Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung gGmbH (WZB) Reichpietschufer 50, D - 10785 Berlin G A E Veröffentlichungsreihe der Abteilung Organisation und Technikgenese des Forschungsschwerpunktes Technik - Arbeit - Umweltdes Wissenschaftszentrums Berl

(1)

Veröffentlichungsreihe der Abteilung Organisation und Technikgenese des Forschungsschwerpunktes Technik - Arbeit - Umwelt

des Wissenschaftszentrums Berlin für Sozialforschung

FS II 98-106

E

^ngendering ^{th e} representational DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

G

abriele

A

bels

Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung gGmbH (WZB) Reichpietschufer 50, D - 10785 Berlin

(2)

Engendering the Representational Democratic Deficit in the European Union

Generally, the discussion of the democratic deficit of the European Union (EU) is concentrated on issues of representation and institutional design. A widely neglected topic is the political participation of women. This paper explores the democratic deficit in the EU from a perspective of representativity as a core element of democracy. Based on the normative assumption of parity democracy I examine the various political institutions of the EU and the underrepresentation of women in elected and decision-making posts therein. I argue that the discussion about the democratic deficit will remain incomplete until women’s political underrepresentation is regarded as a serious problem for a democratic ‘Union of the citizens’. I sketch out a research agenda which stresses the need (i) for comparative studies and (ii) for an expansion of policy fields which should be analysed. These should also include allegedly ‘gender-neutral’ policies into a gendered analysis of the EU political system.

Das repräsentative „Geschlechterdemokratiedefizit“ der Europäischen Union

Die Diskussion über das Demokratiedefizit der EU konzentriert sich auf Fragen der Repräsentation und der institutionellen Reformen. Ein weitgehend vernachlässigtes Thema ist die politische Partizipation von Frauen. Ich diesem Beitrag werde ich das Demokratiedefizt der EU aus der Perspektive der Repräsentativität als einem Kernelement demokratischer Herrschaft untersuchen. Basierend auf der normativen Annahmen einer „geschlechterparität ischen Demokratie“ untersuche ich die verschiedenen politischen Institutionen der EU und die Unterrepräsentation von Frauen in gewählten und Entscheidungspositionen. Ich behaupte, daß die Debatte um das Demokratiedefizit so lange unzureichend bleibt, bis die politische Unterrepräsentation von Frauen als bedeutsames Problem für eine demokratische Union der Bürger/innen wahrgenommen wird. Ich werde weiterführende Forschungfragen skizzieren, die (1) auf einen Bedarf an vergleichenden Studien und (2) auf die Ausweitung untersuchter Politikfelder verweisen, um so auch vermeintlich „geschlechtsneutrale“ Politiken in eine

„vergeschlechtlichte“ Analyse des politischen Systems der EU mit einzubeziehen.

(3)

List of Abbreviations

CoR Committee of the Regions

COREPER Committee of Permanent Representatives

EC European Communities

ECJ ECOSOC

European Court of Justice Economic and Social Committee

EP European Parliament

EU European Union

EWU European Women’s Lobby

IGC Intergovernmental Conference

MEP Member of the European Parliament

T Total (women and men)

TEU Treaty on European Union

W Women

List of Figures

Figure 1 The EU institutions and channels of representation

List of Tables

Table 1 Women MEPs in the European Parliament, 1979 — 1997

Table 2 Candidacies and seats held by women, difference to number of candidates standing and elected in third and fourth direct elections

Table 3 Women in Political Groups in the EP (July 1997)

Table 4 Elected Women MEPs and MPs in the directly elected chambers in the EU Member States (1992-1997)

Table 5 Women in parliamentary decision-making positions (May 1997) Table 6 Women in the College of Commissioners, 1957-1997

Table 7 Women Representatives of Member States’ Governments in the Council of Ministers (July 1997)

Table 8 Women as full members of the Economic and Social Committee (April 1997)

Table 9 Women as full members of the Committee of the Regions (May 1997)

(5)

1 Introduction*

Feminist writing in European studies has mainly focused on the effects of European integration on social policy and gender relations in the labour market, while the non-feminist literature has failed to integrate gender as an analytical category and does not regard it an important object of research (McBride Stetson 1997, 195-196). Most of the current discussion of the democratic deficit in the European Union (EU) among political scientists is a prominent example of the ‘gender blindness’.

This reluctance in mainstream European integration towards ‘integrating gender’ (Hoskyns 1996) is somewhat striking given that EU policy-makers first addressed the problem of equal opportunities in the mid 1980s.* 1 In particular, the ratification process of the Treaty on European Union (also referred to as the Maastricht Treaty) threw some light on the gendered nature of European integration and a long-standing ‘gender gap’ with respect to the previously assumed ‘permissive consensus’ of the European people.2

In the aftermath of the ratification crisis much of the debate in European studies has focused on the democratic deficit of the European Union. The term ‘democratic deficit’ refers to different aspects: First, it refers to the balance of power between the EU institutions.

Different proposals and models are widely discussed on how the political institutions of the EU can be reformed in order to narrow the democratic deficit and to increase accountability of EU policy-making. One main focus of this institutional reform debate is the European Parliament (EP). There is strong support for the argument that the democratic deficit may narrow with the expansion of power transferred to the EP. However, while the EP is the only directly elected body of the EU and therefore the only channel of direct representation, European elections do not fulfil one of the basic criteria for democracy, and that is equality. In fact, they are unequal in many respects, that is unequal territorial and social representation, differing electoral systems with differing age barriers, ballot structure, district magnitude,

* The empirical research was carried out during my time as a Robert Schuman fellow at the European Parliament in 1997. I am grateful to Ms Garcia Munon and Ms Charriot in DG IV for then support.

Futhermore, I would like to thank Ariane Antal, Bernhard Wessels, and Amy Mazur for their comments on an earlier draft. All remaining errors are mine.

