Populism has become a growing trend in contemporary liberal democracies; however, it is surrounded by conceptual obscurity and ambiguity. Even professional political scholars are divided into their approaches to populism, its origins, and the very definition of that phenomenon. Their attitude towards populism can also be described as mixed since some scholars find it threatening to the democratic political process. In contrast, the others manage to see positive effects of populist attitudes.
They also have different views on the social and psychological status of the citizens with populist attitudes. Regarding the definition, in this paper, populism will be viewed as “an appeal to “the people” against both the established structure of power and the dominant ideas and values of the society” (Canovan cited in Bang and Marsh 2018). As for the impact on the democratic process and society, some manifestations of populism can positively influence political representation and participation, therefore promoting social and political equality.
First of all, it is necessary to highlight and understand the key traits and variants of populism and the underlying psychological and emotional grounds of its emergence. According to Bang and Marsh (2018, p. 353), populism is characterized by the rejection of pluralism, the appeal of strong leadership, and an anti-modern stance. Populism understands “the people” as a whole, represented by the “leader” who serves as a symbol of the nation or a particular group. Therefore, populism tends to reject or neglect such institutions as political parties or the parliament. The lack of pluralism can be seen as illiberal rather than anti-democratic since populist attitudes focus on representing a group rather than the individuals within it.
The anti-modern stance expresses itself in opposition to modern political and economic trends, such as globalization and mass migration. Quite often, populism becomes an integral part of identity politics since it is based on the needs of the community, belonging, and affiliation, deeply rooted in the human mind (McDermott and Hatemi, 2018). Given the definition of populism used in this paper, citizens resort to populism when the established governing institutions cannot adequately represent them.
Scholarly take on populism frequently views it as a simplified and emotional discourse, appealing to naive people with a low level of political competence. Lipset argued that populist and extremist parties appeal to “the disgruntled and the psychologically homeless, to the personal failures, the socially isolated, the economically insecure, the uneducated, unsophisticated, and authoritarian persons at every level of society” (Lipset cited in Rico, Guinjoan and Anduiza, 2020). This rather harsh evaluation of populism is persistent; however, more recent studies showed that populist attitudes have a more diverse and pro-democratic support base.
First of all, individuals with stronger populist attitudes appeared to be more supportive of democracy than individuals with weaker populist attitudes (Zaslove et al., 2020). This find seems to be in accordance with populist opposition of the “people” who they belong to and represent, to the “elite”. Populism supporters have also shown greater political awareness (Rico, Guinjoan and Anduiza, 2020) because they do not trust the politicians easily and critically evaluate their statements and performance. Therefore, populist individuals can be supportive of democracy and more knowledgeable about politics than the scholars think.
Nevertheless, the connection between the level of education and income and support of populism exists. In that regard, Lipset was correct, as studies proved, that populist attitudes tend to attract people with lower income and education levels. Populism resonates stronger among the economically deprived and less educated individuals (Anduiza et al., 2018). The reason for that can be two-fold: firstly, these persons can see their income and education level as what makes them belong to the “people”. Secondly, simple and straightforward populist rhetoric finds a better way to their hearts and minds, unlike “overly sophisticated” statements of the established political leaders and parties.
However, this might not necessarily be seen as a negative phenomenon that must be purged from the political system. Without populism, significant layers of society would be excluded from political life, and their views and opinions would remain unarticulated. Consequently, populist attitudes help to alleviate inequality in political participation and representation, giving a chance for the excluded and underrepresented (Anduiza et al., 2018). In that sense, BLM can serve as an example of the populist movement, which launched a campaign for an equal representation of an ethnic group.
Populism can provide an opportunity for inclusion into an institutionalized political process for those who otherwise would be outside of it. Populist attitudes generate a significant mobilizing resource since they satisfy demands for identity and purpose. However, the political participation of individuals with populist attitudes can take various forms. For example, populist attitudes do not motivate citizens to vote in elections, but they make them more likely to join an online campaign or, in some cases, participate in demonstrations (Anduiza et al., 2018).
Since the elections are a formal political institution, populist mistrust can discourage casting a vote, especially if populist leaders and movements are not represented among the candidates. On the contrary, individuals with populist attitudes are more willing to partake in direct democratic procedures, such as online petitioning and referendums (Zaslove et al., 2020). In certain circumstances, populist attitudes can mobilize support for traditional elections and put particular parties or candidates into power (Huber and Ruth, 2017). However, these parties and candidates are often unable to govern efficiently and keep their seats and offices since all their experience is based on criticizing and being in opposition.
Therefore, populism is appealing to the individuals with lower levels of income and education, who believe in direct democratic institutions rather than in representative elite and often possess greater political awareness than non-populist citizens. Populist-backed parties and candidates can achieve electoral success but are often unable to develop it. Given that background, should populism be considered an issue for democracy, a possible threat, which must be addressed? On the contrary, the surge of populism should be seen as a warning signal for democracy, as populism seeks to return “power to the people from the excesses of pragmatic politics” (Canovan cited in Zaslove et al., 2020).
Populist attitudes are mainly strong among the underrepresented and unprotected social groups, and populist movements provide them a chance for inclusion into politics and equal representation. As a result, a simple condemnation of all populist movements and ideas would be a case of fighting a symptom instead of curing an illness. Moreover, that would be a sign of weakness and neglection from the established democratic institutions and their unwillingness to compete against the populist agenda in the democratic framework.
In conclusion, populism in the non-extreme manifestations is not a significant issue in itself. However, it can serve as a sign of growing tensions and conflicts within society. To some extent, populist agenda comes from the natural wish to be accepted, protected, and represented. Therefore, if existing democratic institutions do not provide mechanisms for inclusion and equal representation, resorting to populism can remain the only political instrument available to vulnerable or marginalized social groups. As long as it does not deliberately encourage violence, the populist discourse should be viewed as an acceptable means of political struggle for social equality rather than a threat to society and liberal democracy.
Reference List
Anduiza, E., Guinjoan, M. and Rico, G. (2020) ‘Populism, participation, and political equality’, European Political Science Review, 11(1), pp. 109–124.
Bang, H. and Marsh, D. (2018) ‘Populism: a major threat to democracy?’, Policy Studies, 39(3) pp. 353–363.
Huber, R A. and Ruth, S P. (2017) ‘Mind the gap! Populism, participation and representation in Europe’, Special Issue: Populist Mobilization Across Time And Space, 23(4) pp. 462–484.
McDermott, R. and Hatemi, P K. (2018) ‘To go forward, we must look back: the importance of evolutionary psychology for understanding modern politics’, Evolutionary Psychology, 16(2), pp. 1–7.
Rico, G., Guinjoan, M. and Anduiza, E. (2020) ‘Empowered and enraged: political efficacy, anger and support for populism in Europe’, European Journal of Political Research, 59(4), pp. 797–816.
Zaslove, A. et al. (2020) ‘Power to the people? Populism, democracy, and political participation: a citizen’s perspective, West European Politics, 44(4), pp. 727–751.
Aristotle asserts that there are several forms of democracies. One such form of democracy is that of equality. In this essay, the writer seeks to analyze the concept of equality as a form of democracy as fronted by Aristotle. Further, the writer will offer an analysis of what equality entails in present day governments and whether democracy can exist without equality.
Aristotle’s meaning of equality is a form of government that is democratically rooted and not aligned to the issue of state and class. To him, one’s ability to hold an influential government position or title should not be based on who they are in the society or what they have (Aristotle 9). This is to imply that anyone willing and desiring to hold office should be able to vie for a political seat, with their probable election being dependent on the votes of the masses. Thus, the ability of one to ascend to a government post or not should be totally dependent on the votes of the majority.
Meaning of equality in the government today
The term equality in government today denotes the consideration of the opposite gender, equal distribution of resources, granting everyone the ability to cast a vote by creating a conducive political climate, and ensuring that all races can interact freely without fear of victimization, among other denotations. It is a key concern for the modern day governments to ensure that they create equal political opportunities for men and women counterparts of all races (Folsom par. 3).
Contemporary society believes in the concept of women emancipation and empowerment, which have permeated the political landscape. Given the need to ensure equality among genders, the government is tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that it is the first to implement notable changes in these areas. This is possible is through allocating crucial positions to women, among other ways, which imply that women can take part in key decision-making and policy implementations in the government.
Capaldi’s inference to the term equality in modern-day governments is the creation of an economic climate that standardizes income between the poor and the rich (29). The modern governments recognize the need to ensure that they can streamline the taxation process among their citizens to ensure that the gap between the rich and the poor is minimized. One way of closing the gap is through progressive taxation, which seeks to impose a higher tax burden on the rich and lower taxes on the poor. Most governments promise to reduce such gaps by imposing taxes that are commensurate with their citizens’ level of income.
Creating a fair ground for all voters so that they can exercise their civic duty is another way of closing the gap. Equality to modern day governments implies civic education and voter registration even among the minority in the society (Verba 4). Through such actions, governments ensure that minorities can call for change or get certain resources that are not available to them. In the modern day governments, democracy and equality voters can advance their cause regarding the terms of association chosen.
For example, every person carries equal weight in advancing their concerns by their voter’s card. Thus, everyone exercises equal capacity as the other to decide how an election will turn out. Therefore, when some members are not able to vote, one can decree that there has been foul play.
Nonetheless, the democracy that is existent in most governments today allows that even though equality is granted to each member to cast their vote, the alternative opinion that gets the most number of votes gets implemented courtesy of the majority rule. Thus, the concerns of people are assumed to be treated equally (Verba 10). Further, this implies that everyone has an equal ability to run for office to the government and to contribute to matters of public debate.
Most governments agree that equality implies fair treatment of all persons under their jurisdiction without the favor of race, status, or class. Citizens, as well as political figures, are of the opinion that fair treatment to all persons regarding access to education, access to better employment opportunities, and better pay, among others, despite one’s racial affiliation, is a true picture of equality (Daniels 76). In fact, this issue is highly contentious, with the majority of Hispanics and African American people asserting the need to be treated fairly.
Is it possible to have a democracy without equality?
Yes. It is possible to have democracy without equality. The tenets of democracy are to accord every citizen an opportunity and right to advance their political interests, as well as play a role in spearheading change. However, there are various forms of inequalities, as different people have different needs and interests. Thus, democracy is not able to eradicate all of the issues as it is impossible to satisfy everyone’s political interests at a go. For instance, democracy may ensure equality by allowing women equal opportunities to vote just like their male counterparts. However, this does not mean that will be equally represented in government positions and elected to governments.
Why would equality be such an important issue in any form of government?
Equality is an important issue in any form of government. Fick argues that the present day government is founded on the principles of equality, which is aligned with the attainment of human rights, promotion of freedoms, non-sexism, and non-racism (29). For any government to exist freely and operate effectively, it is necessary that these values permeate every level of the government, whether provincial, local, or national. In essence, the principle of equality should operate in a substantive manner other than through formalities.
My definition of equality
I believe that equality refers to the ability of people to make a decision without duress or without feeling obligated by their circumstances to do so. This is cognizant of people’s ability to spearhead change by voting. Thus, equality is only present when everyone, despite their social position, their race, and their economic status, can cast a vote to effect change not because they have been bribed to do so, but because they feel that the vote will benefit them in one way or the other. I also believe that equality is the ability to gain access to the fair distribution of resources, position, education, and income, as well as gain employment commensurate with the level of education, among other meanings.
Is Equality possible in the modern state?
Equality is not possible in a modern state. Various states are limited by a myriad of factors that hinder democratic equality. One such issue is the problem of culture. While some states can gain gender equality, some are not able. Thus, expecting that women will be empowered or given the opportunity to cast a vote or contribute to political matters is nearly impossible. In Arab states, for example, the culture dictates that women’s voices should not be heard.
In fact, all the decision-making power is granted to men, with women considered as non-entities. In such states, therefore, it is near impossible to expect women leaders in government positions or holding top government positions. Such is the situation in states like Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
Another factor that hinders equality in the modern state is poverty. Every person is expected to have an equal right and ability to cast a fair vote. However, this is not the case in most African states where corruption and voter bribery is a norm. Wealthy politicians and businesspeople can secure political seats unfairly because voters are easily bought to cast their votes in the politicians’ favor in return for minor benefits. Thus, poorly qualified contenders lose to rich opponents as they lack the financial ability to buy their way to success compared to their opponents.
Further, it is impossible that all the people in the state think in a similar manner. Different people have different tastes and preferences, as well as priorities. Thus, to expect everyone in the society to think the same, have the same ideology, as well as express the same political interests is impossible.
To Aristotle, equality entails same electoral opportunities for both rich and poor, which means that anyone who desires to attain a political office can contest for a government position and seek the majority votes. While I agree that this is the right form of democracy, it is impossible to acquire equality in the present states because different people have different thoughts and needs. As a result, it is impossible to cater for all the needs and assume an equal state of affairs.
That aside, cultural factors hinder equality. This is illustrated by the power distance existent in most Arab countries, which in turn mean that women are hindered from undertaking any governmental positions, as well as their ability to choose their preferred candidates. In African countries, the voters’ ability to conduct fair elections is limited when they are bribed by the rich to vote in their favor. Overall, it is hard to attain equality when limiting factors still exist.
The concept of equality is significant in the discussion of liberty, property, and the role of government in the lives of people. This is seen in tribal groups as well as in oppressive societies wherein political leaders treat the people under them as if they were mere objects.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two of the best philosophical minds during the Age of Reason and they both had differing opinions with regards to the subject of equality. Hobbes argued that there is no practical application to the concept of equality. He said it can only lead to chaos. Locke on the other hand can only envision a prosperous and stable society when all men are treated equal.
Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes was born into continent embroiled in a bloody civil war. The brutality of war led Hobbes to the conclusion that men are like animals that needed to be controlled. Hobbes went even further and said that there was a need for some form of coercive power that should force people to do what is right. Equality according to Hobbes is seein in the equal use of power needed to force men to do the right thing.
