Compensation for Slavery?

Yesterday the Observer newspaper ran an article about a landmark case that would give fresh hope to people who have been held against their wishes in sub-human bondage. As I settled down to an enlightened read about the long overdue compensation from the West to Africa and its Disapora, the slowly erupting excitement quickly imploded as I realised they were not talking about the Atlantic Slave Trade. Alas, I had gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick. The story was centred around Niger and related to the current enslavement of 40,000 Africans by Africans, not millions enslaved hundreds of years ago by non-Africans.

Of course, I join Anti-Slavery International in campaigning for an end to the practice. Slavery regardless of who enforces it is abhorrent, and the women held in Niger and other parts of the world deserve compensation and more. But as I recount the 'celebrations' of the bicentennial of the passing of the Abolition of Slavery Act 1807 and the muted outcry of the white world saying 'get over it; it is in the past; we did not perpetrate it', I wonder at the global structural hypocrisy. It seems that that the world is just not comfortable when we dare to remind them of the milions of black people that suffered beatings, unpaid work, gruelling hours, starvation and rape. My friends laugh and remark on my naivety at expecting anything less or more from people who continue to benefit from the spoils of their slave master ancestors. After all, that kind of slavery was a long time ago...wasn't it?

Much ado about nothing: UK Equality Bill

The new ‘Equality Bill’ has certainly got the UK talking as public sector employers must now account for inequalities regarding gender pay; ethnic minority employment and disability employment. But what has really got people shouting is the extension of positive action as employers “can take into account, where they feel it is appropriate, when selecting between two equally qualified candidates, under-representation of disadvantaged groups, for example women and people from ethnic minority communities”. What are they worried about? Could that statement be any more ambiguous? It changes nothing; recruitment and selection will still be the subjective domain of employers and their recruiters.

On the subject of all women shortlists, the directives are just as wishy-washy – “....extend the permission to use women-only shortlists in selecting parliamentary candidates...” It seems the only time that the language is definitive is when talking about ethnic minority shortlists, as government will “not legislate to allow for ethnic minority shortlists at this stage”. It's not that I am not advocating the use of women-only shortlists, as there are advantages and disadvantages to these schemes which merit a full exploration of the issues. But if the government is serious about doing something positive to reverse institutional and structural discrimination, the Equality Bill in its current state (despite strengthening the law for transsexual people, pregnant women and disabled people) is woefully inadequate. So the majority of the UK population can chill out, because the status quo remains, it is business as usual.

Gender Inequality – Choice or Sexism?

A few weeks ago the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published their Sex and Power Report 2008 and since then there has been thousands of column inches dedicated to the veracity, efficacy or indeed necessity of such a report and its findings. The report basically states that despite years of so-called progress and legislation, women still don’t have a fair share of power and influence.

If the mostly wealthy, male commentators and Melanie McDonagh are to be believed, this gender inequality is a matter of choice. Women simply do not want power or influence. Or rather, they are unwilling to give up the cushy job that is raising a family for the long hours, fast pace and stress of the corporate boardroom. Hence, it is a maternity gap, not a gender gap that causes any inequality, if it exists. And there may be some merit to this argument. After all, the Office of National Statistics reports that there's very little difference between the pay of young women and young men. Not only that, any pay differential is actually in the women's favour as long as they are single and childless. However, the problem with the maternity gap theory is that it only affects one gender – women.

But let’s get back to the choice thing. Pardon me for stating the obvious, but being born a woman is not a matter of choice, it is biology. But the prejudices faced by women are caused by socialisation. Why shouldn’t women be afforded the opportunity to pursue any combination of careers, child bearing and/or rearing they desire? No-one here is asking for guaranteed equality of outcomes, merely the opportunity to compete on a level playing field, without having to contend with old boys’ networks and misguided stereotypes of the nature of woman.

OK, not every woman wants to be in charge, but there are many women who do and are suitably qualified to do many of the jobs currently occupied by men. Maybe, the EHRC research should measure only those women who want to be in top management or judges or MPS. Would it have made any difference to their findings? I doubt it. For instance, when compared to the rest of the world, the UK is woefully outranked in terms of gender equality in Parliament, coming in 70th out of 155 countries behind Sweden, China, Canada, Rwanda and Argentina. It would be highly remiss of me not to mention that some (not all) of these countries have introduced legislative quotas to redress the gender imbalance.

Let’s not even talk about black women in the UK. They are at an even greater disadvantage – one high court judge and two members of parliament... I wonder if Melanie and her readers will attribute this, yet again to the maternity gap. Hmmmm, I wonder if she has children.

Has Diversity Finally Reached UK Politics?

In its entire political history, the UK has seen only three black women Members of Parliament: Diane Abbott (1987); Oona King (1997); Dawn Butler (2005).

Dianne Abbott has come of age in political terms, as earlier this year she celebrated 21 years of being an MP. Oona King’s reign, on the other hand, ended after seven years when she lost her seat in 2005. In that same year Dawn Butler was elected by the people of Brent South and she seems destined or could it be determined to go places. In 2006 Ms Butler was elected as Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Youth Affairs by a cross party delegation of MP's. The following year she was promoted by the Prime Minister as Vice Chair of the Labour Party with a remit on Youth. In 2008, her seemingly annual promotion continues as she has become the first elected black woman to gain ministerial office; she is currently Assistant Government Whip.