1 The approach of the Community towards equality between women and men was twofold: In the mid-80s the first medium-term Action Programme was introduced. This represents an affirmative action approach.

Regarding the recruitment o f personnel of the institutions themselves, guidelines have been introduced to face the problem o f women’s underrepresentation, particularly in high-ranking staff posts. All institutions have set up committees on equal opportunities for men and women (COPEC) which report annually on progress made. On the whole, the number of professionally employed women by the various institutions is about 50% due to the high number of women in secretarial and translation services. For the progress made in recruitment policy of personnel cf. Commission 1997; European Parliament 1997b.

2 Liebert interprets women’s greater ‘Euro-skepticism’ as neither a typically female deficit in political interest and information nor a political conservatism, but as a result of what she calls ‘relative deprivation’ which means ‘perceived negative discrepancy between a current position and that which is expected’ (Liebert 1997, p. 16). She argues against a monolithic women’s voice in the public debate and against common interests, but for the fact that relative deprivation takes on different meanings to women in the Member States and for different groups of women. An important variable is how feminist discourses are present in the general context of inter-party conflict and public controversies over European integration (ibid., p. 34-35).

(6)

degree of proportionality, varying party systems and recruitment processes etc.3 The persistent underrepresentation of women in decision-making posts in all EU institutions4 constitutes an important, but nevertheless widely neglected aspect of social representation (Norris/Franklin 1997).

The unequal nature of European elections highlights a more important, second aspect of the democratic deficit. The issue of representation in the poEtical system of the EU has to be looked at within the framework of the polity dimension. Critics state that the EU lacks some fundamental requirements for Eberal democracy; representation and accountabiEty is only one aspect besides the non-existence of a European pubEc. A European party system is, at best, only evolving. OveraU, the EU is a democracy stiE in the making.

This paper examines only one aspect of the representation and democracy debate. However, this aspect is of paramount importance, and is the current status of women’s poEtical (under-) representation in EU institutions. In section 1, I first elaborate on the normative concept of parity democracy. Section 3 briefly describes the state of Community action with respect to women in poEtical decision-making. In section 4, I iUustrate the different modes of representation in the EU system. The status of women’s underrepresentation in the various EU institutions is analysed in detail in section 5. Section 6 discusses the need for parity democracy in the Eght of the IGC and the revision of the 1992 Treaty on European Union.

The chaEenge for a European citizenship that brings about, among other things, not just de jure but de facto equal opportunities for women was again missed in the Amsterdam Summit due to the reluctance of Member States to place the issue of parity democracy high on the agenda. I conclude by summarising the impacts of my empirical findings and by sketching out questions for further research in section 7.

2 What is Parity Democracy?

Parity democracy is first of aE a normative and a quantitative concept. It means the mandatory composition of all decision-making bodies with 50 per cent women and 50 per cent men. The concept is based on the assumption that it matters ‘who our representatives are ’ (PhilEps 1994).

Anne PhilEps’ argument of a ‘poEtics of presence’ rests on principal reasons of justice and equaEty. Democracies are built on the principle of fuE and equal participation, and representation for aE citizens. This prerequisite of representative democracy does not fuEy apply to women. While women constitute more than 50 per cent of the population, their representation as a social group in poEtical decision-making bodies lags far behind.5 Quotas in

3 To distinguish this issue of representation and legitimacy from the debate on the institutional balance of power, Steffani (1995) introduced the term ‘democracy dilemma’. He argues thatreducing the supranational democratic deficit implies, ironically, increasing the democratic dilemma, because of the shift of power away from national parliaments (Steffani 1995, p. 38). For further discussion cf. also the special issue of the European Journal of Political Research (1997).

4 I use the term EU institution in a wider sense than Article 4 TEU which does not induce the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee o f the Regions.

5 Phillips restricts her claim to traditional pohtical institutions, she does not argue for a broadening of the pohtical sphere itself like other feminist pohtical theorists do in favour of particapatory models of democracy (cf. Holland-Cunz 1998). Phillips confines the issue of representation to gender only. In contrast to that, Iris

(7)

electoral laws are one of the most disputed means of reaching parity democracy. Many critics of quota systems consider the preference for women undemocratic.6

The term ‘Geschlechterdemokratie’ (‘gender democracy’) is sometimes used as a synonym for parity democracy; but it may be analytically useful to distinguish between the terms.7 While parity democracy focuses first of all on the political process, that means the number of women and thereby on the ‘bodies in control’, gender democracy is a catch-phrase without any real definition. Gender refers to the social construction of people as men and women which has the effect of differentiating values, ideas, and behaviour. Hence, the term gender democracy focuses rather on the policy dimension. It implies chances to politics that go beyond bringing more women in, because political institutions and processes are more than ‘conglomerations of individual biological men ’ (C. Smart 1985, quoted in: Hoskyns 1994, p. 234).

Despite many differences, most feminist arguments — whether representational or participatory — share the view that they do not consider participation and representation of women a sheer quantitative problem of ‘critical mass’.8 Advocates of parity democracy hope that if more women get involved in politics, this may help to engender politics; as a matter of fact, some empirical studies seem to prove a relation between social representation and policy impact in respect to gender (cf. Norris/Franklin 1997, p. 185-186). The demand for increased representation is regarded as a necessary condition for improving women’s overall position in society.

3 The State of Community Action

The European Parliament (EP) has raised its voice in favour of women’s greater participation and representation in decision-making as early as 1988 and has drafted several reports and made demands for action ever since (European Parliament 1994a). In response to the Bejing Women’s Conference which stressed the need for a balanced representation of women and men in political decision-making, the Commission of the European Communities (hereafter Commission) set up a network of experts under the Third Action Programme of Equal Opportunities for Men and Women (1991-1995).