Hobbes was clearly bothered and terrified by the prospects of war that he was willing to justify whatever coercive action that a leader needed to impose on people. This is for the simple purpose of creating a stable government and the creation of a prosperous nation under the rule of law. However, the use of a compelling force means that men and women must be prepared for coercion and the loss of freedom.
They have to accept the fact that a superior power has to rule over them. This absolute power has the authority to do what it pleases in terms of deciding the fate of a town, community or individual. In other words the judgement is final. There can be no appeals. It is therefore a system that can easily produce a dictator. Aside from that there is the danger of increasing the power of the dictator and he can no longer remain as the arbiter and guardian of the people. He will become the absolute ruler of his domain.
Hobbes even made a clear argument that the people who are under this regime must not do anything to upset the balance of power. The citizens must learn to submit meekly and without question because this is the only assurance that peace and stability can be achieved. Freedom of expression and creativity is stifled for the greater good.
Equality according to Hobbes is all about the equal distribution of man’s capability and propensity to destroy one another. This form of equality Hobbes accepts to be the main reason why men and women must not be allowed to do as they please.
According to Hobbes equality among men is seen in their common desire for destruction and power and he wrote: “I put forth a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceaseth only in death” (Hobbes, p.58). In Hobbes’ mind men are equal only in their ability to destroy and subdue one another.
Locke
When Locke began to write down his ideas, the world has undergone a tremendous transformation as it tried to break away from its mediaeval past. Locke and his contemporaries are therefore more confident to go against established ideas about politics and social life.
While Hobbes preferred to surrender human rights and offer people freedom under an absolute ruler, Locke on the other hand made his disagreement known. Locke cannot accept the fact that kings and queens are given blanket authority over people’s lives. Locke said it is against the natural order of things that men should become the slave of another.
Locke was one of the first to elucidate that there is no such thing as a divine right to rule, no one was born to be a king and rule over others with an iron hand. Locke could not accept Hobbes proposition that only absolutism can establish a progressive and stable government.
Although Hobbes and Locke differed in their perspective of equality both men are in agreement when it comes to the necessity of a State. They also agree that man should be under the authority of a just ruler. The only difference is that Hobbes did not give provide an avenue to resist against acts of despotism. Locke is in agreement only as long as the government’s role is limited to the management of the collective rights of people for the establishment of an egalitarian society.
Hobbes’ fear of chaos and utter destruction due to incessant warfare is matched by Locke’s fear of dictatorship and abuse of power. Locke also argued that absolutism as a form of government can easily lead to the corruption of the government. It is therefore important that Locke is able to shoot down the argument that monarchs have the divine mandate to rule.
In the 21st century Locke’s view has been proven to be closer to the ideal form of government needed to create a stable and prosperous society. It is therefore interesting to note that when Locke completed his treatise there was no other form of government that he could have used to prove his point.
European societies are only familiar with the monarchical form of governance. Absolutism is the main feature of European governments. It is therefore important to point out the source of knowledge that Locke utilized to help him arrive at his conclusions with regards to equality.
It is not surprising to know that part of his understanding of politics has a theological basis. Locke used the Bible to prove that even in the very beginning there was nothing that could provide any basis to the claim that there are those who are born to subjugate others and that there are those destined to be under the control of another human being.
Locke argued the following points and he wrote: “Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, nor dominion over the world, as is pretended… That if he had, his heirs yet had no right to it” (Locke, p.1). It was an idea that did not take effect soon enough but later on it became the basis for freedom loving people who found a way to prove that indeed all men and women are created equal (Burke, p.347).
The conceptual framework that Locke presented is easy to grasp. He was referring to the basis of traditional lineal authority and his writing proves that there is none. A present day King does not have the mandate from heaven. He does not have authority to rule over another person.
It must be made clear that Locke did not talk about a leaderless society but a society governed by laws and the King himself is under that law. Locke made a clarification that rules are not changed based on the caprice and whim of the ruler but it is based the rule of law. Everyone is under the law and no one is above it. This is the only way to live under a society with rules and yet never in danger of someday being under the absolute control of a despot.
Conclusion
It would be impossible to understand Hobbes’ and Locke’s assertion regarding equality without considering the context of the times. Hobbes was justified in his understanding of equality because he saw people killing each other on a regular basis. The destructive nature of war was so real that Hobbes sought a way out of it.
For him a life under absolutism is better than a life of constant warfare. Locke on the other hand lived in a time when rulers and powerful monarchs are so corrupt that it spurned him to write against their abuses. Locke’s arguments were way ahead of his time because for centuries, absolutism has been accepted as the only method to effectively govern men. Thus, the modern world and democratic governments are indebted to Locke and his treatise.
Works Cited
Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. CA: Stanford University Press, 2001.
Before attempt to answer this question, it is necessary to discuss the definition of the doctrine of egalitarianism, prioritarianism and the purpose of this doctrine. The doctrine of egalitarianism is a prominent trend in social and political philosophy, which provides that all people should be treated as equals. Equality is the central to justice and holds that all people should have the same social, political, economic, and civil rights. Since the late twentieth century, it has also become relevant in moral philosophy. In social and political philosophy, it raises two different question and these are the Equality of what trend and why equality trend.
Egalitarians consider that equality and justice are interrelated. On the other hand prioritarians emphasise that both concepts are different. In order to answer this question it needs to discuss distinction between the Equality view and the Priority view. Here it is most important to consider which are more facilitating for individuals when their interests conflict with those of more advantaged individuals. In “Equality or Priority?” in The Ideal of Equality, Derek Parfit discuss the distinction between egalitarianism and prioritarianism which central element to discuss here. Then need to draw a conclusion that which view is superior.
Equality can be arising in many different perspectives and there may be no appropriate answer to all of these circumstances. Insofar as equality is implicit as a substantive social value which is distinct, for instance, from the formal principle that all people are of equal worth that individual should treat like cases alike and from the axiological verdict and the basic reason is that there is something valuable on human relationships that are differences of power, rank or status.
The differences of power, rank and social status are prevalent to human social life. Starting from the primitive communal system to modern society in every society there are two class and they are oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another. This conflict carried on an uninterrupted open fight, a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of contending class. More or less all human institutions and organizations identify hierarchies of authority and most social roles confer distinctions of status, for instance the relationships of doctors to patients, parents to children, teachers to students, employers to employees, lawyers to clients, and so on.
It is supposed that two persons are equally well-off. According to a social status compatible with the priority view, it needs to consider whether it’s possible for one to have priority more than the other. However if they get equal priority, then automatically better off will have greater priority than an individual who is worse off. This implies that in both views give priority to worse off persons over better off agents though for different reasons there are priority views to be distinguished from equality views. Parfit concluded that when comparing distributions for two individuals it need not ask how well off is everyone else because priority view is special in the fact.
The Priority View which may content of social ranking is this separability of individuals. Insofar as the content of the social ranking, Prioritarianism is but a special case of egalitarianism to the extent that the content of the social ranking is concerned. However, numerous authors have argued that egalitarians are in reality committed to more special views and it should reject separability. If it is summarize as content of the social ranking, egalitarianism is the best distribution because inequality is intrinsically. On the other hand prioritarianism means separability of individuals plus decreasing (positive) weights bad because to be badly off increases priority.
Ronald Dworkin reflected the reason of egalitarianism principle in his article what is equality.
He argued that intrinsically bad or unfair life prospects should be equalized, welfare should be increased, that the that justice is comparative that inequalities are just when otherwise facilities are destroyed in the name of justice and finally there are some absolute humanitarian principles like independence, autonomy, or human dignity. Prioritarians principles do not assume that equality itself can be a foundation of justice and that it is important irreducible aim of justice, it has intrinsic moral worth.
Prioritarians also believe that equality itself cannot be foundation of justice or it has no fundamental importance it is rather a by-product though it has a little importance as reducible worth1. In aspect of equality they want to say that equality is less advantaged. the fulfillment of absolute standards such as respect, human dignity, or citizenship are of utmost significance to give people an opportunity to live like a human being-worthy life. They also argued that individuals should have access to food and shelter, treatment, or should have private and political freedom.
Two Egalitarian Arguments
One of the most important arguments with regard to the egalitarian view is the assumption of equality argument and the argument of pluralistic egalitarianism. The former one believes that equality does not require any justification, but only inequality does. However, if the distributor is not performing according to the principle of equality he has to give some specific reasons for his decision to provide unequal distribution. According to the view of equality the extreme pluralistic egalitarian in the special sense of comparative fairness is the merely aim of justice is wrong; however the other great prioritarian view is that equality has nothing to do with justice is also wrong. 2 There are four different aspects which demonstrate that justice and equality are connected with each other.
Firstly, according to prioritarians equality is significant as a by-product for the achievement of absolute standards, for example human dignity.
Secondly, relational equality is one aspect of justice among others; one requires relational equality in order to yield like equality of chances, legal equality or antidiscrimination laws.
Thirdly, equality is indispensable in being a joint initial point with regard to social membership, political autonomy, or liberty of exchange since absolute standards presuppose that public’s life prospects are more or less the same.
Fourthly, equality is a result of political independence insofar as there seem to be present unique cases according to which an equal allocation is rightly demanded
Still it is most controversial question in relation between justice and equality, which has not been successfully answered whether egalitarianism or prioritarianism has the most reasonable conception. The main objections against the egalitarians are the by-product objection of equality3 and the objection of inhumanity4 and the objection of complexity.
The By-Product Objection of Equality
The egalitarian analysis that equality is one of the most important or the central aims of justice and it should not be seen as a mere by-product, on the prioritarian side which had been a mayor point of criticism5. They think that equality is a mere by-product and it is due to absolute standards similar to human dignity or respect, whereas equality is due to relational standards. They argued that proportional equality is part of equality but equality is not justified if it always means arithmetical equality
Prioritarians argument is that in cases of people who are hunger and infirmity or deficiency of goods they should be helped first because hunger, deficiency of goods and illness are terrible conditions for every human being and not because other citizens are in a better condition. It will not be justified to compare between people who are better off and hunger, illness or other people who need sufficient goods to live. In cases of hunger and illness the role of equality is not simple as prioritarians want to make other people believe and their objection loses if these people get supply and if one acknowledges that they should be treated equally as human beings then primarily their will be no ongoing discrimination and no contradiction.
Derek Parfit in Equality and Priority6 argued that in one respect inequalities as such are bad that their disappearance would be asked for change with something which is better. Teleological egalitarians may welcome if better off people lose their additional resources as a result of natural disaster and hence all are in the same terrible condition than nobody else could profit. He also gives an example that if we destroyed the eyes of the sighted not to advantage the blind, but just to make the sighted blind. But it would be not adequate to criticize the egalitarians by using this objection and it would be wrong to create equality by leveling down.
So he argued his objection that there is nothing good about what we have done if we achieve equality by leveling down. In the same way, it is not in any way good news if natural disaster makes everyone equally badly off.
The Objection of Inhumanity
Anderson (1999) discussed the objection of inhumanity which is one of the major arguments against egalitarianism7. He defines it three different parts and these are as follows:
‘fault is-up-to-them’ objection,
the objection of stigmatizing and
The tutelage objection.
The Fault is-Up-to-Them Objection
The first part is an objection against the egalitarian view is that people who are liable for their own horrible condition should be left alone with their troubles, no matter what happens to them. The second objection against the kind of reasons egalitarians have to help people who are in a terrible condition, which did not occur through their own fault. The final part is an objection against the executive of the state in which category a misery should be placed and the examination of the people to get the relevant information for the state. This would be a case of putting the people under the tutelage of the state and damaging their private sphere.
Proponents of luck egalitarianism desire to equalize unjustified life prospects, if the citizen gets into a miserable position on their own fault, they have no justified demands for supply that means they people should be responsible for their decisions. Anderson criticizes this view stating that a car driver who has no insurance and unlawfully made a turn over on the road which causes a serious accident then it would be all right to him dying in a hospital.
According to Rakowski that driver has no legal demands to be kept on the non-natural respiration apparatus, any more. The society should help citizens if people lost the right track no matter whether they caused their own disaster or not, but only for they are human beings and it should main reason to give them a helping hand. It may be seen as true landmark of the development in human history. The basic concept of each sound society, to neglect helpless citizens seems inappropriate for a state which is dedicated to the idea of human flourishing.
Anderson was criticized by two point and these are,
Firstly egalitarians argued that all people are equal, therefore in special cases such as the guilty car driver case where he was seriously injured which are so unjust that these people should be helped, even though this miserable situation occurred only for his own fault8.
Secondly, paternalism could be an honorable and convincing principle of legislation. Therefore, it should not be humiliating for the state to make laws, for example, on wearing safety belts, insofar the laws are due to a democratic process
On the egalitarian view the destruction of property in the name of justice is unacceptable. Parfit makes a difference between the deontic and the teleological egalitarianism and his teleological egalitarianism is open for criticism. He also said that a sound egalitarianism should include teleological and deontic aspects.
The Objection of Stigmatizing
Prioritarians have an objection against the kind of reasons egalitarians have to assist people who are in terrible conditions and this situation did not happen through their own fault for example some people are disabled from birth or some became disabled by virtue of an accident or a disease or people with poor natural talents. Anderson considered that if one looks at the rules there is no care for all badly off people which lay down who belongs to the ‘bad brute luck’ community, and the grounds to help the ‘bad brute luck’ citizens are discriminating for them. He also argued in aspect of the egalitarian view that the reasons offered to allocate additional resources to handicapped persons, are wrong because disable persons may claim to the property of egalitarian relocation in virtue of their weakness to others not due to their equality to others.
The Objection of Complexity
The objection had been brought into the discussion by Lucas and Rescher9. His criticism is powerful and informative. The most important point against egalitarianism is his hypothesis that the spheres of justice are much more complicated than egalitarians accept as true. Their assumption that equality is the most important principle of justice is a false monism. According to the prioritarians, there are other principles of distribution such as there are, according to the prioritarians, other principles of distribution like the principle of merit or desert, the principle of qualification, or the principle of efficiency, and so forth.
