Parity Democracy – to quota or not to quota?

What else to do on a sunny Saturday in Dublin but spend it at the Mansion House with 100+ other women from all over Ireland to talk politics ie life, the universe and everything? 

The Labour Women’s National Conference was an inspiring day! Some even used the f-word (yes – feminism).

The theme of the conference was Gender Parity, and the afternoon session was addressed by Senator Ivana Bacik, Joan Burton TD, and Susan McKay, of the NCWI - all incredibly intelligent and knowledgeable women.  We were also treated to the thoughts of the  also ‘formidable’ Kathleen Lynch TD, for whom I also have a lot of time. 

In an attempt to get women into the political process, the Labour Party has instigated a quota system for candidate selection.  A few years ago I would have been up in arms about this, believing that women should be selected on their own merits.  Admittedly by Saturday morning, for a variety of reasons,  I was open to persuasion.  By the end of Saturday afternoon, I was fully convinced of its merits!

Ivana summed up the obstacles to women’s participation as culture, childcare, cash, and confidence.   Personally, I think the core issue is confidence – everything else can be overcome if you believe in what you are doing.   I have been lucky to work with some inspiring women over the years.  One in particular has a habit of getting those positions that have been called ‘glass cliffs’ .  Unfortunately for the men around her, she has a habit of jumping off with gusto and flying!  And the thing that she has in common with all the other women that have held high flying corporate positions, run successful businesses, been senior positions on Boards and vociferously campaigned to give a voice to others in their community or internationally, is that they believe in themselves and their subject: an utter, passionate belief.  No-one can put them down, but they are self-aware enough to know their weaknesses (opportunities to grow) and do something about it.  Men, in the main (and I know I am guilty of generalising here in the way that men generalise about women) are taught to have self-confidence and belief, and are thought to be ‘ballsy’.  Women who have such belief are ‘bolshy’ or, even worse, ‘passionate’ (for which read ‘hysterical’).  But, sticks and stones, and all that….

I think the mentoring system that the Labour Party in Ireland have established, and are to develop is inspired, and one way to ensure that those who are selected at least have the level playing field of confidence.  If a quota system ensures that more, and a more diverse range of. women get the opportunity to put this confidence into practice they will be inspirational beacons for those that come after them.

But the last comment has to go to Sinead Ni Chulachain, outgoing Chair of Labour Women, who, to paraphrase, summed it up: people have been selected on a number of criteria, not all to do with their politics; have you ever seen a man turn down something because he thought a woman was better qualified?

Addition (20/10/09): Over back in Blighty, the issue of increasing diversity in Westminster was discussed today at a Speakers’ Conference with all three leaders of the main parties saying they are going to work to increase the diversity of selection and participation (http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=4868).

Women shouldn’t have an ideology. Discuss.

An increasingly typical Sunday morning scene in a part of Dublin:  Me, in varying states of dress (either about to enter the shower or just getting out), shouting at the television.  Not pretty. Not pretty at all.

This Sunday the object of my wrath was a woman (I didn’t catch her name but I think it was Kathy Gynell) from the Centre for Policy Studies on Sky News (an interlude between Andrew Marr and the Politics Show). Chewing over the papers,  she said something along the lines of Samantha Cameron and Lorraine Kelly were examples of ‘nice young women without an ideology’, like this was a good thing.  Now, I fondly imagine that both Ms Cameron and Ms Kelly would have something to say about that. I may be wrong.

Now what this representative of the CPS was saying is that women should not have a ‘body of ideas that reflects the beliefs of a nation. political system, class, etc’: ie they shouldn’t think.

Think about the implications of such a statement for a minute.

Now, the CPS is a conservative and Conservative think tank.  And it has women ‘experts’. I would imagine that these women probably have what could be called a right-wing, conservative ideology.  On having quick scoot round their website, it would appear that all these women have benefited from a decent education; one is the Director.  They have just published a pamphlet on ‘What women want’, which perpetuates the myth that if we all went back to a ‘traditional’ family, this would ‘mend’ ‘Broken Britain’ (ie one that is not full of people like them).  The truth is that this golden age was only for the middle-classes; those with real money had nannies and sent children to boarding schools, so mothers spent little time either in the kitchen or with their children.  This is central to Conservative family policy. 