The Council of Ministers (renamed Council of the European Union and hereafter Council) took up some of the advise given by the expert’s network and first adopted a resolution on the balanced participation of women and men in decision-making in 1995 (Council 1995). This was followed by a Council recommendation to the Member States in December 1996 which calls upon the institutions (and bodies) of the EU, as well as on the Member States, to take

Marion Young has elaborated a model of group representation which incorporates other social factor such as ethnicity and class (Young 1990).

6 E.g. the Italian Constitutional Court declared quota an unconstitutional measure o f positive action in 1995 (Rossili 1997, p. 65); cf. also chap. 5.6 on the European Court of Justice’s ruling on quota system.

7 In Germany, the term was coined by and is in fact still mainly used in relation to equality politics of the Green party.

8 Dahlerup (1988) first introduced this notion taken from physics of a ‘critical mass’ of thirty per cent women as a requirement for inducing a self-sustaining chain-reaction in the political sphere.

(8)

action (Council 1996). Resolutions as well as recommendations are weak instruments of Community action because they are non-binding; it is up to the Member States if they wish to implement them.

Recendy, the Commission has developed a new approach to gender issues, called

‘mainstreaming’ (Commission 1996).9 This means ‘mobilising all general policies and measures specifically fo r the purpose o f achieving equality by actively and openly taking into account at the planning stage their possible effects on die respective situations of men and women’

(Commission 1996, p. 2; emphasis in original). This approach is supported by the EP (European Parliament 1997a).

All these documents are influenced by feminist demands in so far as they assume that a greater participation of women depends — as the Council stated — ‘on representation on decision-making bodies at all levels o f political, economic, social and cultural life and which requires, in particular, presence in posts o f responsibility and decision-taking positions' (Council 1996, p. 12). A balanced participation is seen as a requirement for democracy; consequendy, it is an essential step towards a more democratic Union. From a feminist perspective, the EU may currently be labelled an

‘androcratic’ political system.

4 Representation and The Political Institutions of the EU

The representational debate has to be footed on the polity framework of the Union which is a multilayered system. The supranational and intergovernmental political institutions at the supranational level are constituted by a mixture of direct and indirect representation channels.

In respect to legislation, three institutions are dominant, that is the Commission, the Council, and the EP. Compared to national parliaments the EP is still the weakest institution while the Commission is the initiator of legislation and the Council the ‘decisionmaking centre’ (Wessels 1991; Wesdake 1995).10 Depending on the policy in process the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions may also be consulted.11 A further characteristic of the European polity is that it has been subject to many changes since the beginning of European integration in the 1950s — and the systemic and institutional development is still undergoing dynamic changes (Wallace 1996). A widely acknowledged characteristic of the political system of the EU is that polity issues are intermingled in policy

making processes; the legislative procedures differ depending on the policy area and issue under debate.

In extension of Norris’ channels of public accountability (cf. Norris 1997, p. 273-276) the modes of representation of the EU institutions are as follows:

9 Rees (1998, pp. 26-42) distinguishes three discinct approaches in European policies towards gender: First of all an equal opportunities model was prefered; when the limits of formal equahty became obvious, affirmative action was introduced. And now mainstreaming implies a more substantial integration o f gender issues.

10 This holds true for the so-called first column of the EU, that is the ‘old’ European Communities. The second and third column of Common Foreign and Security Policy and Cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs, are intergovernemental in structure and the Commission and the EP have hardly any rights at all.

11 Excellent introductions into politics and the policy-making process are Corbett, Jacobs and Shackleton 1995;

McCormick 1996; Richardson 1996; Sbragia 1992; Westlake 1994a/b, 1995.

(9)

Figure 1. EU political institutions and channels of representation

„elects « _► EP

elects

C o u rt o f Justice '■* C o u rt o f A uditors

_______ representational channel ...a p p o in tm en t ad personam

C om m ission

approval

5 The Underrepresentation of Women in the EU Institutions

Women are underrepresented in all EU institutions, but to varying degrees. In this section I will briefly introduce the institutions one by one. The reasons for women’s underrepresentation in the EU institutions are diverse and depend on the barriers associated with the particular channel of representation. In general, it can be said that socio-economic factors and reasons which can be attributed to political culture are important besides institutional factors (cf. Hoecker 1997). While some factors can be located at the supranational level, the main institutional barriers are to be found at the national level where the main actors are the governments and political parties in the Member States.

5.7 European Parliament

Of all the EU institutions, my main focus will be on die European Parliament (hereafter EP) for three reason. First, parliamentary institutions are at the core of any representational system; therefore the EP enjoys a major role in the debate on institutional reforms due to the direct representation channel. It has been the only EU body which is elected by direct and universal suffrage since 1979. The EP was granted extensive powers over the budgetary process in the 1970s, but it had lacked any efficient legislative power in most policy areas until the mid-80s. With the introduction of new legislative procedures in the Single European Act (SEA) in 1986/87 and subsequently with the TEU in 1992, the agenda-setting power and the power to control some of the other institutions was strengthened — at least in a number of policy areas. The Consolidated Treaty of Amsterdam signed on October 2, 1997 continues this development to integrate the EP as a player with equal rights in Community legislation.

Secondly, the average number of women parliamentarians has often been much higher in the EP than in the parliamentary chambers in most Member States. Thirdly, since direct elections,

(10)

the EP could be labelled a ‘conditional agenda-setter’ (Tsebelis 1994) in respect to the Community’s equal opportunities policy.

What is known today as the European Parliament was first founded as a Common Assembly under the Treaty for a European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1952, and was transformed into a single body for the then three Communities in 1957.12 It renamed itself the European Parliament in 1962.

From 1952 until 1979 the Common Assembly respectively EP had seen a total of 31 women members (MEP) who were appointed by the national parliaments.13 A breakdown by Member States shows that eight were appointed by the United Kingdom, five each from Germany and Italy, four from The Netherlands, three from Denmark, and two each from Belgium, France and Luxembourg. By political group this means that eleven women represented Christian- Democrat/Conservative and socialist parties, four liberal parties, two communist parties, and finally three female independent members (EP, Secretariat General, July 1997).