Conclusion
Long researches and debates among Egalitarianism and Prioritarianism have been accomplished without a conclusion reasoning both the ideology has influenced the welfare thinkers almost in the same way. So it is some time difficult to making decision. Sometime it seems that the both philosophy is correct, both are applicable. But the real life does not allow existing more than one truth in a single case at a particular time and place.
There should be only one truth. Both the issue Egalitarianism and Prioritarianism are which should be practiced, totally depends on the existing system and character of the state. Social and economic precondition of the ruling class deters to whom the state machine would like to serve. In a class divided society practice of equality is a vague term. For instance in the British Legal system it has been ensured the ‘rule of law’ that produced ‘all are equal in the eye of law’.
But the practical tragedy is that for a hungry lady has been imprisonment of seven years accused for a bread stolen, in the same court an industrialist declared bankrupt without any imprisonment accused for stolen millions of pounds from Bank. A theft of bread valued single penny and a theft of million pounds which requires more imprisonment? Positively any neutral person would ask for greater punishment for industrialist. This is the real picture of egalitarianism practiced in the British legal system.
In the name of equality the things that happen is just not a fair deal. Thus this paper may conclude that the equality is good as theoretically or hypothetical presentation and for practice in real life much more horrible and inequality in the brand name of equality. This inequality can be removed by Prioritarianism. At the same this paper would argue for Prioritarianism with proper legislative guide line to ensure human rights and social justice.
Bibliography
Anderson, E. (2006), What is the Point of Equality? ISBN 0521681251, pp. 289-330.
Parfit, D., (2000), Equality or Priority? in The Ideal of Equality, Clayton, Matthew and Andrew W., (ed.), (Houndmills: Macmillan), pp-91–120.
Joseph Raz, (1986), The Morality of Freedom, 3rd edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, ISBN 0006862217 pp. 216–231.
Dworkin, R. (1981), What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources,” in: Philosophy & Public Affairs, (Cambridge, Harvard University Press), ISBN. 9780674017726, pp. 286-332.
Parfit, D. (1998), Equality and Priority, Mason, A. (Ed), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 1-20.
Rakowski, E. (1991), Equal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-824079-1, pp-5-9.
Parfit D., (1984), The repugnant conclusion, in Reasons and Persons Journal.
Journal article: Cohen, G. A., (1986), Self -Ownership, world ownership and equality: part II” Social philosophy and policy, 3:2,1986, 77-96.
Footnotes
Joseph Raz, (1986).
Parfit, D. (2000).
Raz (1986).
Anderson (1999).
Raz 1986: 218-221, 227-229 and Parfit 1998: 13-15.
Human rights and civil rights are perceived as integral to every person, yet racial discrimination still exists in the modern world. One way for society to understand the effort the black population put into fighting for their liberties is by reading the book The Struggle for Black Equality: 1954-1992 by Harvard Sitkoff. The author discusses the belittling of black people and the preservation of white supremacy, describes how black citizens’ inability to vote escalated into them being assaulted and murdered, and explains how law facilitated racial barriers. Sitkoff depicts contrasts in funding education and civic services for black and white residents and why Southern African Americans could not openly protest at the beginning of the XX century (6). Sitkoff proposes that the situation was different in the North and presents how black individuals began claiming their rights (9). The book demonstrates a period in U.S. history when those in power led the nation into believing that black people were inferior to whites.
Alongside the legislative system repressing the black population, some officials supported the desegregation, but discrimination remained in public. Sitkoff writes that the changes implemented by the Roosevelt Administration did not change people’s mindsets, despite emerging concern about civil rights (10). While African Americans were given small liberties and favors, black people were not considered equal to white (Sitkoff 14). Many black citizens thought that school integration would lead the country to reject racial discrimination (Sitkoff 18). However, by describing the decision and execution regarding Brown v. Board of Education, Sitkoff suggests that the law could continue finding ways to disparage the black population (21-23). The book reveals the details of how African Americans were constantly deprived of basic rights and how racial inequalities affected the entire nation.
The topic concerning the liberties and struggles of black people is important to U.S. history because it reflects how the legislative system can manipulate minds and lives. Sitkoff states that a generation of influential individuals managed to find intellectual rationalizations for presenting white people as superior (4). While black citizens experienced numerous hardships, the white population believed in their natural supremacy due to segregation laws (Sitkoff 5). However, prolonged racial discrimination led to the civil rights movement, which signified an institutional change and reshaped American values (Mazumder 922). For example, the protests affected the opinions of many white Americans by making them more racially liberal nowadays (Mazumder 932). Overall, the subject is historically significant as it shows some flaws that existed in the country’s management, displays the wrongs of white supremacists, and demonstrates discrimination and the cost of restricting someone’s essential rights.
Continuous racial inequalities can affect how other countries view the U.S. For instance, during World War II, Japan used the U.S.’ racist treatment of non-white people to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Americans and gain more supporters from China, India, and Latin America (Sitkoff 16). Moreover, the Soviet Union focused on discrimination against black people to criticize the American population in the eyes of African and Asian nations during the Cold War (Sitkoff 16). The topic of the civil rights movement can explain a prolonged period in U.S. history when the country was extremely unjust to its black citizens.
The civil rights movement is a meaningful part of U.S. history and is taught in classes but with some discrepancies. For instance, the topic is often presented from a “whitewashed” perspective, and the American classrooms typically focus on only well-known individuals and several pivotal moments (Anderson). Education concerning civil rights usually prioritizes names and dates rather than the controversy of the period (Anderson). On the other hand, Sitkoff discusses important facts but concentrates on the inequalities and hardships experienced by the black population, thus emphasizing the movement’s causes. Consequently, the subject is covered in history classes, but it appears that not many people are familiar with the material concerning the reasons African Americans had to begin demanding their rights.
The matter under discussion can show people whether racism still persists in the nation nowadays. Although the civil rights movement has promoted racial equality, the topic relates to groups who have been forgotten about because the white population continues discriminatory practices. In particular, the recent Black Lives Matter movement proves the existence of systematic racism, as African Americans are being dehumanized, abused, and killed by police (Clayton 448). Moreover, the subject is relevant because it concerns every person, indicating issues in the country. One can argue that if police officers who are meant to protect the nation think they can offend civilians, then any other authority may start unreasonably using their power against all citizens (Clayton 448). These days, the subject of the civil rights movement can teach people that the U.S. needs to continuously reflect on how it treats its residents, especially those coming from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds.
Clayton, Dewey. “Black Lives Matter and the Civil Rights Movement: A Comparative Analysis of Two Social Movements in the United States.” Journal of Black Studies, vol. 49, no. 5, 2018, pp. 448-480.
Mazumder, Soumyajit. “The Persistent Effect of US Civil Rights Protests on Political Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 62, no. 4, 2018, pp. 922-935.
Sitkoff, Harvard. The Struggle for Black Equality: 1954-1992. Hill and Wang, 1993.
The issue of equality and tolerance has been of high importance in our society for several decades. After centuries of discrimination and alienation between the communities of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, after hundreds of years of wars based on religion and nationality, modern society has slowly started coming to senses and questioning the validity and fairness of all kinds of socially established official and unofficial of differences between people.
After the physical equality of humans has been proved by science that stated that on the inside, all of us undergo exactly the same processes, society has raised a question concerning the features that compose social division into “us” and “them.” Such features include gender, health condition, age, sexual orientation, religion, culture, nationality, and ethnicity. This paper focuses on the discussion of social stereotypes based on ethnicity, nationality, and culture maintained all around the world. The issue of stereotypes and prejudice has been explored by a number of writers and scholars, they are depicted in a variety of literary works, and also they are spoken about at public gatherings of all kinds.
This paper will discuss the speech delivered by Chimamanda Adichie, a Nigerian writer who explains the danger of a phenomenon she refers to as “a single story” and explores this speech in correlation with the problems described in several course readings such as “A Small Place” by Jamaica Kincaid, “Things Fall Apart” by Chinua Achebe, “Orientalism” by Edward Said, “Reel Bad Arabs” by Jack Shaheen, and “The White Man’s Burden” by Rudyard Kipling.
Speech of Chimamanda Adichie
In her address at TEDx, Chimamanda Adichie brings up the question of perspectives individuals tend to have on the world and people around and how these perspectives tend to become limited due to lack of information and knowledge. Adichie introduces the audience to her own story and how people often judge her based on her ethnicity and their insufficient idea about the country she comes from. Adichie speaks from the perspective of a non-western individual, which is rather rare in the contemporary world. Truly, the North American and European mass media have such huge popularity in the world that society tends to acquire a very one-sided perspective on a variety of events and phenomena.
This happening is especially unpleasant and often harmful to the communities, which automatically become the objects of stereotypes. Yet, this fact does not mean that the stereotypes in our society have only one direction and come from the former colonists towards the colonized nations resulting in the disregard and ignorance towards the latter. On the contrary, stereotypes are a universal tendency; they exist in every society and have all kinds of vectors. Adichie confirms this observation is sharing her own experiences of judging people according to her incomplete knowledge about them, such as the one with the poor house boy in Nigeria or Mexican people.
Adichie also notes that she feels annoyed when ignorant perspectives generalize non-western cultures and nations, referring to Africa as just one country. The same tendency is observed in relation to the communities of Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, or Eastern Europe. The saddest part is that the representatives of generalized cultures get used to this happening and start to live up to the stereotypes. Adichie’s way to describe the mechanism and the cause of stereotypes is called “a single story,” which represents just one feature or aspect of a particular individual, community, or nation that becomes popular and starts to be taken as the main characteristic of this individual, community or nation. “Single story” as a concept will be explored further in this paper in reference to the issues of prejudice and stereotype based on ethnicity explored in the works covered in the course.
“A Small Place”
“A Small Place” by Jamaica Kincaid is probably the clearest reflection of Adichie’s “single story” concept. “A Small Place” as a novel is composed of two different perspectives on life in Antigua. For better impact, the author begins with the perspective of tourists who see the country as a resort place, beautiful, picturesque, and carefree. People taking a vacation tend to see just one side of a country they visit.
Normally, such resort places as Antigua resemble paradise, and having spent a week or two there, the tourist start to wish to stay and live there forever. Not many tourists take an interest in the culture of the resort country, its economy, the quality of life of the native population. In fact, tourists barely ever visit the places where the native population dwells; instead, they enjoy the beach, luxurious hotels, restaurants, and other entertainment places.
The second story told by the author is an eye-opener for the reader as it educates them about the true life of the native Antiguans disguised under the shining décor of a resort. As a former colony, the country has cultural identity problems struggling to re-gain its own authenticity as a state. The issue is amplified by the fact the Antigua’s main industry is tourism, which means that to survive, the native population is to serve and entertain the newcomers, mostly of white origin. Such imbalance recreates the atmosphere of slavery and positions the natives as the colonized group of perceived inferiors re-telling the single-story once again.
“Things Fall Apart”
Chinua Achebe’s “Things Fall Apart” is another reflection of Adichie’s speech in which she suggests that if the communities were more familiar with the background stories of the colonized nations such as the Nigerians or the American Indigenous people, these nations would not be perceived as violent, aggressive and wild. “Things Fall Apart” paints a picture of life in Nigeria before the arrival of colonists and the promotion of Christianity.
Okonkwo, the main protagonist who fits perfectly into the pre-colonial society of his village and eventually becomes one of the most respected and admired members of his community, has trouble finding his place in the new Nigeria ruled by the white government and converted to Christianity. The process was gradual and inevitable for the rest of the village dwellers, one by one, they adjusted to the new built of their society and to the presence of the colonists, whereas for Okonkwo, the change was drastic. He opposes the newcomers and even tried to organize a rebellion to win his village back, but he was powerless against the white domination established all around the world.
Okonkwo witnesses two stories, and they do not fit together in his idea of the motherland. Even though Okonkwo is obsessed with his masculinity, he is not a rebellious character by nature; he obeyed the laws of his people regardless of their harshness. He agreed to participate in the murder of his adopted son, and he did not protest against his exile. The presence of the newcomers dictating their new rules was what triggered his aggression and disobedience. The story of Okonkwo is in tune with the stories of all the colonized nations that oppose the colonization and become labeled as wild and aggressive people who need to be taught how to be “civilized.”
“Orientalism”
Edward Said’s “Orientalism” targets misrepresentations such as the story of Okonkwo mentioned above. “Orientalism” is the author’s comment on the division of the world into West and East. Said emphasizes that the concept of orientalism is mainly a one-sided political perspective of European and American researchers on the non-western cultures that initially positions them as “others.” This work is in tune with Adichie’s point of view, especially when she mentions that a single story is designed to point out the differences between different nations instead of underlining their similarities.
The author views orientalism as the source of misinterpretation of the cultures and people of Asia and the Middle East. Such perspective facilitates misunderstandings and prejudice against them in western societies and serves as the basis for conflict. The single-story told by the western orientalists about the nations they referred to as “eastern” picture them as despotic, sly, unreliable, and sneaky. Oriental men are believed to be intimidating, violent, and dominant, while women are oppressed and powerless.
The promotion of the latter single story creates a lot of issues in the contemporary world and serves for western “interventions” into the societies of the east that are considered improper, old-fashioned, and generally wrong. Somehow, the perspective that the western way of living is the only right one and must be accepted all over the world just would not go away.
“Reel Bad Arabs”
In his book called “Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People” Jack Shaheen points out another single story that has been told by the American film industry for decades, and that develops and maintains the negative stereotype about Arabs positioning them as aggressive and dangerous people fond of war and violence. The single-story Hollywood re-tells time after time has led to a simple but extremely harmful association. Just like Adichie, who heard just one story about the house boy, perceived him and his family only as poor, the whole world’s society now perceives Arabs mainly as villains.
Of course, they have a variety of other traits – they are filthy rich but do not know the value of money due to low intellect, they disrespect women and are obsessed with American blondes whom they constantly kidnap, Arabs have harems, wear turbans, fly magic carpets and have an extremely inhumane legal system where one may be mutilated or executed for the smallest deeds. Shaheen points out that Hollywood’s single story is based on observations and myths about Arabs made by the first colonist’s hundreds of years ago, and as a result, Arab society is depicted as barbaric and extremely old-fashioned.