Of course what she probably meant was that they were not feminists, which is just one ‘ideology’.  But thanks to women who had such ideologies, and were willing to be outcasts of polite society at best and imprisoned and killed at worst, these women (and all those women who seek to take part in society this way) are able to have an education, to vote, to advise and take part in politics and political parties, to be taken seriously enough to put forward their ideas in the workplace and in the media, while they are waiting for their (in their eyes) ’self-actualisation’ through attracting a husband that is willing and able to provide for them and their children. 

To me this was shorthand for saying that women should not think for themselves or seek to exchange or air their views: in short to be seen and not heard.  Will the women of the CPS go back to their kitchens and stop thinking? To me, the thought of not thinking, not having an opinion, would be like not breathing. I think and hope most other women are the same.

British Peter Pan Politics

From the kind of jeering that happens in the Commons, to the Damien McBride incident; from the name calling that passes as soundbites, to notches on the bed post and the cheap questioning/comments we have seen in political interviews of late: British politics is full of boys who’ve never grown up.

This is hugely detrimental to political communication and engagement.  People do not want to see either ‘Tory Toffs’ or ‘Champagne Socialists’ using issues that have a direct impact on the electorate to point score or build their own careers/profiles/coffers.  The class system is alive and well and I’m not sure that it will ever go away, but we have to get beyond it.  But while those who represent us (and maybe we need to have a conversation about what members of parliament are for) or those who have access on our behalf (the media, bloggers) act like a load of ‘Billy Bunters’. One could argue with so little real, knowledgeable engagement with the political arena, do we have a democracy?

So who is in a position to facilitate this miraculous change? The politicians themselves could take responsibility for this – yes they are blogging, tweeting, and all sorts.  But the truism that ‘rubbish in, rubbish out’ still stands.  The electorate still has to bother engaging with the tools – the politicians need to make people want to know what they’re up to (reading, eating, opening?).

So who else can help out?  I’m a cynical old bear, but I have detected the main political journalists jockying for the prime position of host of the forthcoming election debates. Hopefully this will have the effect of some decent questioning (not in Andrew Marr vein of late), concentrating on policy and the real issues.

Britain also has a huge amount of really good political departments in universities.  Could they work with their local communities and civil society to look at the issues, what the options are and their historical engagement?

These are just some options…of course I would also say that increasing the number of women, etc.  But one step at a time?

No, it wasn’t ‘a fair question’ Mr Marr

I like Andrew Marr – a lot.  His questioning style is (usually) intelligent, even if he butts in a bit too much lately.  But yesterday, whilst interviewing the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, he asked a question about Mr Brown’s health.  It was not direct and wrapped up in a question about his eyesight and alluded to no more than Westminster whispers. 

Mr Brown was clearly surprised (let’s face it, you would be wouldn’t you?) but carried on calmly and answered the question: a clear ‘no’ followed by an explanation of his (well-known) rugby accident that led to his reduced eyesight. 

This kind of questioning is cheap and perpetuates groundless rumour, to no end. I hope that this is not a taster for things to come as we get into an election.

Communicating Swine Flu – expertise and irrationality

It has been really interesting to compare and contrast the coverage of swine flu in Ireland and Britain, and it emphasises that humans are, well, irrational.  In Ireland it has more or less dropped of the news agenda – we’re back to the recession and the banks here.  My own pet theory for this is that RTE need to get as much mileage as possible out of the downward pointing arrow graphic they’ve been using, well, for everything, it seems…it has become a logo for the recession.  So anything that includes things ‘going up’ will be ignored.

In Britain however it is still on every news bulletin – and the misuse of statistics has been appalling as has the assumption that humans are rational.  From the assertion that ‘the number of cases have doubled in the last week’ (the cases are of ‘those reporting flu-like symptoms’ – which are bound to increase when people are worried they have something related to a pandemic; also you would expect exponential growth of confirmed cases if it was defined as a pandemic); to government website info crashing (too many people who were ‘just curious’ according to Andy Burnham MP, and Secretary of State for Health).