The Common Assembly respectively EP had begun with 78 members; the number was increased to 198 in 1973 and to 410 MEPs with the first direct election in 1979. World-wide, it has been the only transnational parliament ever since elected by universal suffrage, and it has seen several more enlargements as a result of the growing number of Member States. Along with the total number of members of the EP (MEP) the percentage of female delegates grew steadily (Table 1). After direct elections the higher number of women surely contributed to the fact that the status of women in Europe became one of the focal points of parliamentary work due to the initiatives taken by women MEPs irrespective of party affiliation.14

12 That is the ECSC, the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom); the last were founded in 1957 with the Treaty of Rome.

13 O f all appointed M E P s , only 1.3% were females from 1958 to 1962, 3% from 1958 to 1972; and 5.5% from 1972 to 1978 (Norris/Franklin 1997, p. 188).

14 In fact, one of the first committees set up after the 1979 election was an ad hoc Committee on Women in Europe which produced the Maij-Weggen Report (1980). At the end o f 1981 the ad hoc structure was replaced by a temporary Committee on Enquiry into the Situation of Women in Europe which together with the Commission’s efforts led to the First Action Programme. The Committee presented a final report in 1984, and a 116-point Resolution was adopted by the EP. The temporary Committee was replaced by the standing Committee on Women’s Rights in 1984; cf. also Vallence and Davies, chap. 5; Mazey 1988, pp. 77-78.

Mushaben (1994, p. 274) concludes that ‘thus far the strongest, most consistent champion of women’s lights has been the direcdy elected EP itself, hence an enhancement of its powers and proportional increases in the number of felame delegates will ultimately serve the equaliy cause.’ Githens (1995, p. 3) states that women in the EP are more likely to label themselves feminists.

(11)

Table 1. Women MEPs in the European Parliament, 1979 — 1997

Year Total of MEPs Women MEPs

in numbers in %

19791 410 69 16.8

1984 518 85 16.4

1989 518 103 19.9

1994 567 147 25.9

1995“ 626 173 27.6

1997 m 626 166 26.5

i

ill

ili Sources:

First direct election.

Includes appointed MEPs from Finland, Sweden, and Austria.

Includes directly elected MEPs from accession countries (July 1997).

Intra-Parliamentary Union 1995, pp. 280-282; EP, DG I, July 1997.

In their study of female delegates in the EP based on the first two parliamentary elections, Vallence and Davies mention the following four factors for the relative success of women (Vallence and Davies 1986, pp. 6-11): The overall lack o f legislative power compared to Member States’ parliaments is often seen as the main reason for women’s success in the EP. By nominating women candidates the political parties could show their non-discriminatory opinion towards women in politics — and at the same time putting them in a position of marginal power. A contributing factor in the past has been less interest on the side of male party members. European parliamentary elections are still considered less important than national elections.15 In addition, although European elections are considered ‘second order nations elections’, the election campaigns in the Member States have been calmer, less demanding and received less media coverage. Vallence and Davies see further reasons in the institutional political culture of the EP. Unlike national legislatures the EP does not have a history of female exclusion, but women are a part of the institutional history. Due to the fact that there is no split between government and opposition party, the atmosphere has been less polarised and hostile. The ‘'calmer world’ of committee debate, less time for plenary debate and less confrontations between the parties have been more appealing to women politicians. The EP has allowed for better planning o f time on the side of the delegates, because the schedule has been more structured between plenary session and committee and political group meetings.

There has also been less need for direct involvement in the home constituency. According to Vallence and Davies all these factors have had positive effects on women’s participation (cf.

also Mushaben 1994, pp. 253-254).

Looking at these arguments in the light of the developments made since, however, I do not find them very convincing any longer. Essentially, the arguments reflect the experience from

15 An indication is the election turnout which has been lower than in national elections in all Member States - again with considerable variations: The turnout is lowest in the UK and highest in Belgium and Luxembourg.

An analysis over time shows that the turnout is decreasing in most Member States, with the most dramatic decrease in Greece from 87.3% in the first EP election down to only 37% in the 1994 election (Lane, McKay and Newton 1997, p. 189).

(12)

the first two parliamentary elections and the first term which were dominated by developing routines and finding a new role. Since then considerable changes have been made. Today the EP has more power, and there are more demands in terms of time and expertise on the MEPs. Furthermore, the youth of the institution, the corresponding non-existence of long- entrenched incumbents and traditions of male dominance have increased the chances of female candidates to run successfully for a parliamentary seat (Githens 1995, pp. 2-3). Also since the 1970s, women’s demand for equal opportunities has produced a corresponding response in party policies for the promotion of women.

In their study on social representation, Norris and Franklin identify supply-side factors (i.e.

resources and motivation of candidates) and institutional barriers as the main reasons for the success of female candidates to gain winnable seats. The electoral and party system as well as political culture set the framework o f ‘structures of opportunities’ (Norris/Frank!in 1997, p.

186) for women’s recruitment. They find a strong link between the proportion of women elected in the Member States to the national parliaments and to the EP (Norris/Franklin 1997, p. 189).

In the following, I open the ‘black box’ EP by illustrating the participation and representation of women candidatures, and by describing the status of female MEPs in the political groups and at various levels in intra-parliamentary decision-making posts.