This impressive (and motivational) rise has however been fraught with head-on encounters of racism and sexism, as white male colleagues more used to seeing black women cleaners and cooks than MPs in the Commons, are confused by her presence. One white Tory MP upon finding out that Ms Butler was an MP was heard to remark "they're letting anybody in nowadays". Sadly those encounters and comments appear to be commonplace in politics and is not just the preserve of Conservative politicians. Dianne Abbott remembers being asked by a fellow Labour MP if Christmas was celebrated in Jamaica. Was that ignorance; illiteracy or racism? Whichever way, it does not bode well for us citizens if these are the people in charge.

Dawn Butler believes a strong complaint process and diversity awareness training is essential to educate MPs and influence behaviour. The cynics among us might say this will only teach them not to state feelings out loud and that it will require a lot more to entice black women into dip their toes into the mire - if you will excuse the mixed metaphors. Others suggest the introduction of all women, all black shortlists, but there is still fierce resistance to this approach from many quarters.

Nevertheless, no-one can deny the importance of the black female vote and the effect that having gender and ethnicity reflected in political candidates might have on it. Political parties must sex up their recruitment and retention process. David Cameron and the Tories are trying to woo black women on both sides of the electorate by setting up an A list of candidates to be fast tracked into winnable Tory seats. Helen Grant, a lawyer from Kent is one such woman, also making history as the first black woman selected to defend a Tory Seat. One can only wait to see how successful this scheme will be for the Conservative Party. But in the meantime, the UK political arena is arguably still the same racist, sexist province of white, middle-class male that it has always been.

Are black male leaders really that threatened by their female counterparts?

In a world where racism is still rife, albeit slightly more underground, it is astounding that there is so much division amongst the ranks of our black leaders. It was not surprising that in the USA the Democrats grappled with the gender vs. race issue in selecting their presidential nomination. But somewhat more worrying is that in Jamaica, a country of black people, the underlying themes of the recently contested PNP leadership battle still revolve around skin colour, class and gender i.e. the brown-skinned, academic man (Dr Peter Phillips) vs. the dark-skinned, grassroots female (Ms Portia Simpson-Miller). Not content with losing that same race two years ago, Phillips egged on by his supporters decided to launch a campaign for the leadership position, despite there being no vacancy – a strategy that is tantamount to mutiny. The results of the election should settle the debate: Ms Simpson-Miller trounced Dr Phillips, winning nearly 60% of delegate votes.

It is, nevertheless, soul destroying to watch the prejudices at work. The dissenters seemed intent on dividing the People’s National Party rather than focus on uniting the party to (i) provide a convincing alternative to the JLP and (ii) prepare to form the next Jamaican government. Phillips and his team suggest that somehow Simpson-Miller is not academically qualified for the top job. But on what premise is this argument built?

On the one hand, Dr Phillips boasts several degrees including a Doctorate whilst Ms Simpson-Miller holds a single Bachelors degree in Public Administration. But so do/did several of the country’s leaders: Bruce Golding; Edward Seaga and Michael Manley. Indeed, Hugh Shearer armed only with a high school education and a one-year Colonial Development and Welfare Trade Union Scholarship worked his way up through the ranks and became Prime Minister from 1967 to 1972. Since then he has been cited by some as one of the island’s greatest leaders and Rex Nettleford proclaimed him "one of the primary shapers of our history, a political leader of the highest calibre and above all - a patriot". The question is therefore, if a single degree is good enough for these men, why is it not good enough for Ms Simpson-Miller? Unless of course the real reason is something else, like skin colour!

In 1992, Percival James Patterson became the 11th Prime Minister of Jamaica. Eminently qualified, academically accomplished and internationally recognised, no-one dared question his intellectual capacity. When he first came to power, journalists (and the public) remarked “first black man to lead the country”. Black in this case did not just refer to non-white, it pointed to the shade bias that is endemic throughout the island. But Patterson proved himself to be an exceptional leader in and out of Jamaica. In fact, he is now one of the few black members of the Global Leadership Foundation, an organisation that promotes good governance (democracy, open markets, human rights, rule of the law) and conflict resolution through mediation to governments.

So, having demolished the ‘shade thing’ with Patterson and the ‘education thing’ with Shearer and others, it seems we are left with gender as the real reason behind Dr Phillips’ (and others) obsession with ousting Simpson-Miller. Hitherto, there has been no serious female contender for the top job. There were no major criticisms when she served as a deputy and her record as a Minister has been commended. The sexism is so overwhelming, Phillips and his proponents appear oblivious to the fact that they are still on the same team. They ignore the fact that winners and losers all have significant roles in the future of their party and its ability to be the next credible government. They have scant regard to the adage “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link”. One could be forgiven for believing that the ‘Arise and Renew’ team have unwittingly been seconded to the JLP’s PR team.

Irrespective of political persuasion, modern history is replete with female black leaders: Eugenia Charles of Dominica; Maria Ph. Liberia-Peters, Nederlandse Antillen; Premier Jennifer Meridith Smith, Bermuda; and Foreign Minister Condoleezza Rice, United States of America. With the support, advice and guidance that are usually accorded to any leader, Portia Simpson-Miller is well placed to join that distinguished group of black women leaders.

Just think how galling it must also be to those who fear women at the helm that in the same PNP leadership contest, yet another female Angela Brown-Burke is rising above the parapet. Ms Brown-Burke gained the highest number of votes of all vice presidential candidates. And with the recent polls suggesting that were a national election to be called, most people would vote for Portia over both Bruce Golding and Dr Peter Phillips, there seems little question that Ms Simpson-Miller is indeed the 'best man' for the job.

JP Headlam (Black Women Leaders) and Michael D Brooks (DMA)