“The White Man’s Burden”
Rudyard Kipling’s poem titled “The White man’s Burden” is a typical example of a single story for a European conqueror. The author speaks from the point of view of the colonizer describing the colonized nations as the ones in need of guidance and help, and the colonizers – like the generous carriers of civilization with all its virtues such as peace, freedom, prosperity, health, and comfort. The colonized people are portrayed as sullen, ungrateful, violent, and overall too stupid to understand the kindness of their liberators. While depicting the newly-caught people as narrow-minded, the author himself omits the opposing point of view completely.
In this poem, colonization is viewed strictly as a mission of white men as benefactors for the poor non-white wildlings living in horrible conditions. The author bitterly mentions that for some unknown reason, the colonized nations reject the generous help provided to the Europeans, trying to cast them out of their lands and refusing to understand all the positive aspects of having a white master.
Interestingly, Kipling sounds outraged by the fact that this huge sacrifice of the white people is not appreciated. Yet, the author fails to explain why the white men are forcing the “happy life” on the other nations. He also fails to assume that such a massive protest of the native people against their “benefactors” must be based on some logical reasons. Kipling disregards the other side of the coin only because he is also under the impression of a single story, the story of a generous white man and an ungrateful “half devil, half child.”
Conclusion
The issue brought up by Chimamanda Adichie in her TEDx speech concerns the power of prejudice and stereotypes, which come from the limited perspective and insufficient knowledge of one community about the others. This issue can be found in a variety of literary works and films, and it is discussed by many scholars as it is recognized as a very powerful basis for conflicts in our society.
Judith Sargent Murray is a writer and a poet, known for her advocacy for women’s rights. The author discussed the topic of equality in the eighteenth century, which was a radical viewpoint at that time. This paper presents the analysis of Murray’s On the Equality of the Sexes, which was published in 1790. It addresses the linguistic devices used to convey meaning, the elements of fiction, and the theme presented in the paper. The paper concludes that Murray’s work is a notable piece from the perspectives of its innovativeness, irony, and persuasiveness.
Linguistic Devices
Irony can be considered one of the mist significant ways Murray selects to convey meaning; its significance for the work will be discussed in detail below (Pizzetta 1). It is vital to add that irony offers “radical destabilizing possibilities”, which is why the author involves it in the text (Walsh 93). On the Equality of the Sexes presents the examples of ambiguity as well. For instance, the author writes that “the torpid spirit mingling with its clod can scarcely boast its origin from God” (Murray 3). The word “clod” can be interpreted in several ways; one of its meanings is the piece of earth, while the other one is a dull person.
In these words, the author seems to criticize individuals who believe that any man, even the least intelligent one, is better than a woman. She says that those who are not smart may be less godly that they think they are. It is possible to say that the text presents ambivalence as well. For instance, in the very first line of her work, Murray seems to agree with the opinion society has, but in the next one, she questions it, saying that the future experience will reveal the truth (Murray 3).
Elements of the Fiction
It is possible to say that On the Equality of the Sexes is written in a persuasive but ironic tone. She author presents the views society has on the differences between males and females and questions them, revealing her opinion and helping the reader to see the contrast between these opposing perspectives. She refers to people who “eat, and drink, and all their work is done”, not willing to learn more about the world (Murray 3). The author contrasts these individuals with others, seeking the causes of events, and having curious minds. These words are ironic, as Murray implies that men do not have to work hard to be perceived smart, because for society, their gender implies higher intellectual capacities.
Thus, one of the figures of speech that can be seen in Murray’s work is irony. For instance, she starts one of her lines with “as if” when discussing the perspectives society has about women (4). She presents her viewpoint in the way that questions the societal norms of her time. Murray’s words show that the author does not believe that women are servants, while men are leaders. Her tone can be considered mocking; she laughs at the existing views and wants to illustrate that they are comic. Pizzetta notes that Murray incorporates irony to “ameliorate the expectations” society has about women (1). It is possible to conclude that the quality of the elements the author incorporates in her work is high, as her ironic tone is not offensive but contributes to her advocacy for the idea.
Theme
The primary theme that can be traced in the work is equality between sexes. The author creates On the Equality of the Sexes to discuss the perceptions society of her time has regarding the differences between men and women. She notes that a person’s intellectual properties do not depend on gender. Murray says that “some there are who wish not to improve, who never can the path of knowledge love” (3). She implies that if a person is not curious and does not aspire after knowledge, they cannot be intelligent regardless of their sex. The author criticizes the traditional gender roles of her society. Murray notes that women are creative and have lively imagination; they are masters of deception and speculation (5). She believes that their minds can do greater things than housework.
In her words, Murray also demands the reader to “grant that their minds are by nature equal” (6). She argues that the perceived superiority of males is not determined by their higher intellectual properties but their differences in education for boys and girls. In her age, boys were encouraged to study science and math, while female students had to learn how to take care of their households. Murray’s work suggests that the female brain is not limited in any way compared to the mail one; instead, society suppresses women’s intellectual capabilities by forcing them to perform unfulfilling tasks.
Evaluation
This work is significant from the perspective of feminism, especially considering the fact that it was written in the eighteenth century. It is possible to say that Murray’s ideas presented in On the Equality of the Sexes are ahead of her time. As mentioned above, in the author’s society, women are perceived differently than men from the viewpoints of their intellectual qualities, expectations, and approaches to education. It is notable that although Murray’s views can be considered radical for her time, her statements and judgements do not intend to offend men. The author’s arguments are designed to challenge the system that judges people differently based on their sex. It is possible to say that Murray’s views are progressive; they contribute to the development of feminist ideas in society of her time.
On the Equality of the Sexes is also notable from the perspective of sociology. Murray writes that “the soul unfetter’d, to no sex confin’d” (4). These words mean that a person’s soul is not confined to their gender, and that gender cannot correspond to the complexity of a soul. The author’s perspective is also revolutionary for her time, as the idea about genders and their meanings are still disputed and questioned today. Murray’s work is significant from both the feminist and the sociological perspectives, as the woman discusses the ideas at the time when females are forced to focus on particular topics and center their lives around their chores and households.
Conclusion
Murray’s On the Equality of the Sexes is a persuasive and innovative work that presents arguments for the equality of sexes. The piece was written in 1790; it features a radical perspective on societal norms and the concept of gender that was uncommon for that time. The use of irony helps the author to convey her criticism while not offending any groups of individuals directly.
Works Cited
Murray, Judith Sargent. Selected Writings of Judith Sargent Murray, edited by Sharon M. Harris, Oxford University Press, 1995.
Pizzetta, Candis. “A Darwinian Approach to Judith Sargent Murray’s “On the Equality of the Sexes.” International Journal, vol.6, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1-9.
Walsh, Sue. “Gender and Irony: Children’s Literature and Its Criticism.” Asian Women, vol. 32, no. 2, 2016, pp. 91-110.
The Equality Act substitutes and complements earlier laws like the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 and the Race Relations Act of 1976 (Phillips & Scott 2012). The Act turned into law during 2007 with the aim of ensuring equal treatment of all people at the work place.
The Act includes similar groups that get protection from existing laws on equality. These laws protect people against discrimination based on disability status, age, gender, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or belief, pregnancy, marriage and civil partnership (Pitt 2011; Selwyn 2012).
An Analysis of the Law and Public Policy Issues
Since this study focuses on the case of Ladele and McFarlane with reference to the principle of conscientious, religious objection to same-sex relationships, we shall only look at elements of the Act that deal with discrimination on the basis of religion and same-sex relationships. These elements include discrimination based on sexual orientation, religion/belief as well as civil partnerships and marriage (Willey 2012).
Sexual Orientation Discrimination
The Equality Act 2010 protects employees against discrimination due to their sexual orientation. According to the Act, discrimination in the form of sexual orientation refers to unequal treatment of lesbians, gay men and heterosexuals (Wright & Conley 2011). The Act prohibits the conduct of discriminating people on the basis of sexual orientation.
This includes treating people unfavorably, discriminating them indirectly, victimizing people, or subjecting people to harassment due to their social orientation. The Act defines indirect discrimination as using a criterion or procedure that limits people of a particular sexual orientation when it is not justifiable.
Discrimination based on Religion or Belief
The Equality Act 2010 protects employees against discrimination based on their religions or beliefs. The Act needs all employers to have policies that relate to recruitment promotion, development, grievance and harassment. Direct discrimination occurs when people get unfair treatment due to their religions and beliefs, or religions and beliefs of their associates (Willey 2012).
The Act further explains different forms of discrimination. Indirect discrimination takes place when an employer has a policy or rule that concerns everybody, but will limit people who have a certain religion or belief.
Harassment occurs when an employer shows undesired actions due to a person’s belief or religion with the aim of infringing a person’s dignity, or creating a harsh atmosphere for that person (Willey 2012). Lastly, victimization refers to the unfair treatment of an employee because of opposing an employer’s practices on religions or beliefs.
Civil Partnerships and Marriage
The Equality Act of 2010 allows gay and lesbian couples to enter a civil partnership, with similar rights to those of a married couple (Willey 2012). According to the Act, direct discrimination takes place when a person gets less favorable treatment than others due to belonging in civil marriage or partnership.
On the other hand, indirect discrimination takes place when an employer has a policy or rule that concerns everybody, but will limit people in a civil marriage or partnership (Honeyball 2012). Nevertheless, indirect discrimination is justifiable in some situations (Honeyball 2012). This decision must show that the employer considered non-discriminatory alternatives before making the final decision.
Some cases that the Equality Act 2010 apply to include McFarlane vs. Relate Avon and Ladele vs. Islington (Sandberg 2011). In McFarlane v Relate Avon case, the claimant got dismissal because his religion and beliefs could not allow him to offer therapy to same-sex couples. According to the Equality Act, McFarlane imposed his own standards on sexual orientation to Relate, which was legally wrong.
On the other hand, McFarlane claimed both indirect and direct discrimination as well as harassment due to his dismissal. Equally, in Ladele v Islington, the Christian registrar became released from work due to her refusal to carry out civil partnership services for same-sex marriages (Hill 2011; Mooney 2009).
The claimant said that she suffered both direct and indirect discrimination due to her religious views. However, the court ruled that she lost her job due to her breach of duty, and not religious inclination towards same-sex marriages. These two cases also show some difficulties associated with clashes of rights.
Difficulties Associated with Rights Clashes
Over the years, scholars have focused on the right clash between religion and homosexuality in the perspective of religious assemblies seeking exclusion from nondiscrimination acts as much as they defend gay entitlements. One question that arises when implementing the Equality Act is: how can a pluralistic community give tolerance of religious differences and equality at the same time?
Another question is: how can the government serve commitments to the Act by guaranteeing expansion and use of civil rights laws in the community, or by guaranteeing protection and consideration for the varied beliefs and practices amid religious societies?
A person can understand the dispute among the two parties’ claims in the case of Ladele and McFarlane by wearing the shoes of gay men and those of Ladele, or McFarlane, alternately.
Gutmann (2003) explains that refusing people the rights to join voluntary associations is unjust. Any way that a state resolves this clash between the autonomy to exclude and liberty to join, the liberty of some citizens to convey their character as they consider fit get restriction due to others freedoms.
The certain win-loss described by Gutmann (2003) is a zero-sum game. Feldblum (Feldblum 2006) claims that due to the basis of homosexuality and religion clash on moral judgments, both sides belong to the zero-sum game since a benefit for one party leads to a loss for the disparate party.
That is to say the values of both sides are too diverse that their last benefits become incompatible. Therefore, accepting religious groups cause that state actors deny civil rights protections. However, the effects of ignoring civil rights groups cannot be underestimated.
While a zero-sum clash on rights involving identity groups must not rest on contrary moral values, the clash between homosexuality and religion arises from the moral character of their differences. For people like Ladele and McFarlane, whose religious beliefs make them think that gay men and same-sex marriages are immoral, any law fortification of gay persons is a loss (Feldblum 2006).
The reverse is right for those who think that gay men and same-sex marriages are morally right. For these people, the failure of regimes to guarantee fairness in dealing with communities that have all sexual orientations through the legislature is a loss (Gutmann 2003)
Given any legislative action or inaction, just one party wins. Hence, most scholars seek to know whether religion is exceptional (Koppelman 2006). They try to find out whether religion has anything unique that would make it get the privilege over rights of gay men, or if equal rights for gay men have a unique feature that should let those rights beat religious freedom.
Solutions
One way of solving problems like religious and homosexuality rights clash is through legislatures (Kramer 2004). Superior authority for law decision-making is achievable either through lesser or weaker judicial review.
Tushnet (1999) suggests that conscientious government officers outside the courts should carry out the work of interpreting the constitution, for some issues. Tushnet (1999) also mentions some of these issues as “the vindication of the declaration’s principles: the principle that all people are equal, the principle that all had inalienable rights” (53).
Conversely, Waldron (2006) claims that judicial review hardly offers a system for a community to concentrate on the problems at hand when people differ on rights. Rather, Waldron (2006) suggests that the most suitable way to resolve rights clash should involve getting people’s opinions, and not judicial review. Besides, Waldron suggests that both rights need equal treatment in the process.
Also, Waldron (2006) supports the idea of ordinary law followed by a court review as effective ways in solving rights clash. Key to this claim is a view that politics acts as the field of conciliation, which can hypothetically solve the matter of needing to choose a champion in the zero-sum competition.
According to Tushnet (1999), lawmakers build statutes like civil rights statutes as they pay attention to their enemies and build compromises that include some concerns of their opponents.
Private dispute resolution is also a way of solving rights clashes. This entails reaching a compromise amid two conflicting rights. McConnell proposes that the most suitable way to avoid a zero-sum game and get a solution to rights clashes is allowing conflicting parties to deal with their rows privately (Anderson & Baker 2010).
The government, using this method, should not inflict a punishment on practices related with or obligated by any perception of homosexuality, and must desist from applying its authority to support, encourage, or progress one place and not another.