5.1.1 Female Candidates

Along with increasing power given to the EP, we find indications of growing competition between candidates in elections to the EP. In comparison to the 1989 election the total number of female and male candidates in the 1994 election has risen by almost 60%. For example, in Germany the number was almost five times as high in 1994 (995) than in 1989 (205), and in France almost four times (1989: 486; 1994: 1740). With regard to female candidates, an increasing total number and higher percentage has also been noted in most Member States (European Network 1994a). The percentage of female candidates in 1994 was 3.7% higher than in 1989 (1.206 women out of a total of 5.313 candidates; 22.7%). Since most Member States have an electoral system of proportional voting by party lists, this implies that female candidates were placed high on the electoral lists so that their chances for a winnable seat were better than those of their male counterparts on the same list. The setting of selection requirements for the party lists is one of the most effective means for improving the chances of women candidates. The breakdown by Member States for the third and fourth election (Table 2) also illustrates that the percentage of seats obtained by women was generally higher in 1994 than in 1989 (average of + 6.0% in 1994). The growing number of female candidates indicates that the EP is a very interesting political arena for women politicians.

(13)

Table 2. Candidacies and seats held by women, difference to number of candidates standing and elected in third and fourth direct elections in 12 Member States

Member State Women candidacies in 1994

Difference to candidates in 1989 in %

MEPs in 1994 W/T

Women MEPs

in %

Difference to 1989 in % W/T in %

Belgium 37.7 102/270 + 10.3 8/25 32.0 + 15.3

Denmark 31.1 57/183 - 3.8 7/16 43.8 + 6.3

France 33.7 586/1740 + 8,4 26/87 29.9 + 6.5

Germany 28.0 279/995 - 5.0 35/99 35.3 + 2.8

Greece 28.7 43/150 + 13.1 4/25 16.0 + 11.9

Ireland 23.0 12/52 + 9.8 4/15 26.7 + 20.0

Italy 14.3 181/1265 - 2.9 11/87 12.6 + 0.3

Luxembourg 25.8 31/120 + 0.4 2/6 33.3 ± 0.0

The Netherlands 26.7 62/232 + 4,6 10/31 32.2 + 4.2

Portugal 27.5 122/443 + 10.0 2/25 8.0 - 4.5

Spain 26.5 636/2396 + 2.0 21/64 32.8 + 17.8

United Kingdom 20.3 116/572 + 1.7 16/87 18.4 + 3.6

Total 26.4 2227/8418 + 3.7 146/567 25.9 + 6.0

111 Difference to women MEPs in 1989.

W/T Women/Total

Sources: European Network 1994a; EP, DG I, July 1997; assembled from various sources.

5.1.2 Women in the Political Groups

In general, the chances of women politicians to be elected as an MEP and to run for leading positions within the political groups have risen. Nevertheless, a wide disparity can be observed between the Political Groups in the EP. The following breakdown by Political Groups (Table 3) shows that women are more likely to be elected as candidates for the Green, and Green Left as well as the Socialist Group because they are put high on the electoral lists. There has also been a considerable increase of women in the Liberal and the Conservative Group (European Network 1995). Furthermore, the number of women in decision-making positions in the Political Groups varies, e.g. chair or vice-chair, membership in the Political Bureaux, and Treasurer.16 The breakdown also illustrates that, in general, women are more likely to be elected for leading positions within the Green and leftist political groups mentioned because of their stronger commitment to a more balanced representation of women. Overall, the percentage of women in leading positions in the Political Groups (27.4%) even outnumbers their total share of seats in the EP (26.5%).

16 The Political Groups have their own internal structures, notably a Bureau. Besides chair, vice-chair(s) and treasurer they tend to include one or two members members from the Group’s national components, including leaders of national party delegation. The Socialist Group has a quota of 40% women (Corbett, Jacobs and Shackleton 1995, p. 87).

(14)

Table 3. Women in the Political Groups in the EP (July 1997)

Type of Leading Position Total

Political MEPs Women Chair Vice-Chair Bureau Treasurer All Lead. Women

Group (W/T) in % (W/T) (W/T) (W/T) (W/T) Pos. (W/T) in %

PSE 64/214 29.9 1/1 6/15 5/16 1/1 13/33 39.4

EPP 40/181 22.1 0/1 1/8 14/52 0/1 15/62 24.2

UPE 11/55 20.0 0/2 1/8 2/8 0/2 3/20 15.0

ELDR 13/41 31.7 0/1 1/3 3/15 0/1 4/20 20.0

GUE/NGL 10/33 30.3 0/1 4/9 — 1/1 5/11 45.5

V 14/28 50.0 2/2 2/3 — 0/1 4/6 66.6

ARE 5/20 25.0 1/1 — 1/7 0/1 2/9 22.2

I-EDN 4/18 22.2 0/1 0/5 — 0/1 0/7 0.0

NI 4/34 11.8 - - - - - —

Total 166/626 26.5 4/10 15/51 25/98 2/9 46/168 27.4

PSE = Group of the European Socialists; PPE = Group of the European People’s Party; UPE = Group Union for Europe (since July 1995, previously Forza Europa and RDE); ELDR = Group o f the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party; GUE/NGL = Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left; V= Green Group; ARE = Group of the European Radical Alliance; I-EDN = Group o f Independents for a Europe of Nations (since January 1997); NI = non-attached members

Sources: EP, DG I, July 1997; EP, List of Members, 28 May 1997.

5.1.3 Women MEPs

The percentage of women MEPs has risen in most Member States over time. Norris and Franklin state that ‘there is a strong link between the proportion o f women elected in each country to the European and nationalparliaments ...as well as a strong correlation between the proportion o f women MEPs and women members o f national cabinets. This strongly suggests that systematic patterns affect women’s recruitment...” (Norris and Franklin 1997, p. 189). Nevertheless, some exceptions do exist, and an analysis of the most recent data shows some surprising results in terms of the degree of discrepancy between the proportion of women in the elected chambers of national parliaments and the EP (Table 4). This is most obvious in the case of Finland which has 50%

women in the EP (after accession even 62.5%). Italy was, in fact, the only EU Member States with a lower percentage of women in the EP than in the national parliament after the 1994 election. Possible reasons for this discrepancy have been discussed above.

