Beyond the status quo, centring women in the Westminster system in the Commonwealth Caribbean: a preliminary analysis

Abstract

Globally women form a small minority of national parliaments and continue to face a number of obstacles in their struggle for greater political equality and indeed the Commonwealth Caribbean is no different. I argue that the culture of political parties and Westminster institutional arrangements not only fail to create the political opportunity structure that would enable women to participate more fully in political life but also constrain their ability to change the agenda setting. The article begins with a cursory discussion of the state of democracy in the Commonwealth Caribbean, reviews the debate on the need for gender equality and sets the context of the Commonwealth Caribbean by way of a brief discussion of the participation of women in politics. It acknowledges the persistence of male-dominated political institutions and the continuation of a political culture within political parties that does little to encourage women's political participation. The final section of the paper reviews the attempts to bring legislative reform on such issues as domestic violence and sexual harassment.

Keywords:

• Westminster model
• representational politics
• women
• political opportunity structure
• agenda setting
• political presence
• democracy

Caribbean democracy at a glance

The relative success of democracy in the English-Speaking Caribbean has perplexed many a non-Caribbean political scientist and social commentator. All that is generally said of our democracy is that the success of our political system is nothing short of remarkable. Not only do our present constitutions exhibit Western traditions of liberal democracy with its emphasis on structures, duties and procedures, but all Commonwealth Caribbean constitutions define the ‘fundamental rights’ of citizens, including equality before the law, freedom of association and speech, and personal liberty. Jamaican-born political scientist Trevor Munroe frequently reminds us that, despite the hardships, the Caribbean states remain distinctive in the extent of stable party governance, the frequency of free and fair elections, the routine exchange of power when oppositions accede to office by constitutional means, the absence of one-party dictatorship, the absence of police-military rule, and the absence of civil war and political assassinations (Transparency International, 2005). All of this occurring in a context of undeveloped economies, thus challenging the conventional wisdom at the time that democracy can only thrive in countries that are capitalist, wealthy and growing economically.

Yet a closer examination of the status of democracy regionally would reveal that there remain important areas that require careful and immediate attention. We certainly cannot always claim that parliament is robust, that political abuses do not occur, that corruption is at a minimum, nor for that matter can we rejoice given the level of political participation that we witness at elections. In the case of elections, there is ample evidence that while voter turnout in all the Caribbean countries compares favourably with those in newer and older democracies, its declining rates are a major cause of concern. Given what is at stake at elections, it is surprising how few Caribbean people turn out to vote.¹ As Table 1 shows, with an average turnout in the majority of states hovering around 60 per cent, such trends suggest a decline in citizens’ interest in politics. Even more troublesome is the result of local government elections where these have been legislated. In the recently concluded local government elections in Trinidad and Tobago, voter turnout rate was between 26 per cent and 27 per cent of the 1 million plus registered voters. Additionally, the region still grapples with the issue of intra-party democracy as exhibited in countries such as Jamaica, St Lucia, Barbados, and Trinidad and Tobago to name a few.

Table 1. Voter turnout in selected commonwealth Caribbean countries 2005–2013.

Country	Year of election	Voter turnout %
Antigua and Barbuda	2004	91.2
	2009	80.27
Barbados	2008	63.34
	2013	65.9
Belize	2008	74.49
	2012	73.16
Dominica	2005	59.01
Grenada	2008	80.0
	2013	87.0
Guyana	2006	68.28
	2011	69.4
Jamaica	2007	61.46
	2011	52.7
St Kitts/Nevis	2004	53.3
	2010	81.24
St Lucia	2006	58.5
	2011	56.14
St Vincent and the Grenadines	2005	63.7
	2010	62.33
Trinidad and Tobago	2007	66.0
	2010	69.45

Note: Compiled from several sources including election reports.

In commenting on the quality of democracy and governance in the Commonwealth Caribbean, Guyanese political scientist Hinds (2008, p. 401) argues that

 … governance in societies such as those in the Caribbean, with depressed economies that are rife with poverty, is a complex undertaking; impatience and restlessness born of unfulfilled demands and promises constantly test the limits of the government's democratic temper.

He states further (Hinds, 2008, p. 401) that

When one compares the region to Africa, Latin America, and Asia, it is not unreasonable to posit that the region has done reasonably well, particularly given the inherent challenges of post-colonialism and the entrenched authoritarian political culture inherited from colonialism. However, the inability to transform the institutions and culture to meet the demands for empowerment and equality must remain a major cause for concern. While the first four decades of independence can be seen as a period of growing up, of trial and error, the reality of the current period demands an urgently new maturity. Part of this maturity requires, among other things, a rethinking of governance and democracy that takes into consideration the need for broader participation and political inclusion beyond that provided by periodic elections.