Therefore, the state would not penalize sexual acts through accepting gay people. At the same time, the state would not make use of sexual orientation as a ground for discrimination or categorization with no grand rationales that have a basis in moral objections.
Conversely, the state would be slow to project this place of moral objectivity in the private area, although, it would let private influences in the culture find the last answer from the society.
That is to say the problems that legislatures and courts encounter when dealing with rights clash can get a solution through eliminating such matters from their rule.
Also, Minow (1987) argues that a more suitable choice should follow, for those disagreeing to negotiate a commonly tolerable solution since lawsuits may not serve as the most suitable instruments for realizing the normative growth that surface after expressing rights.
Minow (1987) explains “the practice of litigation is too cruel and polarizing to serve the purpose of encouraging certain parties to join in exploring normative commitments through interpretation” (1861).
Therefore, Minow (1987) proposes that parties should conduct mediation before filing lawsuits so that they can understand each other well and promote normative growth with no interference from legal authorities.
Such solutions can make parties evade polarizing effects that they may get from laws, or in courts since they do not consider most aspects. Therefore, parties like Ladele and McFarlane and Islington BC could keep away from the zero-sum game by negotiation.
Another way of solving right clashes is through ballot initiatives. Citizens may suggest amendments to the constitution or law provisions (Skiba-Crafts 2009). Where citizens fruitfully meet the necessary processes, these proposals become subject to a democratic vote, and not legislative ratification (Skiba-Crafts 2009).
This practice has occurred in countries like Florida, Arizona and California in the last two decades, and many anti-gay initiatives have succeeded or faced rejection (Keck 2009). For instance, Arizona citizens accepted the 2008 ballot initiatives to amend the constitutional provisions that sought to ban gay marriage as Arkansas citizens endorsed a ballot initiative banning gay partners from adopting kids.133
Critical Comment on the Efficacy and Desirability of the Current Law
The Equality Act 2010 is effective when it comes to protection of most employees at workplace (Lockton 2011). However, the law becomes hard to enforce when there are rights clashes.
So as, to solve this problem, parties may conduct mediation before filing lawsuits so that they can understand each other well and promote normative growth with no interference from legal authorities. Also, the Act should leave some crucial elements like homo-sexual rights to public opinion and not legislative ratification.
In conclusion, The Equality Act 2010 protects individual employment rights at the work place. Some areas that this law addresses include discrimination based on sexual orientation, religion/belief as well as civil partnerships. However, implementing this law raises several issues on the way rights on varied beliefs and practices can get an offering without interfering with civil rights laws.
This study recommends that conscientious government officers, outside the courts, can carry out the work of interpreting the constitution on issues like rights clashes. Also, the study supports mediation among parties before filing lawsuits and ballot box. This is the only way how cases like those of McFarlane v Relate Avon and Ladele v Islington can get fair judgment.
References
Anderson, R & Baker H 2010, Corporate governance: a synthesis of theory, research, and practice, John Wiley & Sons, London.
Feldblum, C 2006, ‘Moral conflict and liberty: gay rights and religion,” Brooklyn Law Review vol. 72, no. 62, pp. 63–64.
Gutmann, A 2003, Identity in democracy, Cengange, London.
Hill, M 2011, Religion and law in the United Kingdom, Aspen Publishers, South America.
Honeyball, S 2012, Honeyball & Bowers’ textbook on employment law, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Keck, T 2009, “Beyond backlash: assessing the impact of judicial decisions on LGBT rights,” Law and Society Review vol. 151, no. 161, pp.151-154.
Koppelman, A 2006, Is it fair to give religion special treatment?”Illinois Law Review vol. 571, pp. 572–574.
Kramer, L 2004, “The people themselves,” Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review vol.7, no.8, pp. 220-223.
Lockton, D 2011, Employment law 2011-2012, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon New York.
Minow, M 1987, “Interpreting rights: an essay for Robert cover,” Yale Law Journal vol. 96, pp. 1860-1907.
Mooney, G 2009, Understanding social welfare movements, Policy Press, Bristol Portland.
Phillips, G & Scott, K 2012, Employment Law, College of Law, London.
Sandberg, R 2011, Law and religion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Selwyn, N 2012, Selwyn’s law of employment, Oxford University Press, New York.
Skiba-Crafts, A 2009, “Conditions on taking the initiative: the first amendment implications of subject matter restrictions on ballot initiatives,” Michigan Law Review vol. 1305, pp. 1308-1309.
Tushnet, M 1999, “Taking the constitution away from the courts,” Yale Law Journal vol. 14, pp. 52-73.
Waldron, J 2006, “The core of the case against judicial review,” Yale Law Journal vol. 115, pp.1346-1376.
Willey, B 2012, Employment law in context: an introduction for HR professionals, Pearson, London.
Wright, T & Conley, H 2011, Gower handbook of discrimination at work, Gower, London.
Nowadays when the female emancipation movement is on the rise around the globe, there emerged two approaches toward execution of justice when it comes to women criminals. The first viewpoint argues that real equality means that women and men are treated the same by the criminal justice system. They receive similar punishments for the same crime, are provided with the same living conditions, and their background is considered when making the final decision to the same extent. The second approach, on the contrary, does not ignore the reality of gender. The power dynamics between the two genders and the observable differences in male and female behavior shape their crime patterns, avenues into the justice system, and responses to incarceration. This essay examines the issue of female incarceration applying the second approach, provides hard data, describes gender specific criminal behavior, and discusses several pressing issues concerning women in the justice system.
Female Incarceration in the US: Numbers and Figures
In the United States, the phenomenon of mass female incarceration is part of a larger trend. According to recent statistics provided by the Prison Policy foundation, the US incarcerates more people than any other country in the world. As of now, 698 for every 100,000 US residents are in jail (Kajstura). That is a slight improvement as compared to the previous few years, but despite the decline in the overall incarceration rate, the number of women in prison stays at the historical high.
Less than 4% of the world’s female population resides in the US, and yet, the country is home to 30% incarcerated women (Kajstura). One hundred thirty-three women per population of 100,000 are serving a sentence – an enormous number when contrasted to the imprisonment statistics in other developed countries. For instance, in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Norway, the number of incarcerated women per 100,000 residents stays at 13, 13, and nine respectively (Kajstura). A question arises as to whether the US indeed houses more criminals than any other country in the world. A more likely explanation might be that the system is biased and erroneous and does not does justice to those who are unfortunate enough to get involved.
Differences Between Male and Female Criminal Behavior
It is argued that men and women have drastically different pathways into crime. Women often commit crimes to survive and not to gain access to a higher status and luxuries (Krisberg 299). Typically, societal norms exert pressure on women than on men to build, maintain, and nurture their families. A burden of responsibility that a woman carries while she is constrained for money and other resources might be a motivator for falling into the criminal lifestyle. Other common motives include dealing with childhood trauma and early life victimization that put a strain on their mental health and emotional stability. Female criminals are often accomplices and not the main actors: their dependency on male lawbreakers pushes them to take on various roles in illegal operations.
Researchers are still looking for reasons for the disproportionate representation of men in violent crime. Men are more likely to be both offenders and victims than their female counterparts. For instance, a longitudinal study by Fridel and Fox showed that around 90% of homicide perpetrators were male (40). Men are more likely to use firearms: 75% of male murderers used weapons as opposed to 50% for females. The researchers explain the discrepancy by the differences in male and female socialization. Men are encouraged to participate in status-seeking behavior, and for some of them, the end goal justifies the means. Women, on the other hand, are socialized to be more caring and empathetic. Out of sympathy and concern for ethical norms, they are more likely to refrain from committing a crime despite the initial intention.
At the same time, some categories of violent crime are dominated by women. For instance, female offenders are responsible for two-thirds of infanticides of children younger than five and 80% of infanticides of children under one year (Fridel and Fox 40). The motives behind such a heinous crime as the killing of a young child vary greatly. The majority of infanticides were not intentional but a mere escalation of aggressive battering. The second most common cause is mental illness such as postpartum psychosis. Lastly, a significant percentage of female murderers committed infanticide to get rid of an unwanted or terminally ill child.
Female Incarceration: Pressing Issues
It is true that mass incarceration and the faults of the criminal justice system affect both men and women negatively. However, each gender faces unique problems and challenges that need to be acknowledged and tackled consequently. One may say that women who commit crimes are punished twice. The first time, they are penalized by the system, and the second time, society forces them to suffer from lifelong consequences even after release. This section will discuss some factors that contributed to mass female incarceration and the most pressing issues to which it has given rise.
Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Victimization
For a significant part of women, partaking in crime is one of the many adverse outcomes of being subjected to abuse and maltreatment in their younger years. Asscher describes a phenomenon called the cycle of violence when former victims become abusers. In her study, the author presents an ample body of evidence on the transition of early emotional trauma into delinquent behavior in the future. Asscher says that as of now, several theoretical models are explaining the said association (215). The emotional regulation perspective described by Kerig and Becker in 2010 showcases how a traumatic experience impairs a person’s emotional intelligence, namely, the ability to process emotions in a healthy way (Asscher 215). An abused woman is emotionally numb: she barely acknowledges what she is feeling and can barely extrapolate her experiences and sympathize with others.
Within the cognitive perspective put forward by the same authors, victimized individuals operate on the premise that the world is hostile. They employ negative attribution and see a malicious intent behind indifference and rejection even when it has nothing to do with them (Asscher 215). Taking other people’s actions personally and negatively interpreting environmental signals can make them aggressive and violent in their response.
A recent case shows how unjustly victims of abuse can be treated by the system. ACLU reports that in 2018, Tondalao Hall, an Oklahoma native and a mother of a three-year-old, was sentenced to thirty years in one of the state’s maximum security prisons (Lambert). For years, Hall suffered from physical and psychological violence at the hands of her boyfriend. The woman was arrested when he attacked her little daughter, which resulted in broken ribs and femurs. It is easy to see how Hall was held hostage by the situation in which she found herself. She could not retaliate or stop her partner’s abuse, and apparently, there must have been reasons why she never reached out. Hall had never been the perpetrator, but the system decided to punish her for her failure to protect the child. The boyfriend, on the contrary, is not going to spend a single day in prison.
Oklahoma is infamously known as the world’s prison capital: the state incarcerates more people in proportion to its population than any country in the world (Kajstura). Extreme cases such as that of Hall only contribute to its reputation. They show how women undergo revictimization: they fall victim to unfortunate life circumstances they cannot entirely control. Then they are not served justice by the system that was put in place to do precisely that.
Young Women Incarceration
Girls and young women are continuously mistreated by the criminal justice system. The data drawn from the 1980s through the mid-1990s showed that the arrest rate for non-aggravated assault rose for both boys and girls. However, in comparison, the rate increased more for females than males. Researchers attribute this dangerous tendency to societal views on how girls are supposed to behave. Typically, parents expect their female children to be more obedient (Krisberg 299). If in boys, outbursts and mood swing are attributed to the changes that puberty brings, in girls, such behavior is considered deviant. Young girls are arrested for minor offenses such as truancy and runaways from home. They are often locked up for their own “protection”: it is falsely believed that violent inclinations in females escalate faster than in males (Krisberg 299). The justice system fails to recognize the complex nature of young girls’ misdemeanor. The majority of them do not need punishment: they need help, guidance, and restoration.
Young women incarceration leads to a problem that has yet to be tackled comprehensively by the justice system: recidivism. Recidivism is a phenomenon when a person who has previously been in detention decides to reoffend despite having faced the consequences of the first case of misconduct. It is argued that young people between the ages of 18 and 25 are the group that is at the highest risk of recidivism (Penner et al. 10). During this period, a person’s psyche is malleable and vulnerable to external influence. Arresting and locking up a young woman, especially for a minor offense, only deals with the symptom of a larger problem: her background, milieu, personal issues, and possible mental disorders. Penner et al. showed that respectful and fair decision-making decreases the likelihood of recidivism (16). On the contrary, unusual and harsh punishments make young people feel betrayed and failed by the system. They do not feel protected and think that in any case, the authorities will not be on their side.
Limited Opportunities
Institutions involved in the execution of justice and rehabilitation of former offenders have long been focusing on men while neglecting women’s issues. Yet, the rapid increase in the number of female prisoners calls for gender-specific programs that take the reality of female crime into consideration. As of now, very few women enjoy access to diversion and other programs that might allow for early release. For instance, Prison Policy Initiative reports that while ranking second among the states with the highest female incarceration rates, Wyoming only recently offered women an alternative to imprisonment – a residential program at a boot camp (Kajstura). Such facilities primarily target first-time offenders, and depending on the residents’ needs, some programs incorporate military training, and some are more therapeutic. A six-month boot camp serves as a replacement for six to ten years in jail, a privilege that only men could enjoy.
However, even after allowing women to participate in such programs, Wyoming failed to provide them with any. The only boot camps available are men only, and women are forced to go as far as Florida for participation (Kajstura). Texas, the champion for women incarceration, also barely meets women’s needs for restoration. The state has very few educational and vocational programs for women (Kajstura). As a result, in such states, women face even harsher repercussions than men. While both genders might receive the same sentences, female offenders have fewer opportunities to reject their lifestyle and grow.
Fortunately, there are positive examples that might instill some optimism about the future of the criminal justice system. First, researchers are as interested in women’s struggles as ever and work hard on finding the best ways to intervene and help offenders to seek redemption. For instance, Gobeil et al. conducted an extensive meta-analysis of the recent studies on justice for women. The researchers concluded that female offenders respond better to intervention techniques that focus on gender as opposed to gender-neutral group sessions (Gobeil et al. 316). The findings of such studies imply that justice-related institutions can no longer deny the reality of gender in crime and restoration.
A real-life example of a positive change based on that assumption is a recently launched program in the correctional facilities of Connecticut. As The New York Times reports, the local authorities are trying to mimic the European restorative justice system built around the concept of social dignity (Chammah). Young female offenders of Connecticut get to retain their autonomy and self-agency. Everyone is assigned a job and has the right to change it when an opportunity presents itself (Chammah). The prison officers are trained to think like therapists: for example, they encourage women to speak out about their traumas and vulnerabilities. In prison, they are assisted with career planning and writing letters and resumes. The entire system tries to convince offenders that their imprisonment is a temporary aberration, and they still have the whole life at their beckon.