To assure greater comparability, the difference between the percentage of women in the directly elected chamber of national parliaments and the EP is calculated on the basis of the general elections held prior or at the same time as the 1994 European election. It should be kept in mind that a comparison of these data is problematic insofar as most Member States with a bicameral system only elect a lower chamber. For reasons of comparability I have only taken the numbers of the lower chambers into account, except for The Netherlands.17

17 Exception do exist, however, such as Belgium and Spain, where a certain number of members of the senates are elected by universal suffrage. In Italy both chambers are directly elected, in The Netherlands only tire upper chamber.

(15)

General elections have been held in most Member States since the last election to the EP. To indicate medium-term trends, these results are mentioned as well. They illustrate that the percentage of women in national parliaments has further risen (apart from a decrease in Italy and Portugal) which in turn leads to a narrowing difference between the percentage of women MEPs and women delegates in national parliaments in the Member States. The next elections in 1999 will show if women can maintain their currently positive status in the EP.

(16)

Table 4. Directly elected Women MEPs and women as members of parliament in the directly elected chambers in the EU Member States (1992-1997)

Member States Year of National election

Women in elected chambers of the nat. parliaments in %

Women MEPs in 1997

Difference between women in nat. chambers and EP in % in % Women/Total until 1994 in 1997

Austria 26.8 (1995) 33.3 7/21 — + 6.5

Belgium 1991 9.4 12.0(1995) 32.0 8/25 + 22.6 + 20.0

Denmark 1994 33.0 33.0 37.5 6/16 + 10.8 + 4.5

Finland 33.5 (1995) 50.0 8/16 — + 16.5

France 1993 6.4 10.9 (1997) 27.6 24/87 + 23.5 + 16.7

Germany 1994 26.2 26.2 34.3 34/99 + 9.1 + 8.1

Greece 1993 6.0 6.3 (1996) 20.0 5/25 + 10.0 + 13.7

Ireland 1992 12.0 12.0(1997) 26.7 4/15 + 14.7 + 14.7

Italy 1994 15.1 11.1 (1996) 13.8 12/87 - 2.5 + 2.7

Luxembourg 1994 20.0 33.3 2/6 + 13.3 + 13.3

The Netherlands 1994/95 31.3 31.3 32.2 10/31 + 0.9 + 0.9

Portugal 1991 8.7 13.0 (1995) 12.0 3/25 - 0.7 - 1.0

Spain 1993 16.0 24.6 (1996) 28.1 18/64 + 16.8 + 3.5

Sweden 40.4 (1994) 40.9 9/21 - + 0.5

United Kingdom 1992 9-5. 18.2 (1997) 18.4 16/87 + 8.9 + 0.2

Total 15.4 17.0 26.5 166/626 + 10.6 + 8.1

Sources: Inter-Parliamentary Union 1995/1997; EP, DG I, July 1997; oral inquiries at information services of national parliaments; assembled from various sources.

(17)

5.1.4 Women in Parliamentary Decision-Making Positions

Women are, in general, underrepresented in intra-parliamentary decision-making positions, that is, presidency, vice-presidency, College of Quaestors, and chairpersons of (sub-) committees and delegations. There are vast differences in numbers depending on the position (Table 5). To date, Simone Veil has been the only female president of the EP (from 1979 to 1982). The figures are better for women as vice-presidents: initially five women in the first parliamentary term, dropping to only one in the second parliamentary term, and again four in the third and now three in the fourth term. Among the College of Quaestors, a group that is responsible for all MEP affairs, women have always been highly underrepresented; only the first and third parliamentary term saw one female Quaestor each. The percentage of women as chairs and vice-chairs of (sub)committees and leaders of delegations (22.7% respectively. 23.5

%) almost equals the total number of women MEPs (26.5%).18

Table 5. Women in parliamentary decision-making positions (May 1997)

Position Women/Total Women in %

President 0/1 0.0

Vice-presidents 3/14 21.4

College of Quaestors 0/5 0.0

Chairs of (Sub-) Committees ‘ 6/23 26.1

Vice-chairs o f (Sub-) Committees 15/66 22.7

Leaders o f D elegations 8/34 23.5

i Subcommittee on Monetary Affairs; Women’s Rights; Budgetary Control; External Economic Relations; Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs; Fisheries; for data since 1979 cf. Corbett, Jacobs and Shackleton 1995, pp. 116-118.

Sources: Assembled from various sources.

18 During the 1989 to 1994 parliamentary term three women served as committee chairs (16%; compared to a total of 19.9% in the EP) and 14 as vice-chairs (25%). For data on the first three parliamentary terms cf. also European Parliament 1995.

(18)

5.2 Commission

The channel of representation of the Commission is indirect via the ad personam appointment by the Council and the approval for the Commission in toto required by the EP. The Commission has often been criticised for the lack of women in decision-making posts; the College of Commissioners having been an exclusively male bastion for thirty years until the late 1980s (Table 6). The College of Commissioners consists of the now 17 members nominated by the Members States and approved by the EP; colloquially, the term Commission also refers to the civil service divided into 23 Directorates General. The Commission is the initiator of Common policies and has the right of first move to make policy proposals.

Table 6. Women in the College of Commissioners, 1957-1997 19

Terms of College of Commissioners

Total of Commissioners per term

Number of women

Women in %

1 9 5 8 - 1989 17 - 0.0

1 9 89-1993 17 2 118

1993 - 1995 17 1 5.9

1995 - 1999 20 5 25.0

Furthermore, the high-ranking positions within the Directorates General of the Commission have mainly been occupied by men; only 13.5% of all A grade officials in 1994 were women (9.3% in 1984). Only 3 % in the four higher grades were women in 1994 (Commission 1995).

The Commission reacted to this imbalance by introducing guidelines for the recruitment of personnel in 1995; three women from the new member countries were nominated as directors which raised the figure from five to eight women directors. It is important to see Spence states that ‘'recruitment fo r the most senior levels is largely by parachutage, Member States’ appointment policies rather than the Commission’s recruitment procedures may explain the imbalance’ (Spence 1994, p. 85; his emphasis).

