This column first appeared on Malta Today

I watched the debate between Deborah Schembri and Nickie Vella de Fremeaux regarding the necessity of the gender corrective mechanism.

Dr Schembri began by highlighting two proposed laws by female backbenchers: the right to be forgotten after cancer treatment to combat discrimination and the right to 12 weeks of paid leave for parents at the Neonatal and Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (NPICU). These are valid laws that benefit both men and women.

However, she also admitted that she doesn’t believe increasing the number of women in Parliament will necessarily make them more attuned to specific “women’s issues”. She stated, “I won’t be in Parliament just for women but for everyone.” This admission essentially undermines the entire concept of the mechanism.

Adding more seats to artificially create a quota hasn’t addressed the core challenges women face when pursuing a career in politics.

In fact, none of the female MPs in the previous legislature (both those elected and those who gained seats with a few hundred votes) took any action to make attending Parliament easier for women juggling multiple responsibilities. This lack of effort prevents many women from contesting elections. To date, I’ve seen no progress on this issue, which is the root of the problem. Furthermore, those who secured seats through the mechanism, particularly those with young children, will soon face a wake-up call as they’ll still encounter these challenges.

I don’t see anyone, man or woman, passionately advocating for parliamentary sessions during normal office hours or any other family-friendly measures. This pressing issue has been widely discussed and, as far back as 2017 (nearly a decade ago), the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality reported that Malta suffers from a shortage of women candidates willing to contest elections. “This shortage stems from various factors, including the lack of family-friendly policies for all stakeholders in politics. This reality affects both male and female MPs with family responsibilities but is particularly acute for women, who are traditionally seen as the primary carers. It’s important to remember that fathers also have a responsibility to actively care for their children and deserve to enjoy their family life daily,” the report stated.

In response to this report, Parliament adjusted its meeting schedule, starting at 4pm instead of 6pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. While this was a positive step, it doesn’t fully address the needs of parents who need to be home with their children for various activities like extracurriculars, family dinners, homework help, bath time and bedtime routines.

At the opening of Parliament, I couldn’t help but notice the number of young families among the new MPs on our screens. The key difference is that in most cases, the men have supportive spouses at home who handle most of the domestic responsibilities, allowing them to focus on their political work. While exceptions exist, I’d wager a survey would reveal that the majority of family duties still fall on women. Furthermore, women tend to be more emotionally supportive of husbands running for office, though this isn’t always the case. However, with demanding careers, young families, household management and politics, something inevitably has to give.

During the election campaign, the Momentum party advocated for making Parliament a full-time role with professional pay so that MPs could meet during the day. This would also eliminate potential conflicts of interest with their actual professions. Interestingly, I couldn’t find any women proposing this.

I’ve also never heard that female MPs from both sides of the House had united to advocate for childcare facilities in Parliament. Surely that should have been their top priority in the last legislature to encourage other women to become politically active? Back in 2017 then Speaker Anglu Farrugia mentioned a childcare facility was coming “soon”. Then in 2022 the Nationalist Opposition proposed it again alongside other child-friendly measures and the Speaker said a childcare centre at Beltissebh would be operational by the end of the year. However, it hasn’t materialised yet. It’s always surprising how quickly other laws are introduced, almost causing you whiplash trying to keep up, yet something as crucial as this is consistently shelved. What’s the point of adding 12 more women to Parliament if they don’t advocate for themselves on such matters?

I understand Dr De Fremeaux’s concerns about the corrective mechanism being an insult to women, and as someone who has been a self-avowed feminist all my life, I agree. I see no progress or glory in simply bloating our parliament with another 12 seats to pretend we’ve achieved some contrived equality. True equality comes when parties are obliged to have an equal number of men and women on their ballot sheets, and then it’s up to the electorate to choose the best candidates. It’s obvious that the majority of voters don’t agree with this mechanism and it’s actually had the opposite effect. Rather than gaining more respect, women are now sneered at and belittled because they got in through this back door deal. It’s also typical that the PN and PL ensured no other woman from any other party had a chance of using this corrective mechanism. They can talk all they want, but if they really wanted to, they could have found a way to include third parties.

I also disagree that we “lowered any barriers” and that’s why more women contested this time. Instead, we lowered the standards. Any woman contesting knew she had a good chance of getting into Parliament even without knocking on a single door and people barely knew her. This actually happened in several instances.

Marlene Mizzi rightly pointed out that out of the 12 who were given a seat in the last legislature, three of those who weren’t voted in this time were once again given a seat they didn’t earn. How many times will the same woman be given a seat this way? With this mechanism, as she rightly said, the voice of the people has been tainted and women are reduced to mere numbers just to tick boxes. We’re also encouraging the idea that women don’t have to try too hard, similar to the current mentality that everyone gets a medal in a sports competition, no matter what.

Dr Schembri argued that the mechanism led to more women being elected on their own merits, which is debatable. It’s clear that having more women on the ballot increases choice and that is where the focus should be.

Sandra Gauci made very valid points about what holds women back, particularly the responsibility of raising young children. She reiterated her commitment to fighting the injustice of the gender mechanism favouring the two main parties because third parties aren’t on an equal footing.

During the debate, the causal elections or bye-elections were also discussed. This is another aspect of our electoral system that needs reform. Contesting in two districts should be abolished; voters should only have one district to choose from. This change would also encourage more women to run and eliminate the political manoeuvring over which district is “given up” based on party strategy. For example, at least 15 seats were contested in these bye-elections, adding unnecessary work and prolonging the election process.

Furthermore, we should eliminate the district system altogether and consolidate Malta into a single voting district. This would ensure that elected MPs truly represent the electorate’s will. Many politicians I would have liked to vote for simply weren’t on my district, which feels unfair. This system would also dismantle the patronage culture, promising favours in exchange for votes and the party infighting. We should thoroughly examine our electoral system to determine if it is effectively electing the right people based on their abilities and their commitment to serving the country.