Conclusion
The United States incarcerates more people than any other country in the world. During the last three decades, the incarceration rate for women has risen dramatically,requires further investigation. The ample body of evidence on women’s struggles within the criminal justice system shows that it is no longer permissible to ignore the reality of gender. Women are socialized differently than men, and, hence, they show distinct criminal behavior patterns that are not found in their male counterparts. The faultiness of the US justice system victimizes women and makes them fall into a criminal lifestyle. First, it dismisses female offenders’ background and many factors that might have pushed them to use crime as a means of survival. Second, the authorities do not shy away from incarcerating young girls, which either breaks them or enrages them enough to rebel and reoffend. Third, women seeking reformation struggle to find programs that would assist them in choosing the right path in life. Admittedly, these are not the only gender-specific issues; however, the discussed phenomena clearly describe the vicious circle of crime and punishment. It is argued that the justice system needs to accommodate women more and treat them with respect as it is done in European countries.
Works Cited
Asscher, Jessica J., et al. “Gender Differences in the Impact of Abuse and Neglect Victimization on Adolescent Offending Behavior.” Journal of Family Violence, vol. 30, no. 2, 2015, pp. 215-225.
Fox, James Alan, and Emma E. Fridel. “Gender Differences in Patterns and Trends in US Homicide, 1976–2015.” Violence and Gender, vol. 4, no. 2, 2017, pp. 37-43.
Gobeil, Renée, et al. “A Meta-Analytic Review of Correctional Interventions for Women Offenders: Gender-Neutral Versus Gender-Informed Approaches.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 43, no. 3, 2016, pp. 301-322.
Diversity and equality in the workplace are best understood as concepts that promote and enhance a culture of inclusion. Stakeholders in the corporate environment have altered their decisions in order to accommodate, enhance, or celebrate diversity. Certain assumptions have caused this shift towards greater diversity; some may be borne out of goodwill from an organisation or others may come from a legal framework. This research will dwell on the judicial component of equality and diversity. However, because this is a wide topic, greater focus will be given to diversity and equality issues among company directors.
Research Hypothesis
The UK has come a long way in terms of equality and diversity laws. The Equal Pay Act, which was passed in 1970, spearheaded these changes; it was later amended in 1984. Another one was the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which was passed in order to safeguard against discrimination of former criminal offenders. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 covered gender-based discrimination in the workplace, and was later amended in 1999 through the Gender Reassignment Regulations Act. The Race Relations Act 1976 was another legislation, which identified race as a protected trait in law; this was later amended in 2000 and 2003 respectively. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 recognised the rights of disabled persons and protected them from discrimination and unfavourable treatment; it was later replaced in 2005. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 also came into force at a time when harassment issues were deemed to be fundamental in law. Other laws such as The Employment Equality Regulations on Religion and Sexual Orientation were all passed in 2003. EU Employment equality regulations were passed in 2006, and they recognised age as a protected trait. Finally, the Equality Act 2010 was passed and this marked a holistic approach towards diversity issues in the workplace. All these laws indicate an adversarial approach to the concept of diversity since most of the Acts protect workers against discrimination. In other words, they are more reactive than proactive and they focus on remedying situations rather than creating a positive environment. Because of this, the research hypothesis in this paper is:
“UK diversity laws lean more towards avoidance of trait based disadvantages rather than providence of equal chances to all individuals.”
When expressed in another way, the main research question in this paper is: “Does UK diversity law effectively promote equal opportunities in boardroom appointments (for directors)?”
In order to answer this research question, one must look at the existing laws on appointment of directors and then combine these with equality or diversity legislations on the same. Thereafter, practical statistics on company directorships will be provided especially in terms of the demographics. Finally, one must make a conclusion based on these findings concerning the differences that exist between various demographic groups.
Findings
Statistics on Company Directors Demographics
Ethnic Diversity
A report given by Plimmer and Smith illustrates that the number of foreigners in UK company boards has increased8. This is not a direct indication of directors’ ethnicity, but it is an indicator of improvements in ethnic diversity. The analysis was carried out in 2010 and revealed that 40% of all company directors in the UK were foreign. When compared to 2005, this represents a 14% increase in the number of overseas directors in the country. Unlike gender diversity, which has been governed by legal and gender-based principles, most moves to select a racially diverse board of directors are done in order to facilitate and improve business in the global market9. Usually these non nationals emanate from certain parts of the world that share similar cultures with the UK, so, even if foreign nationals may appear to have increased, ethnic and racial representation is yet to improve. Plimmer and Smith have shown that 25% of all international directors are from the US or Canada while Asian directors represent only 6%. Ethnic minority representation in boardrooms is still rather low as illustrated by these latter figures.
Gender Diversity
A study of 455,300 British companies carried out by Martin et al. found that an under-representation of women in directors’ positions exists in the UK. Only 27% of all company directors were women while men took up 73%. Additionally, it was found that women were still disproportional to men in directorships. In other words, only 10% of the companies in the research had a majority of female leaders. Industrial representation and the nature of the company also determined how female directors were represented. For example, it was found that smaller companies were more likely to have this demographic of directors than larger ones. Size was assessed based on asset value of the company. Firms that had less than 2.8 million pounds worth of assets were classified as small firms and the rest qualified as big firms. It was also found that the manufacturing sector had a higher proportion of men than the business service sector as female directors had greater numbers in the latter section than the former one. The study illustrated that only 2% of all the companies had an all-female leadership board while 35.2% had an all-male board. 24% had equal representation of men and women in the board of directors while 10% had majority female directors in the board. This research illustrates that gender parity is still illusive in most company boards within the United Kingdom.
An even more recent research has found that the number of female company directors has increased slightly between 2010 and 2011. This clearly illustrates effects of legal analyses of company directors. In 2010, Lord Davies did an analysis of female directors in the UK and recommended positive action. Firms responded to those findings even before any legal measures were put in place. Currently, it has been shown by Egon International that in 2011, 33% of all company directorship appointments were female centred yet these were just 15% in 2010. While female representation is still low, there are prospects that it will keep increasing. Nonetheless, when one looks at the numbers retrospectively, it is clear to see that this may take some time. For instance, a look at the top 100 FTSE numbers shows that over the past ten years, a 5.8% increase of female directors has been achieved. At this pace, it will take slightly over seventy years in order to have an equal number of men and women. The law does not explicitly require specific action; as such, firms may be acting this way in anticipation of some stringent government and legal requirements. If firms are changing their appointment habits gradually in anticipation of change, then chances are that legalisations will increase these numbers tremendously.
When compared to the international landscape, the UK lags behind a series of other nations. Nordic nations have been found to have a higher number of female executives than the UK. In Norway, about 40% of all company directors are female. This is quite distant from the 12% found in the FTSE top 100 companies and the 27% found by Martin et al. in the UK. Clearly, there are differences in these representations because Norway’s legal system differs from the British one. In Norway, legislators instated a quota system that requires 40% female representation in all company boards; the UK has no such policy in place.
Significance of Boardroom Diversity
Investors are concerned about the array of views and skills prevalent in their boardrooms because these affect company operations. Since shareholders choose people who are appointed to boards, they need to ensure that investors’ demands are met. Shareholders ought to try out new approaches to appointments, as diverse boards would increase richness of organisational ideas. They have started realizing that company performances are likely to increase if people with different backgrounds are put together. As the figures show, boardroom appointments have always been done conventionally. In other words, most firms like to stick to familiar methods. Since females have always been under-represented, then using the same appointment methods severely limits these organisations’ diversities. By sticking to past company strategies, many firms are narrowing down their appointment pools, and this is preventing them from growing. What’s more, it should be understood that firms are created in order to meet societal needs. As a result, their boards should be reflective of these differences; otherwise, it would put them out of touch with the society that they are supposed to be representing.
Studies have often shown that women have greater spending power than men do, accordingly firms would benefit from their insight in profit making aspects of directorship and this is the business case for gender diversity. Alternatively, if an international firm does business in a different part of the world, then it would make sense to appoint people who fully understand that market. This is the reason why racial or ethnic diversity is important in these executive positions. Therefore, one can say that diversity in executive positions facilitates competitiveness, since the more assorted a firm’s board is, the higher the chances of doing well in the marketplace.
Governments are now realising that women are rarely giving a chance to prove their worth. They have not had equal time and resources like their male counterparts, and this is ruining the country’s ability to reach its full potential. Eventually, this may undermine economic performance because not all resources are being utilised.
The UK government may be prompted to act given the immense gender representation gap between this country and others in the EU. Countries such as Iceland, Norway and Spain already have quotas in place in order to curb these differences. Recently, France passed a legislation that would also allow 40% quotas among the top-performing firms in the country for female directors. The legislation was passed in January 2011 and affected firms have been given a period of eight years to comply. However, the UK has no such restriction. The government may be put under pressure to do something, especially in the wake of the Lord Davies report and other equality and diversity measures. It is imperative for firms to start from within rather than wait for compulsory government intervention.
The corporate environment now expects greater transparency in directorship appointments. Improved disclosure also implies respecting the differences that exist between likely candidates, and proving to investors that processes are free from favouritism or discrimination.
It has often been shown that when the behavioral characteristics of a certain group of people are synonymous, then chances are that they may be influenced by the group-think phenomenon. Crucial decisions are likely to be made based on these similarities, and it may undermine the performance of the group. However, if the group has a rich assortment of members, then chances are that everyone will bring a different dimension to work policies. Mckinseys research group carried out a study and found that boards with greater than 30% female representation tended to perform better than those with fewer numbers. This was attributed to the fact that their leadership styles and manner of thinking were significantly different.
The Law and Boardroom Diversity
Appointment of directors is governed by the Companies Act 2006. In Part 10 and Chapter 1, a number of stipulations have been codified in the Act concerning Appointments. First, the Act lifts any restrictions on age. Previously, there was a limit on the age of company directors at age 70 but this has since been lifted. The only limitation is that a person must be over age 16 in order to qualify. A private limited company needs to have at least one director while a public company should have a minimum of two. In addition, a director does not have to possess special formal qualifications. He or she must not be bankrupt and should not have been disqualified by the bank to act in that capacity. At least one natural person is required while the other directors maybe companies or institutions. The same Act states that considerations need to be given concerning directors’ abilities to carry out their functions.
Diversity and selection of board members have indirectly been mentioned in the Equality Act 2010. Section 45 stipulates selection of members. Limited liability companies can be either owner-driven or manager-driven, which means that they may possess a board of managers who are recognised as a board of directors by law. Diversity issues in directorship appointments can be inferred from this component of the Act. Discrimination is expressly prohibited when deciding: who will be appointed as a member, the terms that the person is entitled to and denial of the position. Upon appointing an individual, the constitution specifically states that a firm cannot discriminate against the person in terms of access to training, transfer, and expulsion. The organisation cannot subject someone to detriment. Organisations are also prohibited from harassing a candidate for appointment or membership. Appointing bodies may not victimise an applicant through the terms stated in subsection 2.
Currently, the law does not allow affirmative action in boardroom appointments. In other words, organisations may not simply decide to hire certain groups of people such as women or minorities without merit considerations because that is tantamount to discrimination. Nonetheless, the law does allow positive action. There is a distinct difference between positive action and positive discrimination. Positive action is legal as stipulated in the Equality Act 2010 part II Chapter 1. Here, a firm may deal with historical under representations by promoting directorship applications in certain groups. Section 158 describes the conditions under which positive action can take place. Appointing bodies can only apply the principle of positive action if they decide that individuals have suffered disadvantage in a particular position that is linked to a component of their identity. Suffering disadvantage may not be sufficient to lead to positive action. Appointing bodies must also illustrate that needs prevalent in this protected group are different from those of other people that do not share the same identity. The targeted group should be shown to be disproportionately represented in a certain activity. The Act also specifies reasons for implementing positive action. It may be done in order to: reduce or eradicate disadvantage encountered by certain groups, meet particular needs, and encourage participation in an activity. If regulations already exist, then one may not engage in positive action.
In this study, it has been demonstrated that directorships are characterised by a lower number of women and ethnic minorities. Consequently, it is permissible for shareholders to address this problem by taking positive action. During the recruitment process, this Act specifically states that one may choose to select a certain candidate with a protected trait if it has been found that there are equally qualified candidates. Section 159(3) specifically prohibits favourable treatment based solely on a protected characteristic. Positive action can only be applied if the company has not created another policy that governs treatment of equally qualified persons in relation to the position. It must also be shown that taking that action will directly lead to achievement of positive action aims. If only a small correlation exists between the two aspects, then recruitment of persons with the targeted trait may be rendered inadmissible. Recruitment in this context is defined as a mechanism for offering employment, contracts, appointments to personal or public office, and memberships in limited liability partnerships. The Act applies to directorships because the appointment of directorships can occur in limited liability partnerships with a manager-based approach. Directorship appointments may also be classified as appointments to a personal office.
From the Act, appointing bodies or shareholders are not obligated to select a certain group of people specifically for directorships. However, when potential appointees have met all the traits that they are looking for, then they have the freedom to select an under-represented group to promote positive action. Nonetheless, this section of the Equality Act 2006 does not necessarily imply that under-represented groups can only be selected when all candidates have the same qualities, but it expands this. Even though candidates may have different qualifications, it must be shown that they are able to carry out their directorship duties when placed in office.
Furthermore, before the shareholders can implement positive action, they need to show that the groups chosen have been disadvantaged in that particular workplace. Unless there is evidence to prove that the group has been disproportionately represented, then shareholders or appointing bodies may be regarded as discriminatory; they cannot select that party randomly. If an organisation has decided to implement positive action, then the targeted entity ought to reflect actual proportions in certain society. For instance, the census results show that ethnic minorities make up 15% of the population, and if a certain boardroom lacks these members, then those numbers can be adjusted in order to reflect societal realities. It would be discriminatory and illegal if a certain firm tried to get too many minorities as directors because this is not proportional to the actual population of that respective group. Doing so, would lead to an under-representation of other racial groups in the country. The main point here is that considerations should first be given to the candidates’ merits and their abilities before other protected characteristics can be considered.