Besides policies of affirmative action for staff, the more important development is that the Santer Commission set up an inter-service group of Commissioners to develop the

‘mainstreaming’ approach (Commission 1996). This new approach may lead to a more fundamental inclusion of a gender perspective in a number of Community policies. *

19 In the 1989 to 1995 Commission the women were Christine Scrivener (F; Customs and Taxation; Consumer Policy), and Vasso Papandreou (GR; Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs; Human Resources, Education & Training) who left in 1993. In the current Commission the women are: Edith Cresson (F;

Science, R&D, Human Resources, Education & Training); Emma Boni-no (I; Consumer Policy, Humanitarian Office, Fisheries); Anita Gradin (S; Immigration, Home & Judicial Affairs, Relations to the Ombudsman, Financial Control, Anti-fraud measures); Ritt Bjerregaard (DK; Environment, Nuclear Safety, Cohesion Fund); and Monika Wulf-Mathies (FRG; Regional Policy, Cohesion Fund).

(19)

5.3 Council o f the E U and Committee o f Permanent Representatives

The Council of Ministers now called Council of the EU, is an intergovernmental body whose legitimacy is indirect, because it comprises members of fleeted governments. For a long time, the Council has been the Community’s (respectively Union’s) ‘decisionmaking centre’

(Wessels 1991); until the introduction of the co-decision procedure with the Maastricht Treaty, the Council had the final word on all common legislation. The Council consists of representatives from all Member States, usually the Ministers. The Council is subdivided into the Council of Heads of Governments and States, and into Councils specialising in policy areas. Equal opportunities for women is, in general, part of the portfolio of ministries and departments of social affairs and employment; there is no special Council for women’s policy.

Nevertheless, a group of women ministers responsible for various portfolios from all Member States met in Athens in 1992 and again in Rome in May 1996 to discuss equal opportunities’

issues. Apart from the UK and Spain, the participating ministers signed a resolution on women in politics and society.20 An outcome of this initiative of women ministers was, that in December 1996 the Council of Ministers adopted a Commission resolution on the equal participation of women and men in decision making (Council 1996).

Women are highly underrepresented among the representatives of Member State’s governments who attend Council meetings (Table 7), that is Heads of States and Governments, Ministers, Secretaries of State, Parliamentary (Under-) Secretaries etc. The percentage of female ministers is often higher than of the lower status secretaries of state.21 Again, it is the Mediterranean Member States along with Germany, Ireland and Belgium who have the lowest number of female members of governments while the Nordic Member States take a leading position followed by The Netherlands, Luxembourg, and now also France and the UK.

20 While Spain did not sign the resolution because the then newly elected government was not yet set up, the UK deliberately refrained from signing.

21 Women rmnisters and secretaries of state are often responsible for so-called ‘soft’ policies e.g. health, sports, youth, women, family, education, culture as well as justice, and rarely for financial and economic affairs. The only female ministers for foreign affairs are from Sweden (Lena Hjelm-Wallen) and Finland (Tarja Halonen).

Furthermore, Finland is the only country that has seen women in all ministries at some point. The former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher was the only female head of government; the only four women heads o f states in the Member States in the last decades were the Irish President Mary Robinson along with the Queens o f Denmark, The Netherlands, and The United Kingdom.

(20)

Table 7. Women Representatives of Member States’ Governments in the Council of Ministers (July 1997)22

Member States Year recent

government appointed

Women representatives in % Women/Total

Austria 1996 22.2 4/18

Belgium 1 1995 11.8 2/17

Denmark 1994 25.0 5/20

Finland 1995 33.3 6/18

France 1997 28.6 8/28

Germany 1994 9.9 7/71

Greece 1995 4.7 2/43

Ireland 1997 12.5 4/32

Italy 1996 18.3 13/71

Luxembourg 1995 25.0 3/12

The Netherlands 1994/95 33.3 9/27

Portugal 1995 7.0 4/57

Spain 1996 11.4 4/35

Sweden 1994 39.6 19/48

United Kingdom 1997 22.0 20/91

Total 18.7 110/588

i Federal government only.

Sources: Council 1997; assembled from various sources.

An important body at the intergovernmental level is the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) consisting of one representative per Member State, that is usually Ambassadors and their deputies. Its responsibility is to prepare Council decisions; at best, a consensus can be reached so that Council can adopt a piece of legislation without further debate required.22 23 COREPER is subdivided into two groups: COREPER II is an all male body of permanent representatives or ambassadors of the Member States; they decide on the more difficult points. COREPER I consists of the deputies which debate non-contentious points that require only formal agreements; the Austrian Judith Gebetsroithner is the only female member (Council 1997).

The following two committees, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, are not institutions under Article 4 TEU but have so far served a consultative role to the Commission and Council. Nevertheless, they are actors in the EU policy-making process and their role is changing over time. Even if they have not yet achieved institution status with the Draft Treaty of Amsterdam, their importance is growing. If the Draft Treaty is

22 In 1994, the average of women in the government of the Member State was 12.7% (62 out of a total o f 489) with an average of only 6.2% women at the highest administrative level.

23 COREPER is supported by about 200 committees and (ad hoc) working groups of national civil servants and experts prepare the often highly technical proposals (Mender 1996).

(21)

ratified, their advisory role will be expanded to the EP. They are legitimised via indirect representation channels.

5.4 Economic and Social Committee

The Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC) is the only way of functional representation which is regulated in the Treaties (Catling 1996). It is an advisory body to the Commission and the Council, the members are appointed by the Member States. Its tripartite structure mainly represents the interests of the so-called social partners (workers and employers), as well as various interests (consumer rights, environment etc.). Out of ECOSOC’s 222 full members only 13.1% or a total of 29 are women in 1997 (Table 8).