Democracy, representational politics and gender

Traditionally, democracy was seen essentially in terms of the diversity of ideas. Seen through this lens, democracy found expression in representative democracy and therefore elections were viewed as its cornerstone – for which of course the Caribbean is no exception. As Ann Phillips therefore argues, ‘The messages will vary, but it hardly matters if the messengers are the same’ (Phillips, 1998, p. 6). Today we are witnessing a major reframing of democracy to include issues of equality, good governance and political presence. Increasingly therefore many of the more contemporary arguments on democracy hinge on its overall quality. One strand of scholarship focuses on democratic renewal. Emphasis is placed on poorly functioning democracies moving beyond what are described as ‘paper’ institutions of horizontal accountability. In that vein, Diamond argues that these institutions generally ‘do not perform effectively to control corruption and to tame abuses of power’ (2008, p. 303). In the view of Diamond (2008, p. 303), this tendency is promoted given the failure to provide authority, autonomy and sufficient resources to operate. For him therefore

Institutions must be reformed and strengthened, restructured to fit together comprehensively, revitalized with more resources and authority, and insulated to ensure political independence and vigor.

The second scholarly tendency centres on what is variously referred to as ‘political presence’, that is, the demand for the political inclusion of groups that have come to see themselves as marginalised or silenced or excluded. Unlike the earlier, representative, interpretation of democracy, increasingly democracy is viewed not primarily about ideas but also about adequate representation of the different social groups. In other words, we are witnessing a shift towards democracy as representation of identity politics. Phillips notes

Changing the gender composition of elected assemblies is a major, and necessary, challenge to the social arrangements which have systematically placed women in a subordinate position; and whether we conceive of politics as the representation of interest or need (or both), a closer approximation to gender parity is one minimal condition for transforming the political agenda. (1998, p. 82)

While these arguments are a more recent trend in political science, nonetheless renowned political scientist Lijphart had long pointed out that in multi-ethnic societies, that is, societies defined by diversity of groups, traditional political systems would fail (1995, pp. 853–865). He therefore argued that majority rule is not only undemocratic but is also dangerous as minorities that are continually denied access to power will feel excluded and discriminated against and ultimately will lose their allegiance to the regime. Lijphart therefore provided a theory of consensual democracy focused on inclusiveness in which executive power and economic resources would be distributed in proportion to the size of the different communities. Consensual democracy is therefore seen by many as a solution to the vexing political problems of such societies. Oftentimes this includes a demand for the equal representation of women with men; and demands for greater balance between the different ethnic groups that make up each society. The latter is especially critical in multi-ethnic and often deeply polarised communities. In that regard, the debate on the political inclusion of women fits squarely into this perspective as it bears a similar thread except that from a practical point of view women do not form a discrete political grouping.

Achieving political equality for women: the international and regional context

In the modern and contemporary period, gender equality was and is essentially viewed as a human rights issue. Thus the international system for the protection of human rights which dates back to the early twentieth century adopted a number of declarations and conventions in this area. A substantial number of declarations and conventions approved by the United Nations and other specialised agencies for instance, touch on and in some cases deal at length with the issue of gender equality. Among the most critical of these are the Charter of the United Nations (1945); the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); the Convention on the Political Rights of Women (1952); the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966); the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (1967); the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979) and the Optional Protocol thereto (1999); and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998). A common thread in all of the above is the recognition that gender equality and the increasing inclusion of women in national social, political and economic life is a critical human right. Beyond these formal instruments, there exist a wide-ranging number of political commitments to which sovereign states have committed. These include the 1995 Platform for Action of the Fourth World Conference on Women, which is heralded as the most specific plan of action in defence of women's social, political and economic rights. The Platform of Action sees participation in the decision-making process and access to power as fundamental to the achievement of equality, development and peace. In addition to outlining the commitments of the signatory governments, the Platform for Action urges a range of actors to take measures in support of women's participation in all levels of power and decision-making. These include but are not limited to political parties, the private sector, trade unions, national, regional and sub-regional bodies.

In that regard, the Platform for Action (United Nations, 1996, p. 85) states quite clearly that

[w]omen's equal participation in decision-making is not only a demand for simple justice or democracy but can also be seen as a necessary condition for women's interests to be taken into account. Without the active participation of women and the incorporation of women's perspective at all levels of decision-making, the goals of equality, development and peace cannot be achieved.

In 1985, the United Nations also adopted the Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies which highlight the type of action critical to the achievement of equality by the year 2000. The Nairobi Strategies emphasised both the requirement of full observance of the equal rights of women and the need to eliminate both de jure and de facto discrimination against women.

At the level of the Commonwealth, the Singapore Declaration of Commonwealth Principles, 1971 represents one of the earliest expressions of the Commonwealth's commitment to democratic enhancement throughout its member states. Signatories to the 1971 Declaration affirmed their commitment to not only securing the liberty of the individual and equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief, but also to the inalienable right of people to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which they live. Moreover, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) called on governments to take every measure to reduce gender inequality in the political, public and private sectors by the year 2005.² It was anticipated that Commonwealth member states would achieve the target goal of women occupying 30 per cent of key decision-making positions in the critical social, economic and political sectors by 2005. While it remains highly contentious, the assumption is that 30 per cent constitutes the critical mass capable of producing a capacity to effect appropriate gender representation of attitudes and behaviours.

Furthermore, The Millennium Declaration of 2001 commits member states to the promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women by 2015.³ Indeed, the United Nations recognised that the failure to achieve the empowerment of women would compromise the possibility of achieving the other major goals outlined under the Declaration. The United Nations (UNDP, 2005, p. 2) explicitly states that

Since gender equality is the essential underpinning for the achievement of all other Goals, the failure to achieve gender equality targets will have a domino effect, compromising progress on other Goals and targets.