The law allows diversity programs in boardrooms. Usually, these initiatives aim at increasing representations of ethnic minorities, females or persons with disabilities through a diversity policy. Here, the affected group (such as females) may get into a mentorship program with a certain company. Beneficiaries can get advice regarding non-executive board positions. Usually, an external recruitment firm will control and administer such a program. The law also recognises female networks. These individuals are in executive positions in different industries and inform one another about potential opportunities in various businesses. Network members will still go through the same appointment processes that their counterparts go through but will have the advantage of getting the information about those vacancies. The law also recognises frameworks that have been created in order to boost female talent. In such forums, leadership development is nurtured and this makes women more likely to advance to top-level executive positions in the corporate scene.
Since the UK is a member of the EU, laws passed at the regional level affect it. Certain directives have been passed in order to deal with diversity and equality issues. One such example is the 2000 EU Race and Employment Directive. Article 7 of this directive specifically states that member states are not bound by the concept of equal treatment. They are permitted to engage in measures that prevent disadvantage to a racial, disabled, ethnic or any other disadvantaged group. The Directive urges immense consultation between an organisation and the people it is recruiting. In this case, appointing bodies and potential directors need to be engaged to foster diversity. During those consultations, it will be necessary to identify the prevailing problems with regard to diversity. The paper has already identified under-representation of females and ethnic minorities, so, shareholders need to engage with potential appointees to find out how these problems can be solved. They must then implement those issues that were discussed.
The 2002 Race Directive asserts that member states ought to be taking measures that are designed to prevent disadvantaged groups from facing those same disadvantages. The EU has given provisions for positive action, but the UK legislative framework has not fully embraced the possibilities that these create in the boardroom.
How Companies are Choosing Directors
Several firms select directors based on their experience in the same position. In other words, most would prefer someone who has already served as a director in a public limited company. Usually, minimal considerations are given to diversity requirements, as deduced from statistics regarding board members’ demographics; most are older white males. A large proportion of companies in the UK prefer selecting directors who have similar career patterns, cultural and social backgrounds, and experiences. Companies are more interested in the people they know rather the directors they require.
Recruitment processes will look at candidates’ conceptualisation of their role as executive or non-executive directors. They must know how to transfer their current skills into their new roles. Such a quality can create difficulties for people who have not been exposed to directorship roles. Disadvantaged groups may not meet that criterion since appointing bodies rarely reach out to them. Candidates who qualify as directors need to explain to shareholders or appointing bodies how they would add value to that board. Women and members of certain ethnic groups have access to fewer chances than their male and mainstream counterparts do. Aspiring directors must comprehend how accountability mechanisms work in that particular board. Since such knowledge emanates from informal networks, then disadvantaged groups may have a hard time demonstrating this. In addition, aspirants are assessed based on their commitment to the role and the passion of a director. Disadvantaged groups hardly get such an opportunity because of the inherent biases that exist among appointing bodies.
Discussion
The research findings have very adverse implications. First, they confirm that the traditional model of diversity is still very influential in the UK. Earlier legislations such as the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) and the Disability Discrimination Act (1995) are governed by the principle of sameness. This traditional approach to equality puts forward the notion that all people must be treated in the same way if they are in identical situations. The case of Zafar TVs. Glasgow City Council [1997] 1 WLR 1659 HL exemplifies this principle; since the defendant was not obligated to take action based on the plaintiff’s differentiating characteristic. Therefore, when selecting board members, shareholders or appointing bodies must make sure that they treat every likely candidate for board membership equally. This model looks at differential treatment in a negative way. It requires that members should not be distinguished based on ethnicity, gender and so on because it assumes this would be detrimental to that group. While some changes have been made to legislations through the Equality Act 2010, the consensus is that these differences still exist today. The traditional model does not acknowledge the fact that treating people in the same manner can lead to negative consequences. Such is the case with directorship appointments. As it has been seen from the research, most directors are predominantly male and white. Females and ethnic minorities have therefore been indirectly discriminated upon because the law has historically propagated such a model.
However, there is indeed room for optimism based on certain provisions found in the Equality Act 2010. This law represents a new approach to diversity (better known as the diversity approach) because it acknowledges the institutional role. Therefore, it has a greater capacity to affect boardroom appointments than previous legislations on the same. When diversity legislation merely focuses on the individual through anti-discrimination lawsuits, then this creates the danger of slowing down change. Organisations are only prompted to act if an individual makes a complaint against them. In the case of boardroom appointments, the traditional model would only permit an individual to take action against a board if that person was dismissed based on their identity. This traditional approach would make it very difficult for anyone to contest directorship appointments because no obligations are imposed on the concerned company. However, in the diversity approach, organisations are obligated to be more systematic about their approach to recruitments. Shareholders or other stakeholders responsible for appointment of directors are expected to initiate positive steps that will lead to the promotion of diversity. This new model embraces positive action designed to address certain challenges that have been faced by particular groups. Section 158 of the Equality Act 2010 for the first time allows this phenomenon and therefore postulates a diversity approach. This can be directly utilised in boardroom appointments because it has been clearly revealed through research that large gaps exist between male and female directors. In addition, statistics that the number of ethnic minorities in directorships is disproportionately low.
While positive action is permissible in law now, it still does not represent the spirit and overriding principle governing the latest Equality Legislation, which is the Equality Act 2010. Stakeholders need to know that the provision will have a small effect on boardroom appointments. No obligations have been placed upon organisations to enact any policies that will address these difficulties among female or ethnic directors so the numbers may not change dramatically. It can therefore be said that there is very limited scope to implement these changes.
In fact, there is a slight contradiction between the ‘positive action’ components of the Equality Act 2010 and the ‘anti-discrimination’ components of the same Act. This is because positive action initiatives put in place by firms on boardroom or directorship appointments may be classified as discrimination. In other words, measures designed to correct indirect discrimination in the boardroom can sometimes be viewed in the reverse as being discriminatory to particular races or genders. Therefore, firms will need to be very careful about positive action because it is easy for such an initiative to supersede the limits of the law.
The anti-discriminative nature of UK diversity law illustrates an inherent weakness in this area. Since boardroom appointments can only be contested on an individual basis, if someone feels that he or she has been removed because of a certain trait, then that places undue burden on the part of the disadvantaged person. It is also unlikely that one complaint against the appointment process in a certain firm may alter the institutional wrongs against diverse groups. Evidently, this is not a constructive approach to change in institutions. The bias towards individualism severely limits the transformation ability of the law. Responsibility has therefore been removed from the organisation and has been placed on the individual. This creates a bad atmosphere; fault-finding becomes the only permissible way to embrace diversity in directorships. Clearly, this mode of thinking is not tenable in the world today. Organisations have become highly competitive and seeing as adaptability is a key trait for survival, then firms have to reflect that in their senior-level positions. Promoting equality of opportunity can only be possible when the stakeholders all take responsibility. State regulation is not enough; individuals aspiring for directorship positions need to work together with existing directors as well shareholders in order to make certain that transformations have been fostered within their organisations.
In order to have a full understanding of why this approach to law is problematic, one must analyse the situation from the perspective of the aspiring or potential director. Directors receive a lot of rewards for their contributions but before selection, most of them still hold high positions in institutions within relevant industries. Consequently, if a person was not elected into a boardroom based on unfair grounds such as favouritism or discrimination, then that person may not want to jeopardise his or her standing in the industry by suing his or her appointees. Women, ethnic minorities and other disadvantaged groups simply find it too troublesome to challenge the status quo, and as such, most of them would prefer leaving things as they are. Besides, unless the circumstances leading to disadvantage among certain groups are resolved, individuals would be discouraged from confronting the problems of diversity in company directorship appointments.
Currently, appointing committees for directorships are adopting a wait -and -see attitude. Most of them prefer not to do anything about under-represented parties, unless the law compels them. Diversity to them may seem like a burden imposed upon them by the authorities. As the case is today, some recommendations were given by Lord Davies about the need for positive steps towards incorporation of diversity in directorship appointments. Appointing committees have not realised that this is a green light for them. There has also been a lot of talk about quotas, which would forcibly require all companies to appoint a certain percentage of an underprivileged group; current focus is on female under-representation. The lack of fuller engagement with diversity issues among boards has indeed caused many appointing boards to be fearful and agitated by the potential for state imposed quotas.
Given the current environment of restrictive diversity laws, company boards have the opportunity to protect themselves from liability if they create a proactive field. For instance, The Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 and the Race relations Act of 1976 all possess provisions for vicarious liability. In this regard, if a director has been removed and he or she raises claims of discrimination based on his or her identity, then an appointing body may defend itself against such a claim by citing the diversity initiatives it has spearheaded. In other words, the concerned organisation can claim that it has done all that is reasonably possible in order to prevent discrimination. Therefore, although the law does not expressly protect organisations that have initiated diversity strategies, it can be advantageous for firms to start such initiatives as it offers them a possible line of defence.
The UK is likely to be influenced by the provisions made in the EU 2000 Race and Employment Directive. If cases are to be presided by the European Court of Justice, chances are that they may be governed by principles of positive action. Indeed, this idea is not far-fetched as seen in the case of Lommers v Minister van Landbouw. Mr. Lommers raised the concern that the Ministry of Agriculture in Dutch was only giving female officials permission to use the institution’s nursery. Men got this opportunity only during emergencies. The court ruled in favour of the Ministry by arguing that employment opportunities between males and female were almost equal, and it was only certain conditions of work that were found to be different. These facilities were available to working mothers and to single fathers so any differential treatment had been neutralised. The Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EEC was used for this very purpose. Article 2(4) states that prejudice in promotion of equal opportunity can be eliminated through removal of existing inequalities. Such was the case with the nursery issue. The major implication of this ruling in the EU is that the ECJ does recognise deviations from equal treatment. As a result, member states have to adopt an attitude of positive action. The latter case also has implications on boardroom appointments because claims could be raised against appointing committees. If the appointing group comprises of members of the EU then the matter maybe decided by the European Court of Justice, and this could eventually lead to implementation of similar rulings. UK laws, therefore, need to move in that direction in order to foster a legal environment that works in tandem with the EU.
Currently, there are no positive action obligations that are imposed upon member states by the EU. Consequently, the UK legislative framework must reflect societal pressures independently. Since its neighbours are governed by principles from the EU, then chances are that their decisions are likely to affect the UK. The move towards a diversity-based approach can be viewed as being more in tune with future changes than current legislative stipulations in the EU and UK. Shareholders that appoint directors using a diversity approach can be regarded as people who are moving in the right direction with the law albeit at a faster pace.
The law does not adequately address possible dilemmas that appointing bodies may face if they are dealing with two conflicting diversities. The Equality Act only covers dual discrimination; that is, when an individual has been disfavoured because of two protected characteristics such as race and religion. The law does not outline how organisations can embrace diversity if divergent views exist. For instance, it may have members who are sexist on grounds of their religious beliefs. Such appointing members may prefer candidates from a certain gender because of those values. A company will have a difficult time trying to correct this wrong; because, if it disregards the opinions of such members, then it may again appear to be intolerant. Firms must select qualities that are more important than others. In such scenarios, a decision ought to be made on the quality that is likely to lead to litigation. The lack of ground rules on equality norms in the law has put organisations in a very difficult situation.
Women and ethnic minorities are under-represented in boards because of three major reasons. The first relates to personal factors. Some members of appointing bodies actually believe that the groups do not have the necessary qualifications for sitting in boardrooms. These assumptions are biased against those disadvantaged groups. Secondly, certain interpersonal factors may also be contributing towards this continued under-representation.. Since under-represented groups lack informal networks that would facilitate their entrance into boardroom positions, then chances are that they will remain stuck in their current positions. Even the appointment processes lack transparency. Very little information is known about how openings are exposed to the public and how selections are done. Private companies have been guilty of this practice. Informal cultures and negative biases are partly to blame. Any initiatives designed to deal with these challenges must incorporate such hidden traits.
Recommendations
Since it has been found that the current legal framework is inefficient in handling diversity needs, because too much emphasis is given to the punitive – individualistic aspect, then greater focus should be given to the institutional component. In other words, directorship appointers need to be as responsible for diversity measures as much as the potential candidates are. In addition, firms need to put in place certain designs that can help in the overall elimination of problems confronting protected groups. Everyone needs to cooperate on this issue. Otherwise, state interventions are likely to lead to minimal changes. Organisational cultural shifts will be essential in making shareholders and other appointing parties more responsible. Diversity needs should not just be tied to economic benefits for the organisation because such goals are likely to be abandoned once the organisation goes through a downturn. Stakeholders in an establishment are unlikely to believe that the diversity initiative is genuine if it is only tied to economic values, so shareholders need to be sensitized about the non economic importance of embracing diversity in their daily endeavours. When the promotion of diversity becomes a priority for shareholders, then this is likely to curb the reactive role taken on by organisations every time a piece of legislation is altered. During the appointment of directors, companies would already be in tandem with these legal changes and would no longer think of it negatively.
Many organisations are having a hard time merging their diversity priorities with the prevailing anti discrimination laws. This is because they do not know what to prioritise and what to consider later. Current anti-discrimination laws need to be merged with organisational processes for promoting diversity so that they can be in tandem with one another. This would spare shareholders from having to enact changes, which supersede the limits of the legal framework and that would in turn hurt them.
Many boards are currently engaged in diversity initiatives and have even sourced for expert help on the same. However, the major challenge is that sometimes these experts may not be as well versed with the law as they ought to be. Consequently, most of them find that they are wasting company resources by focusing on certain strategies that may turn out to be illegal. The illegality usually arises unexpectedly and from the least likely groups. Boards must realise that it is necessary to combine their own diversity model with the legal framework that they are operating in.