I have just finished ‘Democracy and Expertise: Reorienting policy enquiry’ by Frank Fischer (OUP, 2009) and he makes two points (amongst others) that are relevant to communicating about Swine Flu: There is a difference in the way that ’experts’ and the rest of the population think about the world and secondly, there is a difference between experts’ and everyone else’s access to information.  Experts (and this refers to both policy makers and their advisors) are schooled in a particular way of thinking about their subject – cool, calm and collected – ‘evidence based’ and, they would argue, rational.  Consequently they believe that everyone else thinks in the same way, and if they don’t they just need to be ‘educated’.  Unfortunately for them (and the comms professionals that work with them) humans, generally, aren’t.  These experts also have a specialist education and access (from a comprehension point of view) to context that a non-specialist does not who is catching the latest press release via the BBC while doing what they do. 

I think the kernal of the British Government’s message about keeping sneezes to yourself and wash your hands (properly) is sensible – ie there is a risk, but you can do something about (therefore putting control back in the hands of the populace).  I personally hope that it will lead to a restoration of etiquette and the realisation that coughing over everyone in the vicinity is just not done. But the constant release of statistics (and yes I know we’re into the silly season as far is news is concerned) is counterproductive, obscuring the health promotion message.  News stories then generated because of a lack of resilience of resources (such as the website) will also damage trust in the core advice with consequent knock-on effects.  People will be curious if they are constantly being told they should be interested in something…humans are irrational like that.

Political reform vs. electorate reform

With Summer recess here, reform is still on the agenda both sides of the Irish Sea.  All the talk and proposed action has been very Westminster/Leinster House centred.  It is said the a people get the government they deserve.  So is there any point in making things ‘more transparent’ or electoral reform, if the electorate are not really interested?

There are two reasons why the electorate need to be ‘engaged’ with politics and democracy - there are plenty of people who understand their political systems sufficiently, and still don’t give a toss. Firstly, can you call it democracy when the biggest political decision, the election of a parliament, is left to around 40% of the voting public?  In the end it is the electorate to whom parliamentarians are responsible, the electorate are the ultimate watchdog.  Secondly, there has been complaints of a ‘political class’ in both Ireland and Britain – both possess family dynasties and are drawn from particular societal groupings.  If there was more political engagement, there would be more and a greater diversity of people knocking on the door of their parliaments – now – not in the future when schoolchildren who benefit from ‘citizenship’ classes come to it.

So what to do?  Both the Oireachtas and the the House of Parliament have outreach/education departments.  I would argue that working in conjunction with local political science departments of universities and colleges they could offer themselves to community groups and local NGOs for sessions on how the political system relates to that particular group as a starter.  This would tick a lot of boxes for universities in their ‘widening participation’ programmes, as well as providing some local resource to the outreach officers based in the smoke.  There are then all the quangos who could really use local knowledge in a process of joint decision making – rather than the ‘consultations’ that aren’t you see so much of the time. 

But of course this takes time, money and thought – and I suspect that with the summer over, a looming national election in the UK and the Lisbon referendum in Ireland, such fanciful ideas will be forgotten about until the next parliamentarian slip-up.

The environment, protest and political engagement

News that the Police in Britain have been trying to recruit informers within the environmental movement followed on the arrest of campaigners before they’d left their homes.  Such action could have a serious effect governments drive to engage the population with climate change, because without those who are willing to go all out for a cause, and bring issues to the public’s attention, there is no ‘movement’, however you want to understand it.  Without this movement in understanding or willingness to make changes in the way we live, governments will not make the policies needed to tackle climate change or even meet their own (inadequate?) targets for fear of upsetting their voters and losing power.

 

At one of the end of the engagement spectrum there are people who are willing to risk life and limb to protect the environment.  Recent high profile examples in the UK are the Plane Stupid campaigners and those protesting at Kingsnorth Power Station.  Given alleged police behaviour at the G20 protests, where climate change campaigners figured it appears those risks are not just from falling off high buildings.  In Mayo, Ireland, others are taking similar risks protesting against Shell’s Corrib Gas Field.