Table 8. Women as full members of the Economic and Social Committee (April 1997)

Member States Women/Total Women in %

Austria 2/12 16.7

Belgium 0/12 0.0

Denmark 2/9 22.2

Finland 2/9 22.2

France 0/24 0.0

Germany 4/24 16.7

Greece 1/12 8.3

Ireland 1/9 111

Italy 2/24 8.3

Luxembourg 0/6 0.0

The Netiierlands 2/12 16.7

Portugal 2/12 16.7

Spain 2/21 9.5

Sweden 4/12 33.3

United Kingdom 5/24 20.8

Total 29/222 13.1

Source: Who’s Who in the European Union? April 1997.

The TEU stresses the importance of the social partnership in the political construction of the Union. Even though ‘the women’s polity is the most developed o f the E U ’s social polity programmes’

(Hoskyns 1996, p. 1), due to the relative openness of some EU institutions to women’s interests as workers, there is empirical evidence that these are not sufficiently represented by trade unions nor by employers associations at the national as well as the EU level. This can partly be attributed to the fact of a considerable lack of women in decision-malting positions in these organisations. Their representation in delegations of the social partners varies between 5 to 20 % (Cockburn 1995; Commission 1997, p. 92).

A breakdown of the ECOSOC membership by interest group supports this finding. In the group of employers, only 6 out of 68 representatives were women (9%); and in the group of

(22)

workers, 10 out of 78 representatives were women (13 %), while women accounted for 13 out of a total of 73 members representing various interests (16.9 %). From the last group, only four women represent ‘women’s interests’ in a broader sense: a Portuguese family organisation, the European Union for Women in the United Kingdom, Women’s enterprises in Sweden, and the Irish Country Women’s Association.

Since women are not a homogeneous social group, functional representation faces severe obstacles. Furthermore, the organisational structure of West European feminism with strong grass roots movements does not provide the necessary mechanisms for proposing candidates for nomination to the ECOSOC. Further difficulties which are founded on the very nature of the EU policy process (e.g. simultaneous lobbying at national and supranational level is necessary), make it harder for women’s groups to represent their interests (Bretherton and Sperling 1996, pp. 503-505). In fact, the provisions of a forum for substantial self-mobilisation (amongst others the support given to the European Women’s Lobby24) by the EP and the Commission are a recognition of some of these difficulties.

5.5 Committee o f the Regions

Under the Treaty of European Union, the Committee of the Regions (CoR) was established in 1994 as a consultative body to the Council and the Commission in order to promote economic and social cohesion, and to bring Europe closer to the citizens by strengthening the influence of the regions. The CoR is founded on territorial representation only; it represents the regional/local parliaments and governments of the Member States which are elected by the people. The 222 full members of the CoR are appointed by regional and local bodies with the Council of Ministers taking a final decision. In 1995/96 the percentage of women in regional parliaments and governments in EU Member States was 24.9% and 26.1%, and respectively in local councils 20.0% (European Network 1996, pp. 4-5; for detailed data cf.

European Network 1994b). In the CoR, women are a minority of 9.9% representing 22 of the full members. The following breakdown shows the considerable differences among the full members between Member State (Table 9).25

24 The EWL was founded in 1991 and is a coalition of more than 2,500 European women’s organisations. It is closely working with the Women’s Rights Committee in the European Parliament, and the Directorate for Equal Opportunities in the Commission as well as having working relations with the Council of Ministers.

25 The number is almost twice as high for the alternate members (42 women or 18,9%), primarily because of the high number of female alternate members from Denmark (44.4%), Finland (77.7%), and Sweden (50%) as well as Ireland (44.4%) while Austria, Belgium, and Portugal do not have a single female alternate member.

(23)

Table 9. Women as full members of the Committee of the Regions (May 1997)

Member States Women/Total Women in %

Austria 1/12 8.3

Belgium 1/12 8.3

Denmark 1/9 11.1

Finland 3/9 33.3

France 1/24 4.2

Germany 1/24 4.2

Greece 1/12 8.3

Ireland 3/9 33.3

Italy 0/24 0.0

Luxembourg 1/6 16.7

The Netherlands 1/12 8.3

Portugal 0/12 0.0

Spain 0/21 0.0

Sweden 4/12 33.3

United Kingdom 4/24 16.7

Total 22/222 9.9

Source: CoR, internal paper, July 1997.

The first term of the CoR is about to end. Under the Council Recommendation on the balanced participation of women in decision-making, the CoR has adopted an opinion on equal opportunities for women and men in September 1996 (CoR 1996), and has set up an ad hoc Working Group on Equal Opportunities in May 1997. The group consists of one representative from each Member State (except Germany which objected to the need for such policy in the CoR). The Working Group drafted a paper in which it calls upon national governments, local and regional government associations and the Council of Ministers to take equal opportunities into consideration when nominating members for the second term (CoR 1997). The draft paper was to be adopted at an internal meeting in September 1997. Besides the quantitative aspect of getting more women in, the Working Group is trying to implement a structure for the mainstreaming of equality policy by developing guidelines and a monitoring system for rapporteurs in the drafting of documents.

The fact that the CoR is now taking equality issues is important for two reasons. First, according to the Draft Treaty of Amsterdam the CoR (as well as ECOSOC) will gain advisory status also to the EP (new Article 198 and 198c; Conference of the Representatives 1997, pp.

134f.) which implies a strengthening of CoR’s position in respect to regional policy and cohesion. The impact of regional policies on women has not been analysed, e.g. the fight against unemployment covered by the regional fund. More women in the CoR might imply the chance for policy changes in favour of women’s interests in the regions (e.g. vocational training programmes).

Secondly, women’s involvement in institutionalised politics often starts with engagement and a subsequent mandate in local or regional authorities. In 1995/96 the percentage of women in regional parliaments and governments in EU Member States was 24.9% and 26.1%, and