Affirmative action may not be the way to go given the current legal structures. This is because it is inclined towards discrimination than positive duty. Nonetheless, the best way of encompassing these changes in diversity would be to promote equal opportunities through the concept of positive duty. That is a change that many shareholders or appointing committees would find acceptable, as it is not a radical departure from what they have come to know and understand.
As stated earlier, UK laws and legislations are also not very clear on situations that require acknowledgement of difference and treatment of individuals similarly. The matter arose in the Lommers case, and the EU set out some guidelines but these are not universal across all member states. Organisations still have the opportunity to make those choices independently. They can decide to treat applicants differently when this will lead to a level playing field. Once individuals are on an equal footing, then companies need to treat all applicants equally. Tensions arising out of fundamental assumptions in law can be easily resolved if firms exercise these basic assumptions in the diversity model. Lessons can be drawn from the Lommers case because the Ministry involved had to deal with these tensions. They drew the line between equality and difference when they realised that parents are not all the same, so they cannot be treated equally. Fathers and mothers have different needs; they cannot also be accorded the same privileges. It is their circumstances that cause them to be placed in a similar category. Single fathers and working mothers had the same needs, so they needed to be treated differently from other types of parents. Correspondingly, appointing bodies that have to decide on whether to treat potential directors and actual directors similarly or differently should consider the circumstances that lead to disadvantage. They would have to exercise proper judgement in deciding the kind of approach that needs to be taken.
When implementing the diversity model during selection of candidates, companies must understand all the dynamics at play. If positive action is initiated in favour of a certain group, then not all shareholders or members of the appointing body will fully support this initiative. Others may even construe it as a form of discrimination against non-members of the protected group. It is persons like these who may initiate lawsuits against appointing bodies based on their positive action initiatives. Therefore, organisations should only engage in positive action within the confines of anti-discrimination law so that they can protect themselves from litigations from disgruntled parties.
The country can also move towards incorporation of the diversity model in law by rewarding organisations that have instated positive action. As the case is today, firms are not obligated to do this. If they are given an incentive, then more appointing bodies or shareholders will be encouraged to take up positive action. A possible route would be through vicarious liability clauses. These can be formally made into lines of defence for organisations that are facing unlawful discrimination charges. They can employ such a dimension when they already have collective action procedures in place. Having this kind of approach would definitely lead to better outcomes.
Since it has been found that internal biases and interpersonal factors have placed certain groups at a disadvantage in boardroom appointments, then companies can handle those differences by overcoming these deep-seated obstacles. A diversity model that embraces difference would inculcate a culture of acceptance and would systematically neutralise these long-standing injustices.
Conclusion
The current set of anti-discrimination laws breed an environment of mistrust, hostility and antagonism. In this sense, most organisations are reactive rather than proactive in diversity matters. Equality issues have not been given the priority they deserve in directorship appointments. Even legal provisions for positive action (as seen in the Equality Act) have not been successful at encouraging a holistic approach because no obligations have been imposed upon firms. The result is a failed attempt at providing disadvantaged groups with equal opportunities.
The disproportionate number of ethnic minorities in boardrooms can prove these assertions. A majority of foreign directorship appointments involves Westerners who belong to similar racial groups. Females are also underrepresented in most boards as their numbers are unusually low compared to their male counterparts. Based on current estimates of change, researchers affirm that female representation in executive or directorship positions will be equivalent to male representation after 70 years. The evidence supports the notion that equality of opportunity in boardrooms is far from being achieved in the UK.
Current laws and legislations on diversity are highly centered on the traditional model, which focuses on the individual. These refer to diversity laws with special emphasis on the Equality Act 2010. Very little emphasis has been given to organization-led change initiatives. No legal direction exists on systematic changes in appointment processes. Because of this, companies have adopted a non-participative culture, which cannot address disadvantage as a diversity issue. Certainly, a diversity-based approach is superior to a traditional approach and this should be a goal sought by appointing bodies and shareholders prior to the recruitment of new directors. Such a model will assist in the evolution of the legal process. The country’s structural frameworks for positive action are weak yet these are indispensable in providing equal opportunities in law. Positive action has recently been introduced in law but this component does not take up a large share of the country’s legislation.
In the process of searching for equality, it is recommended that organizations embrace a positive action model. However, this does not imply affirmative action or quotas because that would not be in line with current laws. The market is not yet ready for such a radical move. It is likely that a less aggressive but effective method would work best. Companies need to make a commitment to diversity, and they need to gain certain legal incentives based on those decisions. If they can take on direct responsibility for diversity, then female representation or ethnic minority representation is likely to improve.
Bibliography
Barmes, L, ‘Promoting diversity and the definition of direct discrimination’ International Law Journal, vol.32, no.2, 2003, pp200-213
Barmes, L & Ashtiany, S, ‘The diversity approach to achieving equality: potential and pitfalls, Industrial law journal, vol.32, no. 4, 2003, 274-297
Barry, U, Evaluation of the Irish national Action Plan 2001: a gender equality perspective, European expert group on gender and employment report, Strasbourg, 2001
Belkin, L, 2003, ‘The opt-out revolution’, The New York Times,
BBC, Boardroom diversity is a must for firms, executives say, BBC, 2011, Web.
Bolshaw, L, Davies report: the history and the challenges, Financial Times, 2011, p 4.
Bowen, S, The Board book: an insider’s guide for trustees and directors. Norton and Company, NY, 2008
Brittan, D & Jacobsen H, Equal opportunities in the EU, DGV, Brussels, 2004
Catalyst and Opportunity Now, Breaking the barriers: women in senior management in the UK, Business in the community report, UK, London, 2000
Carver, J, Corporate boards that create value, HUP, Harvard, 2000
Charan, R, Boards that deliver: advancing corporate governance from compliance to competitive advantage, Jossey bass, Chicago, 2005
Clements, P & Jones, J, The diversity training handbook-a practical guide to understanding and changing attitudes, Penguin, Middlesex, 2007
Companies Act 2006 s157. Companies formation worldwide, Appointing the Directors of the Company, Ukincorp, 2011, Web.
Daniels, K & McDonald, L, Equality, diversity and discrimination: a student text, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 2005
Delloitte, Boards of directors and gender diversity in UK companies, Delloitte, 2004, Web.
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Egon Zehnder International. A number of women on UK boards surges in early 2011 as companies anticipate positive action. Egon Zehnder International, 2011, Web.
Elstad, B & Ladegard, G, Diversity and perceived influence in corporate boards: The case of Norway, European Academy of management 9th annual conference, UK, Liverpool, 2009.
European Commission, Continuing the diversity journey: business perspectives, practices and benefits, Official publications of the European communities’ Office, Luxembourg, 2008
Equal Treatment Directive (EC) 76/206 EEC
Flannery, N, UK’s Davies report a sign of growing investor focus on board diversity, Corporate Library blog, 2011. Web.
Flood, L, D Anxo & J Rubery, ‘The future of European labor supply’ Feminist Economist, vol. 7, no. 3, 2001, pp 33-69
Fullerton, J & Kandola, R, Diversity in Action: managing the mosaic, CIPD, London, 1998
Garner, L, J Cai & R Walking, ‘Electing Directors’, Journal of Finance, vol. 64, no. 5, 2009, p 2387-2419
Grimshaw, G, C Fagan & J Rubery, Women and European employment, Routledge, London, 2005
Hansen, J & Plantenga, J, Benchmarking equal opportunities in the EU. Equal opportunities Unit report, Middlesex, 2007
Havnor, A, Partnership, political will and agency gender mainstreaming in the central administration of Norway, EU public policy workshop, London, 2000
Helfferich, B & Kolb, F, The case of European women’s lobby, University of Wisconsin Madison working papers, 2007
Hepple, B, Choudhury, T, & Coussey, M, Equality: report of the review of UK antidiscrimination legislation, Hart, London, 2000
Higgs, D, Review of the effectiveness and role of non-executive directors, Department of trade and industry, UK, London, 2003
Hoskyns, C, Mainstreaming gender in the EU’s macroeconomic policy, ECPR conference paper, Bologna, 2004
Huijser, M, A cultural advantage-a new model for succeeding with global teams, Surrey, Walton on Thames, 2009
Hutchings, P, A business case for diversity, Leornian Consulting report, London, 2006
Jones, E, ‘The politics of Europe 1999: spring cleaning’, Industrial relations journal, Vol. 31, no. 4, 2000, pp247-260
Jonsdottir, T, ‘An explanatory study of the effect of gender demographics on nonexecutive directors’ Cranfield Management school unpublished manuscript, 2006
Kurma, S, S Vinnicombe S & V Singh, Women in formal corporate networks’ Women in management review, vol. 21, no. 6, 2006, pp 458-482
Lattman, P & Craig, S, ‘Companies may fail but directors are in demand’ New York Times, 2010, p15
Leyens, P & Hopt, K ‘Board Models in Europe-recent developments of internal corporate governance structures in France, UK, Italy and Germany’ ECGI working paper, Berlin, 2004,
Mainiero, L, ‘On breaking the glass ceiling: Political seasoning of powerful women executives’, Organisational Dynamics, vol. 22, No. 4, pp 4-20
Martin, L, I, Warren-Smith, J, Scott & S, Roper, ‘Boards of directors and gender diversity in UK companies’, Gender in Management Journal, vol. 28, no. 3, 2008, pp194 -208
Maxey, S, ‘Gender mainstreaming strategies in the EU’ Feminist legal studies, vol. 10, no. 13, 2002, pp 227-240
McNamara, C, Overview of responsibilities and roles of the corporate board of directors. Free management library, London, 2008
Micklethwait, J & Wooldridge, A, The company – a short history of a revolutionary idea, NY, Modern library, 2003
Nabarro, N, Valuing diversity, managing a best practice. Industrial society, vol. 3, no. 78, 2000, p3-15
Odgers, B, Nonexecutive recruitment Paper presented to the Foundation Trust Governor’s Association, UK, London, 2009
OECD, Women and structural change new perspectives, OECD report, Paris, 2004
Oscar, H, ‘Discrimination in terms of moral exclusion’, Swedish journal of philosophy, vol. 76, no. 3, 2010, pp 346-364
Pesonen, S, S Vanhala, J Tienari, ‘The boardroom gender paradox’, Gender in management, vol. 24, no.5, 2009, pp327-345
Phillips, A, Which Equalities matter? Polity Press, Melbourne, 1999
Race and Employment Directive EC 54/506 [2000] OJ
Race Directive EC 73/104 [2002] OJ
Rees, T, Mainstreaming equality in the EU, Routledge, London, 1998
Ritchie, M & Ritchie, A, Eltel-UK Limited-Company Diversity and equal opportunities policy statement, Eltel-UK Ltd, 2011, Web.
Reilly, A, J Brett, & L Stroh, ‘Family structure, glass ceiling & traditional explanations for a differential rate of male and female managers’ Vocational behavior, vol. 49, no. 1, 1996, pp 99-118
Rodrigues, M, ‘Strategy and governance for the knowledge economy in Europe,’ Society for the advancement of socio-economics conference, Amsterdam, 2001
Rubery, J, ‘Gender mainstreaming and gender equality in the EU: the impact of the EU employment strategy’, Industrial relations journal, vol. 33, no. 5, 2002, 500-523
Rubery, J, Evaluation of the UK National plan: a gender equality perspective, Expert Group on gender and employment report, Amsterdam, 2000
Rutherford, S & Ollerearnshaw, S, The business of diversity, Schneider-Ross, London, 2002
Sanglin, S, Divided by the same language: equal opportunities and diversity translated, Runnymede Trust, London, 2003
Schomann, K & O’Reilly J, Labour markets, gender and institutional change, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2002
Sealy, R, How senior women experience extreme gender imbalanced work environments, British academy of management conference, Brighton, 2009
Sealy, R, E Doldor & S Vinnicombe, Increasing diversity in public and private sector boards, International center for women leaders, Cranfield, 2009
Shoosmiths, Diversity in the boardroom: EHRC to target companies, 2011, Web.
Singh, V, ‘Ethnic diversity on top corporate boards: a resource dependency perspective.’ International Journal of Human resource management, vol. 18, No. 2, 2006, pp 2128-2146
Singh, V, S Vinnicombe & R Burke, Women on corporate boards of directors, Edwars Elgar, Cheltenham, 2008
Smith, M, J Rubery & C Fagan, Gender Equality and the European employment strategy, European expert group on gender and employment report, London, 2001
Smith, A & Plimmer, G, ‘International diversity of UK boards grows’ Financial Times, 2011, 16
Stern, I & Westphal, J, ‘The other pathway to the boardroom: Interpersonal influence behavior as a substitute for majority status and elite credentials’, Administrative science quarterly, vol. 51, no. 2, pp 169-204
Stratigaki, M, ‘Gender mainstreaming vs Positive action: An Ongoing conflict in EU Gender Equality policy’, European journal of women’s studies, vol. 12, no. 2, 2005, 165-186
Stratigaki, M. ‘Cooptation of gender concepts in EU policies: the case of reconciliation of work and family’, Social Politics, vol. 11, no. 1, 2009, pp 30-56
Sullivan, S & Mainiero, L, Why People are leaving companies to create kaleidoscope careers, Davies-Black, Mountain View, CA, 2006
Tutelman, H, The balance point: new ways business owners can use boards, Family Press London, 2008
‘UK lags behind Nordic nations inequality for female executives’, The Observer, 2011, p 15
Verloo, M, Another Velvet revolution? Gender mainstreaming and the politics of implementation, Institute for human science, Vienna, 2006
Wheatley, R & Speechley, C, Developing a culture for diversity, Mayfair, London, 2007
Wielnser, W & Ng, E, ‘Are men always picked over women? Effects of employment equity directives on selection decisions’, Business Ethics, vol. 76, no. , pp 177-187
Wilson, F, Organisational behavior and gender, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2003
Woodward, A, ‘European Gender Mainstreaming: promises and pitfalls of transformative policy’, Policy research review, vol. 20, no.1, 2003, pp 65-88
Yeandle, S, Diversity and Change in France, Germany, UK & Denmark, McMillan, Basingstoke, 2006