This position is also compatible with the Latimer House Guidelines adopted by the Commonwealth, which aim to promote good governance, the rule of law and human rights (CPA: Latimer House Principles, 2003).⁴

With respect to the achievement of these goals, a cursory look at national parliaments globally would show that in the 1990s only six parliaments showed a 30 per cent female representation. As Table 2 shows, 20 years later, the statistics reveal that there has been phenomenal growth in the number of countries engaging in change. Indeed in 2008, 24 countries had surpassed the target goal of 30 per cent. According to the World's Women Report 2010, while in 1995 women only constituted 10 per cent of representation in lower or single houses of national parliaments, there has been a slow and steady improvement in the representation of women in national parliaments worldwide, increasing to 17 per cent by April 2009 (United Nations, 2010). The report further notes that since 1995, all regions have showed progress in improving gender balance in national parliaments. The Scandinavian countries have recorded an exceptionally high level of female representation in their national parliaments with approximately 38 per cent of the parliamentary seats. On average, Western Europe showed the highest percentage of female representation in national parliaments, averaging 29 per cent (United Nations, 2010, pp. 112–113).

Table 2. Proportion of women in lower or single-chamber parliaments.

Region	1995	1999	2009
World	10	11	17
Africa
Northern Africa	4	3	10
Southern Africa	12	14	24
Eastern, Middle and Western Africa	8	9	16
Asia
Central Asia	8	8	19
Eastern Asia	12	13	14
South Eastern Asia	9	12	20
Southern Asia	5	5	16
Western Asia	4	5	9
Latin America and the Caribbean
The Caribbean	13	13	17
Central America	10	13	19
South America	9	13	20
Oceania	2	4	3
More developed regions
Eastern Europe	9	10	17
Western Europe	20	23	29
Other more developed regions	12	18	22

Source: World's Women Report (2010).

Women in politics in Africa have also been making tremendous strides both in the elected parliaments and in the executive branch of government. According to the 2010 World's Women Report, in all sub-regions of Africa and in four out of five sub-regions in Asia, the average proportion of women in the lower or single houses of parliament doubled or more than doubled. Indeed globally gender balance is greatest in Rwanda where women make up half of the members of parliament. In the 2008 elections in Rwanda, women took a majority of the parliament seats having won 56.3 per cent of the seats in the lower chamber. This was further increased in the September 2013 general elections where women took a majority of the parliamentary seats having secured 63.8 per cent (51/80) of the seats in the lower chamber. In addition to Rwanda, South Africa currently has at least 40 per cent female representation in parliament. Mozambique and Angola also have more than 30 per cent representation of women in their parliaments. In the 1994 elections in Mozambique as a direct result of the adoption and enforcement of a 30 per cent gender quota adopted by FRELIMO, women's representation in the legislature increased to 24.4 per cent. By 2010, women's representation in Mozambique had further increased to 30 per cent.

The World's Women Report 2010 notes that Western Asia remains one geographical region where women's representation remains low although the region has experienced an improvement from an exceptionally low average (4 per cent) in 1995 to the current low of 9 per cent. The Report further observed that Southern Asia has ‘had a particularly notable improvement, helped no doubt by a positive intervention by several governments through such legislation as the implementation of candidate quotas and reserved seats’. In contrast, Eastern Asia and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand) have seen very little increase in their share of women in the national parliaments and in 2009 actually experienced a small decline (United Nations, 2010).⁵

Regionally, with the exception of Guyana which has adopted a quota system, the English-speaking Caribbean has failed to meet the commitment to increase women's representation in a substantial way. Barrow-Giles and Joseph pointed out that of the nearly 3000 persons who participated in general elections in the English-Speaking Caribbean (Guyana excluded) as candidates from 1992 to 2005 nearly 90 per cent were males (Barrow-Giles & Joseph, 2006). Indeed V. Eudine Barriteau has argued that

Even though women have been able to vote and stand for elections for over sixty years in the Caribbean, at the end of the decade of the 1990s the region still lacks a critical mass of women as key political decision makers. (Barriteau, 2003, p. 212)

To be sure these numbers compare favourably with the position of women in Asia and Africa where less than 10 per cent of national parliamentary seats were occupied by women during the same time period. However as the above shows, a comparative review of women in politics in several African states would show that the Caribbean ranks at the bottom of the global community with the Arab and Pacific States.

Table 3 shows that universal adult suffrage in the Commonwealth Caribbean did not automatically correspond to political equality for women as it has not led to a plethora of women legislators. The 1944 general elections which were held in Jamaica fielded two women who were unsuccessful. Trinidad and Tobago, and Barbados also saw women contesting national elections in 1950 and 1951, with the other countries selecting women as candidates in the 1970s and 1980s. However from 1944 to 1984 less than 10 per cent of election candidates were women. The period 1984–2014 also shows that men were at least six times more likely to be selected as candidates for general elections. More than six decades after the first general elections were held in the Commonwealth Caribbean, women continue to be extremely marginalised in national parliaments (Barrow-Giles & Joseph, 2006).

