recognition of regional differences, religious beliefs,
urban versus rural realities, ethno-cultural identities, and linguistic
groups, it continues to deny the relevance of the political recognition
of gendered identities to the enjoyment of full citizenship by women.
Had the Inuit leaders been able to successfully assert the value of traditional
Inuit culture, defined by the affirmation of the equal collective contributions
of men and women to society, and to secure the support of the Nunavut Caucus,
the Nunavut Legislative Assembly would have become the first living example,
the world over, of the modern democratic ideal of gender equality.
Although the NIC proposal was unsuccessful, this has not prevented current
leaders from using their authority to advance women's political representation
since 1999. In a recent interview, Paul Okalik, Premier of Nunavut, was
very open about his commitment to seeing women at the highest levels of
governance and he affirmed that women were intentionally appointed at the
Deputy Minister level in 1999 to provide a balance against the majority
of male Ministers. Since his re-election in 2004, he has continued to
use his power as Premier to advance the two women MLAs to the most important
positions of cabinet, namely that of Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance.
He likewise observed that women were doing well in the public service,
comprising 69% of employees. Education Minister Picco likewise noted the
positive trend that fully 80% of those attending Nunavut Arctic College
were women. In the absence of concrete institutionalized mechanisms, clearly,
what is most crucial to overturning women's under-representation resides
in the genuine commitment of men to share their power with women and to
use their privileged access to political power to eliminate the systemic
barriers against women. For now, in Nunavut it is the good will of the
Prince that is making a difference. To that end, Nunavuumiut women can
hope that his reign will be long and prosperous so that the cumulative
effects of a gender-balanced executive will gradually lead to a change
in the makeup of the legislature itself. If traditional Inuit political
culture continues to prevail in practice, then perhaps the paradise of
gender-balanced governance is not lost, but rather, continues as a collectively
shared work-in-progress
Notes
1. Nunavut Implementation Commission (1994), “Two-Member Constituencies
and Gender Equality: A 'Made in Nunavut' Solution for an Effective and
Representative Legislature”, Discussion Paper, p. 5.
2. See also Lisa Young (1997), “Gender Equal Legislatures: Evaluating the
Proposed Nunavut Electoral System”, Canadian Public Policy, 32:306-315.
3. See Nicole Gombay (2000), “The politics of culture: Gender parity in
the legislative assembly of Nunavut”, Inuit Studies, 24:1, pp. 125-148.
4. Ibid p. 139
5. Jens Dahl (1997), “Gender Parity in Nunavut”, Indigenous Affairs, 3/4,
pp. 46-47.
6. Suzanne Dybbroe, (1996), “Questions of identity and issues of self-determination”,
Inuit Studies, 20:2, pp. 39-53.
7. See David E. Smith (1995), The Invisible Crown, Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.
8. Sarah Childs, (2004), New Labour's Women MPs. Women representing women,
London: Routledge, pp. 22-27..
9. See Sandra Burt, Alison Horton et Kathy Martin (2000), “Women in the
Ontario New Democratic Government: Revisiting the Concept of Critical Mass”,
International Review of Women and Leadership, 6:1, pp. 1-11; Sandra Grey
(2002), “Does Size Matter? Critical Mass and New Zealand's Women MPs”,
Parliamentary Affairs, 55:1, pp. 19-29; Donley Studlar and Ian McAllister
(2002), “Does a Critical Mass Exist? A comparative analysis of women's
legislative representation since 1950”, European Journal of Political Research,
41:2, pp. 233-253. Ann Towns (2003), “Understanding the Effects of Larger
Ratios of Women in National Legislatures: Proportions and Gender Differentiation
in Sweden and Norway”, Women & Politics, 25:1/2, pp. 1-29; Manon Tremblay,
(2003), “Women's Representational Role in Australia and Canada: The Impact
of Political Context”, Australian Journal of Political Science, 38: 2,
pp. 215-238; Laurel S Weldon (2002), “Beyond Bodies: Institutional Sources
of Representation for Women in Democratic Policymaking”, Journal of Politics,
64:4, pp. 1153-1174.
10. Suzanne Dovi (2002), “Preferable Descriptive Representatives : Will
Just Any Woman, Black, or Latino Do”, American Political Science Review,
96:4 and Charles Taylor (1992), Multiculturalism and “The Politics of Recognition”,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
11. Jack Hicks and Graham White (2000), “Nunavut: Inuit Self-determination
Through a Land Claim and Public Government”, in Nunavut: Inuit Regain Control
of their Lands and their Lives, (eds) Jens Dahl, Jack Hicks and Peter Jull,
Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, p.54.
12. See John C. Courtney (2004), Elections, Vancouver: UBC Press; Avigail
Eisenberg, (1998), “Domination and Political Representation in Canada”,
in Veronica Strong-Boag et al, Painting the Maple: Essays on Race, Gender
and the Construction of Canada, Vancouver: UBC Press; Kent Roach (1991),
“One Person, One Vote? Canadian Constitutional Standards for Electoral
Distribution and Districting”, in (ed) David Small, Drawing the Map: Equality
and Efficacy of the Vote in Canadian Electoral Boundary Reform, Toronto:
Dundam, PP. 200-219; Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing,
1991, Report: Reforming Electoral Democracy 1. Ottawa: Supply and Services.
|
RSS Feed