 

And yet, when I take my (separated) rubbish down to the communal dumpsters, I always find that there is recyclables in the non-recyclable bins and visa versa.  More perversely, if the first dumpster is full, people will dump their bags in front of it, rather than walk a further five feet to put it in the next, or the next.  I live in quite a genteel area too.  But I guess it gives the feral cats something to do.

 

Of course most people fall somewhere between these two extremes.  Research in the UK would suggest that although people feel they ‘do their bit’ they want the government ‘to do more’. But more people need to be further towards the campaigning end of the spectrum before they would accept the market-based initiatives (eco-taxes) and regulation needed to protect our environment and tackle climate change.   No government would introduce policies that may be seen as a threat to civil liberty for the sake of the environment, say, limiting families to one car, as they have tried to do in the name of anti-terror legislation.  Climate change is not seen (or promoted) as a ‘clear and present danger’  amongst many other reasons.  And then, there is, of course, the argument concerning regulation of business, which has extremely strong lobbies in both Ireland and the UK.  In the current economic climate, it is likely that any further regulation not concerned with banking would be put on the back burner.

 

The point about public protest is that it heightens awareness of issues and the personal action that can be taken in a way governments can’t/don’t/won’t.  If more moderate people who are moved to get involved and do something feel threatened by the State machinery, there will not be the greater movement to personal action and acceptance of government environmental policy-making that they need to meet their promises. 

 

In short, such police action shoots the government, and the environment, in the foot.

PR and Journalism: Two countries

Yesterday I saw the incomprehensible news that the National Union of Journalists and the UK’s Chartered Institute of Public Relations are holding an ‘opportunities day’ to introduce soon-to-be-out-of-work journalists to working in PR in the South West of the UK.

This, to me at least, seems completely bonkers, especially in the current economic climate.

Firstly, PR and journalism are fundamentally different.  Whichever we cut it, and nice it up, PRs are paid to put a biased point of view: we are paid by our clients/organisations to present a favourable face to its publics.  Journalists should be about independence and balance, and I would imagine that this is why most journalists do what they do. Of course some may welcome the idea to promote ‘good’ stuff.  But I had to smile reading Hilary Caprani’s piece in the New Statesman (“Get me Sporty Spice“) on how she imagined going from being a journalist to comms for Rethink that she would no longer have to play the media game, reflecting my own experience of NGO (and GO) PR.

Secondly, PR is not just media relations.  There are other things to do – strategy, community relations, crisis comms, client/relationship management.  Journalists are paid to write stories; PRs are not.  I have worked with several journos who have crossed the divide, all of them excellent writers and brilliant at their profession.  But there is not the time to craft the story in the way that you would wish as a journalist, because it is not the main part of the job.

Thirdly, what jobs are there? In both the UK and Ireland there are a plethora of Public Relations programmes, churning out lots of lovely PR graduates; with lots of others already in the industry.  On the Public Relations Institute of Ireland website this morning there are two jobs advertised; on the CIPR site there is slightly more (494).  But this workshop is being held in Bristol.  There are currently 15 posts advertised in the SW (covering Cornwall up to Gloucestershire) – that’s not enough to help the 45 journalists being made redundant by Northcliffe in the area. Every week in PR Week there is news of more redundancies in PR.  So where are these PR posts going to come from?

The NUJ itself says that this opportunities day is a “sad indictment of the newspaper industry”.  I am personally saddened by the demise of the number of journalists’ posts.  The times we live in (and ’twas ever thus if truth be known) need the sort of analytical skills that good journalists posess and the time to explain our increasingly complex world.  If a journalist wants to apply these skills to PR, all well and good.  But perhaps this day would be better spent trying to propose other models and ways to practice the journalism our society needs.

The Banks, Darwin and Change

With yet more revelations in the US, UK and Ireland last week about the shenanigans that possibly contributed to the ‘banking crisis’ and the various attempts to cover up sharp practice, the chant of ‘change’ grows ever louder.

 

‘Change’ is also the key theme of Darwin’s theory of evolution.  We often hear that business is about ‘survival of the fittest’ but is there anything further we can glean from Darwin’s theory?

 

I think there is. 