Table 3. Status of women in selected Commonwealth Caribbean representation in the lower house (Elected Chamber) 2013.

Country	World ranking 190	# Women	% Women
Trinidad and Tobago	33	12	28.6
St Vincent and the Grenadines	79	4	17.4
St Lucia	83	3	16.7
Grenada	97	2	13.3
Bahamas	98	5	13.2
Jamaica	99	8	12.7
Antigua and Barbuda	109	2	10.5
Barbados	113	3	10.0
St Kitts–Nevis	125	1	5.7

Furthermore, the World's Women Report of 2000 noted that CARICOM member states were marked by the inequality between men and women in the sharing of power and decision-making (United Nations, 2000). Unfortunately not much has changed since that 2000 Report as there is little evidence of change strategies. No major policy initiatives or programmatic initiatives designed to advance women's role politically have taken place at the level of the state.

Though the English-speaking Caribbean has done considerably better than several developing countries, nonetheless more political space needs to be created for women, as the examples of the newly emerging democracies of Rwanda, Mozambique and South Africa show. To be sure, it was only with intense lobbying over a prolonged period by feminists and women activists in several states in Africa and Latin America that legislation was passed which required political parties to fill at least 40 per cent of their candidate lists with women. Despite the call for temporary special measures by such groups as the Jamaican civil society group 51 per cent Coalition: Women in Partnership for Development and Empowerment through Equity, which is lobbying and advocating for the introduction of a quota system in the country, this has not been the case in the Commonwealth Caribbean.

The politics of presence and institutional challenges

The aforementioned shows that in the last 30 years, we have witnessed efforts on the part of a vast majority of governments to improve women's political position. In contrast, the near absence of a similar defining ethos in the Commonwealth Caribbean is particularly glaring given the importance that the Caribbean has attached to its democratic development. This can be compared to the strides that have been made by emerging democracies which have had a long tradition of non-democratic practices. It is this limited historical and contemporary representation of women in national political life that makes it imperative that Caribbean political leadership give careful consideration to the fuller incorporation of women politically.

For sure, political parties remain critical to women's entry into competitive politics. First, political parties in the Commonwealth Caribbean are male dominated and the internal structures remain sexually segregated, often exhibiting a high degree of gender discrimination, with insubstantial integration of women at the level of the decision-making structures of the party. Their structures and operations are primarily influenced by strong patriarchal norms. Given that these parties undertake the primary responsibility for the recruitment, selection and the support of these candidates for the purpose of elections, they remain central to women's entry into competitive politics.

A review of the internal structures of political parties in the region would show that the primary decision-making body, that is the Central or National Executive, often fails to incorporate women or limits them to playing a subordinate role. While some party constitutions such as the People's National Party – one of the oldest political parties in Trinidad and Tobago – show that attempts have been made to effect the representation of women in the party's base and constituency units, as well as the party's executive body, this is not always the case across the region. For the most part women are confined to playing the role of deputy chairperson of committees and currently almost every major political party regionally has made provisions for women's arms. These arms or leagues are unfortunately not always fully integrated or are insufficiently integrated into the critical policy-making bodies.

Second, even where women have succeeded in securing the support of the decision-making body with respect to the nomination process, they must toe the party line. Indeed several scholars have shown how political parties fundamentally shape the pursuit of women's policy issues. They contend that parties act as mediators in terms of how women represent women. In that vein, Osborn argues that political parties not only organise alternatives on women's issues, but they also create the legislative structure through which these alternatives are considered (2012). According to Osborn, women run for political office as partisans and precisely because of that partisan identity, women enter the legislative process with ideas about how to represent women that are shaped and often limited by the party under which they sought election (2012). This she describes as the partisan effect – a tendency confirmed in Cecilia McAlmont's analysis of the status of Guyanese women parliamentarians up to the early 1990s. According to McAlmont (2011, p. 3), these women

 … spoke on issues that followed the agenda set by the male dominated cabinet or opposition party, and these were not always issues that were of major concern to the majority of women. There were not enough women parliamentarians to force gender issues to the front burner.

McAlmont further contends that women members of the executive possessed ‘little clout’, adding that they had very little to say in the allocation of resources for programmes in support of women.

In addition to the partisan effect of parties, Osborn contends that as legislators, women parliamentarians encounter the second effect of parties which she defines as ‘institutional partisan structure’ (2012). For Osborn, this institutional partisan structure is shaped by two factors. First, the impact of the ‘institutional partisan structure’ depends on the party that controls the legislative process and, second, the degree of control. These two factors she concludes have the potential to enhance or reduce women's underlying partisan inclinations for addressing women's policy concerns (Osborn, 2012).

Certainly in parliamentary democracies like the Commonwealth Caribbean, given the requirement of strong party line, and collective responsibility, it is difficult for women to deviate from the party line and to influence the cabinet given the few women who are part of the inner circle of government. To do so would in fact result in the undermining of the stability of the party and the government. It is this which has led to the very strong view that the increased presence of women in parliament has not been sufficiently translated into changes as it is difficult under such circumstances to set the agenda. Indeed, as Sue Thomas argues, in legislatures where women constituted at least 20 per cent, there was a greater tendency for women to introduce/sponsor legislation concerning women, families and children than their male counterparts (Thomas, 1994). As indicated above, in most Commonwealth Caribbean jurisdictions, women have only on a rare occasion constituted 20 per cent of the elected chamber and these have been confined to Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada in 1999 and since 2013, and Guyana which has adopted a quota system. As such, the critical mass required to initiate policy changes rarely exists in the Commonwealth Caribbean and is further compounded by the institutional context of Westminster.

Thomas further concluded that where women constituted less than 10 per cent, women and men did not differ in their sponsorship of legislation. This was further corroborated by the work of Christina Wolbrecht who found that between 1953 and 1992, women legislators in the US House of Representatives substantially changed the congressional agenda concerning women's citizenship in a number of ways (Wolbrecht, 2000). Not only were these women pivotal to the introduction of specific legislation designed to fundamentally address women's rights, but they were also instrumental in advancing bills that diversified the scope of solutions to women's rights problems. Where such sponsorship was impractical women worked with key male counterparts in co-sponsoring more legislation to empower women. While the US political model differs substantially from that of Westminster, especially in its ability to provide legislators with the political space to deviate from the party line, nonetheless such experience does have relevance for women operating in other jurisdictions. Accordingly Dame Billie Miller, former deputy Prime Minister under the Owen Arthur led Barbados Labour Party Government, noted that her ability to pursue important pieces of legislation was facilitated by key male counterparts in the Barbados House of Assembly.⁶

So how do we achieve change in the absence of stronger presence? Globally where women have successfully done so, the formation of a cross party caucus has been instrumental. In Jamaica, a Women's Political Caucus existed as an NGO, operated by female community activists, to support and facilitate the participation of women in politics. In Grenada too, a Women's Caucus (Grenada Women's Parliamentary Caucus) was formed of both past and present parliamentarians to provide mentorship, give a voice to women's issues while supporting women's desire to enter parliament.

In the context of the paucity of research in the region on women in national parliaments, it is unclear whether these strategies have resulted in major policy changes or have translated into a major increase in the presence of women in national elected parliaments. However, in Grenada for instance, where women currently occupy one-third of the seats in the fifteen member House of Representatives, women across the political divide have organised national forums to discuss issues of mutual interest.⁷ Unfortunately, these women have found themselves severely constrained by the culture of Westminster. Several women politicians in Grenada and elsewhere in the region have privately expressed their frustrations with working with their male counterparts to advance specific legislation to improve women's socio-economic position and other general social reform. Given the strong emphasis on party discipline, Westminster parliamentary politics does not lend itself to women individually or collectively making radical or progressive changes or impacting on the policy-making agenda as the system does not permit internal confrontation. Thus, women politicians, more often than not even while they may seek to influence the official views of the party, do not challenge the party priorities as open gender-based differences are frowned upon. In that regard, Wendy Grenade notes that

Working with the Grenada Women's Parliamentary Caucus I observed that women parliamentarians had greater cohesiveness outside of parliament. Based on my interaction with them, it was clear that they identified as women and advocated for women's issues in the caucus. However in parliament they identified more with their respective parties.⁸

One of the most troubling aspects of the Westminster arrangement therefore is the manner in which parliament is divided between adversaries, which clearly does not provide a climate for collaboration. The emphasis on strict party line, non-cross voting on the floor of parliament, the confidentiality rule and the possibility of a no-confidence motion, while contributing to general political stability, does little to cultivate a culture of cooperation. It is these tendencies of the political system that makes it difficult for women to act as independent actors in the political system. Hinds (2008) for instance points to these limitations of the Westminster parliamentary model in the Caribbean contending that it is not only built on adversarial politics which confers on the winning party absolute power and the losing party no power, but one which unfortunately fails to incorporate the interests of the losing party in the national agenda. Hinds (2008, pp. 404–405) further contends that given this dysfunctionality of Westminster, democracy in the Caribbean is

 … confined largely to free and fair elections and other Westminster rules … . The definition, and practice, of democracy needs to go beyond the procedural and include the substantive, while always holding on to free and fair elections and the rule of law as underlying guiding principles. Such a definition, and its attendant practice, must include both formal rules and procedures and involve substantive elements such as the broad participation of the masses of people in decision making and an absence of group dominance.

Moreover, under Westminster the work of parliament is often divided along committee lines. Most parliaments in the Commonwealth Caribbean are relatively small with Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Bahamas having the largest parliaments. The size of these parliaments often does not permit the appointment of an extensive number of committees and thus by default the bulk of parliamentary work is actually conducted by the cabinet of ministers where women are insignificant in terms of numbers. In combination with the small number of women being elected into the House of Representatives, they are therefore unable to significantly impact policy-making at that level. In Jamaica for instance, the Select Committee for Human Resources and Social Development which comprises eleven parliamentarians, four of whom are women, deals with issues which women it is argued have traditionally favoured. Of the remaining thirteen committees of the House of Representatives, women are excluded from four. Noteworthy is the fact that the Jamaican House of Representatives has only eight women.