 

As you may remember from school, at it’s most basic level, evolution is an interplay between diversity and selective pressures.  So how can we apply this to the organisational change that is needed to clear up this economic mess?

 

Diversity in organisations

Darwin suggests that the more diverse a population (read ‘organisation’), the more successful it is likely to be. This is because it is likely to be more adaptable (in terms of skills, perspectives, backgrounds, for organisations) to selective pressures (eg market pressures, regulation). 

 

What is your perception of the sort of bankers that are at the centre of questions before government committees?  A cursory glance at the TV or the papers would reveal 90% plus male, white, very well-educated.  In both Ireland and the UK the banking world has been referred to as a ‘club’ where ‘machismo’ is the norm.  How could this be the case?

 

Organisational (and professional) culture (the ‘way we do things round here’) is the sum of the ethos, beliefs, professions, environment, purpose and everything else that its staff bring to the workplace.  And it doesn’t change quickly, if at all.  There are a number of reasons for this. 

 

Firstly, people are social creatures, and various studies have shown that we tend to recruit ‘people like us’ despite all processes that HR staff have devised to make recruitment objective.  This is especially true at the upper echelons. This is how organisational culture can survive relatively intact beyond the working life of its initial employees.  The succession of employees reinforce the culture, giving it a life of its own.  Occasionally, people are recruited who don’t quite fit the organisational or professional culture.  These people either move on or adapt to the organisational values, perpetuating the organisational culture. 

 

Secondly, this lack of diversity, particularly when it is also associated with a specialist set of expertise/knowledge, as in banking, has a knock on effect for managing unusual changes.  It the danger of ‘received wisdom’ which is unquestionable.  It is plausible that the bankers looked at what was happening, and didn’t realise that this was something they had not personally experienced until it was too late. Think about your own expertise, whether it be related to your job or an interest.  When you encounter something new, you base your response/actions on previous experience, there isn’t time to go back to basics every time.  And, if you are with similar experts, they’ll have the same expertise, and are working in the same way.  So no-one questions your actions either.  If they did, you would use your previous experience of a similar situation to justify your actions.

 

In the banking crisis we are starting to see evidence of how this powerful ‘expertise effect’ combined with the organisational/professional culture to silence anyone who wondered if there was something wrong – from journalists, to economists, to middle management.  And then the hasty covering of tracks to try to put it right.

 

Selective pressures

But organisations do change, but nine times out of ten, they are either imposed changes (through regulation) or it is a case of ‘adapt or die’, sometimes literally.  The ‘ohh we ought to do this’ kind of changes, the endless tweaking seen in so many organisations, and cause of so much ‘change fatigue’, just don’t stick, especially if they are at odds with the organisational culture.

 

And the banks did adapt relatively quickly in response to market pressures, lending more to gain market share, re-engineering back-room processes, making service more efficient (if not particularly effective in most people’s experience).  They had to do this in a deregulated, globalised and more competitive market place. 

 

Regulation has been the ‘boo’ word in business circles, and there is much talk of the expense of red tape.  Governments, taking advice from their business representatives, have sought to take a ‘risk-based approach’ to regulation, meaning that they assess the risk and put more regulatory measures in place the greater the risk.  But who decides risk?  And, going back to the idea of ‘received wisdom’, how can experts assess risk objectively?  In the field of finance, that expertise has been sought from the very experts who are now accused of being at the heart of the crisis.

 

Some have jumped, and some have been pushed, even if it took two times telling.  But there is a growing realisation and demand for swift and decisive change.  Diversity and sustainable selective pressures will help to rectify our economies and generate more adaptable economic models.

 

My own humble suggestions are that:

·         governance structures (regulators and Boards) are replaced by more diverse groups which include academics,  representatives from all levels of the banking sectors, and other sectors.  How about those with expertise in ethics, for example?;

·         more than a couple of top heads roll.  It is the dominant management that perpetuates a culture.  The more of the existing management remain, the more likely that things will revert to ‘business as usual’ once the furore is over;

·         regulation is increased and regularly reviewed to adapt to new conditions.  This will prolong the ‘selective pressure’ to change over time.  Government is better placed to be a keeper of history and from our history we can shape a better future. It is interesting to draw parallels from the conditions leading to the Great Depression of the 1930s with those that led to our current difficulties.