Consequently in the context of the existing institutional configuration and composition of parliaments in the Commonwealth Caribbean, women acting in their own spaces have been unable to exercise or exert much leverage with regards to the myriad of issues that require action. As discussed above women represent less than 20 per cent of elected parliaments in the Commonwealth Caribbean, and this does not provide them with the critical mass to influence or shape the policy environment in any substantial manner. Even where it appears that women do have a critical mass, as in Grenada, it has been difficult for them to overcome the practices and conventions of Westminster.

Given that the literature suggests that a critical mass to inform and shape the agenda setting is a minimum of 20–30 per cent, it certainly begs the question as to what if anything Caribbean female parliamentarians can undertake. It is often felt that female legislators would show greater concern with such issues as domestic violence, human trafficking, poverty eradication, child care, sexual harassment and equal employment opportunity among others. Not only have such issues not been a significant part of the national conversation but there has been little to no debate in parliaments regionally on a number of these issues. Indeed, given this under-researched area in the Commonwealth Caribbean, it is difficult, nearly impossible at this time to empirically conclude that women parliamentarians sponsor more bills dealing with the substantive areas that it is assumed that women ought to promote. In conversation with a leading feminist academic at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill campus, on the role and impact of female parliamentarians in pushing through that agenda, she stated that ‘Nothing Really. Them don't do nothing’.⁹ Comments like these which paint an unsympathetic portrait of female legislators’ policy initiatives regionally reflect the general cynicism that many Caribbean people feel towards women parliamentarians, but fail to capture some of the back-breaking work that a few Caribbean female parliamentarians have done to advance legislation in some areas such as aging. For example Pennelope Beckles, former parliamentarian and Minister of Social Development in Trinidad and Tobago, is associated with the establishment of the Division of Ageing which is charged with the overall responsibility of improving and transforming the lives of the senior citizens (Thomas & Barrow-Giles, 2011, pp. 81–86). The experience of Dame Billie Miller of Barbados as a young parliamentarian in the late 1970s and early 1980s is also instructive. While a number of persons are associated with the passage of the decriminalisation of medical termination of pregnancy act, Miller spearheaded the struggle in parliament which ultimately led to its enactment in 1983 (Miller & Parris, 2012, pp. 39–58). A critical point to make here is the fact that Miller does not take sole credit for its passage. For there was at the time a number of drivers which shaped the debate on abortion and which created an environment that perhaps was a little more enabling than an earlier period. For sure, the role of the Family Planning Association of Barbados at the time headed by a prominent businessman Jack Dear, the women's movement which came on board, and a sympathetic Prime Minister in the person of J.M.G.M. (Tom) Adams and an acquiescent Attorney General were all critical to the process (Miller & Parris, 2012, pp. 39–58).

Another illustration can be drawn from St Lucia in 2004 where the St Lucia Labour Party passed a Bill which sought to permit legal abortion under special circumstances. Under the proposed legislation women would now have the legal right to terminate their pregnancy during the first trimester under strict conditions. These included instances of rape, incest and ‘grave permanent injury to the woman’. In this case, the Minister with responsibility for Home Affairs and Gender Relations, Sarah Flood-Beaubrun parted company with the government on the grounds that the bill did not recognise the human rights of unborn children. Her subsequent firing by the Prime Minister is also indicative of the constraints that the Westminster model operates under. In this case Flood-Beaubrun's vote against the bill in parliament violated the convention of party cohesiveness and collective responsibility, and she paid the most severe penalty for such deviation.

Ultimately, in terms of the broader institutional environment of the parliamentary model, even in the context of a women's political caucus, the character of voting in parliament remains substantially intact. However under such circumstances a women's caucus can certainly serve as a deliberative arena for shaping legislative and political strategies. And indeed several women legislators have co-sponsored and worked alongside women activists outside of parliament to promote change with respect to such issues as domestic violence and sexual harassment.

The status of domestic violence and sexual harassment in the English-speaking Caribbean

Domestic violence and sexual harassment legislation have long been championed by women's groups across the Caribbean. This has also been fuelled by developments at the international level. However, as the United Nations report on Drugs and Crime in Latin America and the Caribbean Region notes, gender-based violence in the region is pervasive.¹⁰ The report further states that violence against women affects a significant percentage of women and girls in the Caribbean, which has 3 of the top 10 recorded rape rates in the world. While the worldwide average for rape was 15 per 100,000, the Bahamas had an average of 133, St Vincent and the Grenadines 112, Jamaica 51, Dominica 34, Barbados 25 and Trinidad and Tobago 18. The report further revealed that in nine Caribbean countries 48 per cent of adolescent girls’ sexual initiation was ‘forced’ or ‘somewhat forced’. The St Kitts–Nevis non-governmental organisation Change Centre points to the prevalence of domestic violence in the twin island Federation, noting that such violence tends to be swept under the rug because society tends to consider it a private family issue and parents are generally embarrassed when children are abused and normally will not say anything. They further claim that the small size of the country militates against widespread condemnation of such violence driven largely by fear and embarrassment. Other reasons highlighted by the Group for the seemingly high tolerance of domestic violence are the inadequacy of the criminal justice system and the payment of bribes to victims of such crimes.¹¹ Table 4 shows the countries that have enacted legislation on domestic violence.

Table 4. Status of national legislation on domestic violence in the Caribbean.

Country	Year passed	National legislation/year of enactment
Anguilla		2011
Antigua and Barbuda		1999
Argentina		1994
Bahamas	1991	1991 (amended in 2007)
Barbados		1992
Belize		1992 (amended 2007)
Dominica		2001
Dominican Republic		1997
Grenada	2001	2001 (replaced 2010)
Guyana		1996
Jamaica	1995	1996 (amended 2004)
St Kitts–Nevis	2001	2005
St Lucia		1995 (revised 2005)
St Vincent and the Grenadines		1995
Trinidad and Tobago	1991	1991 (strengthened1999)

Note: Compiled from national reports.

In 1991, Trinidad and Tobago became the first English-Speaking Caribbean countries to pass a Domestic Violence Act which grants victims the right to petition courts for orders of protection against their abusers. An amended Act of 1999 broadened the categories of persons to whom the domestic violence law applied. Since then a number of other Commonwealth Caribbean countries have enacted a similar legislation. In Jamaica, the enactment of such legislation in 1996 which was amended in 2004 and again in 2009 has also led to the establishment of the Centre for Investigation of Sexual Offences and Child Abuse, a special investigative unit within the police force. The Centre's major role is to help foster an enabling environment that seeks to encourage victims of domestic violence to report sexual victimisation, undertake efficient and effective investigation of allegations of sexual abuse, provide rehabilitation of victims and increase public education of victims on the issue of sexual victimisation. The 2009 Act makes new provisions for prosecution of rape and other sexual offences and provides for the establishment of a Sex Offender Registry.

Most of the legislation which has been enacted regionally is modelled on the Caribbean Community model legislation (1991) and sees domestic violence in the first instance as a non-criminal action. Second, where sexual harassment legislation exists, it addresses sexual harassment as a labour relations problem and provides civil remedies for those harassed at work. While, therefore, it was CARICOM which took the lead role in pushing through this model legislation, it remained for the individual Caribbean countries to carry forward legislative action. Unfortunately, the region has been quite slow to broaden the scope of existing legislation.

Interestingly while Belize has a poor record of female representation in parliament, it was one of the first countries to enact specific legislation with the Protection against Sexual Harassment Act 1996. From 1993 to 1998, Faith Stuart Babb, who served as Minister of State of the Ministry of Youth Development and Human Resources and also Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, was the sole woman in the elected chamber of the national parliament. This was followed by Bahamas and later Jamaica in 2007 with the enactment of an Anti-Sexual Harassment Bill. The Bahamas addresses this issue under the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Act, 1991 which makes sexual harassment a criminal offence. Elsewhere in the region, the common law can be used to provide remedies to persons who are victims of sexual harassment in the workplace by reliance on the law of torts (duty of care) and the law of contract (breach of implied trust/constructive dismissal). In St Lucia where legislation came much later for example, sexual harassment is regarded as a criminal offence and is treated under the Criminal Code and the Equality of Opportunity and Treatment in the Employment and Occupation Act. Barbados is currently in the process of designing a sexual harassment bill which is being sponsored by Minister of Labour, Esther Byer-Suckoo, herself a former elected parliamentarian under the 2008–2013 Democratic Labour Party administration. In direct reference to the political opportunity structure in Barbados, in 2011 Byer-Suckoo publicly stated that the draft legislation was in the making for 15 years but had not yet moved beyond the Executive level largely because the political opportunity structure was absent both institutionally and environmentally (The Barbados Advocate, 2011, September 4). According to her

I do not have as much support as I would like to have with this legislation as there are still a lot of people who are afraid of this legislation. They think that it would disrupt our society, that it is going to threaten every man and the way he relates to any woman and they think it will threaten the viability of small businesses by bringing tension in the workplace.

In a very candid comment, Byer-Suckoo summed up the general inability of female parliamentarians in the Commonwealth Caribbean to advance women's issues without the necessary alliance of male counterparts. In explaining the lack of a more aggressive progression of the legislation, Byer-Suckoo pointed to the tendency of the agenda setting for policy debate to be determined or co-sponsored by key male political figures. According to her, a male champion of the legislation was necessary in order to take the discussion ‘out of the realm of that combative nature of men against women’ (The Barbados Advocate, 2011, September 4).

This non-enabling environment within which women parliamentarians must function was also noted by Red Thread of Guyana which organised a series of protest marches against what they viewed as the failure to attack poverty and improve the lot of women. According to Red Thread (Kaiteur News, 2012, March 17), ‘The problem is that the women in Parliament account to their parties, not to all the women outside.’¹²