 

We will come out of this.  We have an opportunity to make our systems more stable, more fair, more ethical.  We can make ourselves more adaptable for the future.

Advocating for change – a five point plan!

Inspired by George Monbiot’s piece in the Guardian this week…and the workers at Waterford Crystal,  here is a PR perspective on protest:

 

1        What do want and when do you want it? Who can make it happen?

The more explicit and more definite you can make this, the better.  If it can be put into an easily-shoutable slogan, even better. Short of a prime minister unwittingly providing a suggestion, such as Gordon Brown did for the energy workers in the UK recently, think about the main thrust of what you want.  Vagueness can be good: President Obama’s election campaign based on ‘change’ enabled people to assign their own meaning to it, depending on their vision of what that meant for them.  He will, however, now have to manage the expectation that has been placed on him because of it. But, personally, I think he will!

 

And, of course, you want it now! 

 

As important is thinking about who can make a difference – who do you need to protest to?  General civil unrest, as seen in Greece, isn’t hugely productive.  Direct action is more effective when it is directed to someone who has influence over the situation.  They are more likely to try to do something if is personally affects them.

 

2        Tactics

What are you going to do? Direct action (strikes, marches, chaining yourself to railings, boycotts, etc) are the tactic of choice.  Why? Because it gives protesters an opportunity to let off steam and show just how really annoyed they are, makes a news story (so the media relations side of things is taken care of) and can effectively let those who are perceived to have some influence know that there is a problem and someone wants to do something about it.

 

This week some workers from Waterford Crystal protested at Deloitte, the receivers acting on behalf the company.  They have also been conducting a sit-in at the factory since last Friday when they were told they were losing their jobs with immediate effect.  Although I don’t believe this would have been a surprise to many of them, the fact that media seemed to be in possession of the facts before they did, could only have exacerbated the anger they felt at losing their jobs.

 

The tactics you choose will depend on how many people you can get involved and who they are.  Three people and their dog picketing a large supermarket are not going to make much impact.  Three peers who have the ear of a parliamentary committee, for example, may be all that is needed…Also bear in mind that you need to employ at least a couple of tactics together, the classic example being direct action coupled with media relations.  But the success of environmental campaigners has been dependent on a multi-faceted approach, which has also been sustained over a period.

 

Oh…and there’s money.  Depending on the issue you may need to raise some funds.  More information on tactics can be found in the very readable Rebel, Rebel.

 

 

 

3        Mobilise!

So you need people…there may be a natural constituency, eg all those affected by the closing of Waterford Crystal.  But this was not confined to current employees; past employees will also be affected through losing their pension. 

 

Climate change campaigners have been joined by international development organisations in coalitions such as Stop Climate Chaos.  What started as one ‘wildcat’ strike in Lincolnshire, spread to other sites of other companies.  Look at who is affected by your issue – and you may be surprised.

 

 

4        Communicate

Text, e-mail, letters, the web…oh, and actually speaking to people, can be used in combination to get more members, more funds, whatever you need.  The web has been attributed with President Obama’s recent success, using a plethora of applications including YouTube, and the microblogging site, Twitter.  But there are two things you need to think about: timing and your potential ‘members’.  If they are unlikely to use the web, don’t use it.  Another route is through representative bodies – by getting interested organisations involved they can mobilise their membership on your behalf and will know the best way to communicate with them…hopefully.

 

 

5        Make it easy for others to get involved

What barriers exist to people getting involved with your cause?  Political parties will offer lifts to people who find it difficult to get to polling booths; green campaigners, and many others, now make e-mailing your member of parliament really easy by providing a template e-mail where you just complete your e-mail address.  If you don’t know who your member of parliament is, they provide a ‘look up’ system.  A good very recent example of this is www.dosomethingaboutit.org.uk, a British movement to get democratic change in the UK.  It is based on a similar US campaign.

 

 

Time and tide may dictate whether you follow these steps in sequence or all at once.  The point is that you can do something to change your world.