Conclusion: failing women

While the nation states of the region have signed on to a number of international agreements, action at the national level lags behind those stated commitments. Across the region, the dominance of males within the political party organisations and state institutions controlled by the party does not generally create an atmosphere which is congenial to the advancement of women's issues, unless supported by the political bosses. Undoubtedly the prevailing political culture of the political model with its emphasis on strong party line, adversarial politics and strong party discipline does not easily lend itself to the few elected women to dominate agenda setting. As a region however we must continue to devise strategies to consolidate the limited strides that we have taken while simultaneously seeking to expand in areas which are still unchartered. Some form of positive interventionism must be taken which should begin at the level of the political party. As I have argued elsewhere, political parties regionally show a rather steep pyramid in which women tend to congregate at the bottom and fade out at the top. This historical tendency must therefore be addressed. Comparatively speaking, a number of political parties outside of the region have therefore adopted measures to raise the proportion of women elected. Over four decades ago political parties in the Nordic countries introduced gender quotas for the selection of parliamentary candidates. In Latin America and Africa, this is increasingly popular. Yet the Caribbean has steadfastly refused to entertain such temporary affirmative measures in order to advance women's representation. In Jamaica for instance, for the December 2011 general elections, the Jamaica Labour Party nominated 13 women on a list of 63 candidates (20.6 per cent); the People's National Party nominated 6 women on a list of 63 candidates (9.5 per cent). This pattern is replicated throughout the region. Furthermore, constitutional reform commissions and public debate are generally silent on the issue.

The aforementioned observations on women and the existing political opportunity structure in the Commonwealth Caribbean are preliminary at best as much more work needs to be done. Throughout the region a number of other legislative actions have been passed which are associated with the efforts of women's groups. A closer in-depth look at these is required to make more definitive statements on the relationship between gender, institutional structures and agenda setting. In Guyana for instance, from 2000 to 2012, at least 10 acts of parliament addressed gender issues. What is unclear at this time is the precise impact women parliamentarians had on their passage. Certainly a closer look for example at Grenada after the 1999 elections in which one-third of the elected house was represented by women, and since 2013 when that feat was again repeated, is warranted. Such an analysis would provide a greater insight into whether or not an increased presence of women would lead to a transformation of gendered politics and the policy agenda.

Acknowledgements

The Author acknowledges the support of Professor Brian Meeks, Mona campus, UWI, Dr Kate Quinn, Institute of the Americas, UCL and the research assistance of Ms Ayodele Harper, Department of Government, Sociology and Social Work, Cave Hill campus, UWI.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Exceptions include Antigua and Barbuda, Belize and Grenada.

2. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association provides an important channel through which legislators in Commonwealth countries can consult each other on a regular basis, foster cooperation and mutual understanding, and promote good parliamentary practice.

3. These include strengthening the opportunities for post-primary education for girls while meeting commitments to universal primary education; guaranteeing sexual and reproductive health and rights; investing in infrastructure to reduce women's and girls’ time burden; guaranteeing women's and girls’ property and inheritance rights; increasing women's share of seats in national parliaments and local government bodies; and combating violence against girls and women.

4. Accordingly, Commonwealth governments committed themselves to five principles namely: democracy; the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary; just and honest government; fundamental human rights, including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief; and equality for women, so that they may exercise their full and equal rights.

5. The other five countries to have achieved what is considered to be above a critical mass for women's representation are Cuba, Argentina, Iceland and the Netherlands. According to the Report, four out of nine countries in Southern Asia have introduced quotas to boost female representation at the level of the national parliament (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan).

6. Dame Billie Miller's contribution to discussion on political parties and election campaign spending workshop organised by the Organisation of American States, Christ Church, Barbados, May 2013.

7. While women in Grenada currently occupy one-third of the elected seats in the House of Assembly, it may well have been as a direct result of the clean sweep of the New National Party headed by Prime Minister Keith Mitchell. In 1999, the New National Party also made a clean sweep winning all 15 parliamentary seats with five women on the slate of candidates. This feat was repeated in the 19 February 2013 general elections with Alexandra Otway-Noel, Clarice Modeste, Emmanlin Pierre, Delma Thomas and Yolande Bain-Horsford all securing victories. See Cynthia Barrow-Giles and Tennyson S. D. Joseph, (2006) and Caribbean Elections Today (2013, February 19). LANDSLIDE: NNP sweeps Grenada 2013 Election winning all 15 seats. Retrieved from http://www.caribbeanelections.com/blog/?p=2145.

8. Cynthia Barrow-Giles, email Interview with Wendy Grenade, 13 August 2014, Barbados.

9. Cynthia Barrow-Giles, telephone Interview Judith Soares, then Head of WAND, University of the West Indies, 29 April 2013, Barbados.

10. See Report No. 37820, Crime, Violence, and Development: Trends, Costs, and Policy Options in the Caribbean. (2007). A Joint Report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Latin America and the Caribbean Region of the World Bank. See also, Griffith (1997) and Tang Nain and Bailey (2003). Pargass and Clarke (2003) have argued that there is significant under-reporting of intra-family violence in the Caribbean which makes it difficult to provide a complete picture of the incidence of violence against woman. They attribute this to feelings of shame, intimidation and acceptance on the part of victims of such violence.

11. Change Centre (NGO: Domestic Violence-related), Retrieved from https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=Change+Centre+%28NGO%3a+Domestic+Violence-Related&ie=UTF-. They point out that since the passing of the Domestic Violence Bill, awareness has been heightened and people are more likely to speak out. However, perpetrators are generally being released. Charges may be brought against some, but of those, few come to the court because there is either some kind of bribery within the family, cover-ups, etc.

12. Red Thread is an organisation that defends the rights of women, speaks out against violence against women and attends to the basic needs of grassroots women. The organisation brings together low-income Guyanese women across race divides, develops their skills and provides information and other resources.