Affirmative Affirmative I'm in charge

Reading my favourite business paper the other day I came across a little gem buried within a story of how the Left is dominating the Australian Labor Party branches*.

The article inadvertently gave an interesting view of the operation of Affirmative Action in internal ALP elections. You see, the rank and file of the ALP elect a panel of 3 people who each serve a 1 year term as National President. The most popular gets to go first with the second and third most popular serving in turn. However there is also a rule that states that a woman must be elected to the panel. That is, no matter what the state of the final votes a woman must be National President at least one year in three. This means that in the latest election for ALP National President Senator Faulkner (with 41.1%) will be National President first, followed by South Australian Premier Mike Rann (with 27.5%). However the third panel member will be South Australian MP Linda Burney (with 9.9%) instead of Simon Crean (with 21.5%). 

I have to admit that I don't know Ms Burney so none of this is directed at her personally but a couple of points leap out at you. Firstly, if you are a man in the ALP with dreams of being the National President you had better finish in the top two or it will all end in tears. The logical impact of the Affirmative Action rule is that even if there is only one woman candidate and she has only one vote the number three man can never ever win.  Secondly, despite being mathematically challenged, even I worked out that 90.1% of the members of the ALP did not vote for the person who will be their National President. Presumably having 90.1% of people thinking the other candidates could do a better job than you is no barrier to success within the ALP.  Hmm maybe having a sex change could be just the thing to resuscitate my nonexistent political career.

I may be old fashioned but aren't I right in thinking that the head of a political party organisation should demonstrate good leadership skills, have influence and be able to convince people that they are the best person for the job ? Being a National President on the basis of a 9.9% vote is a bit like  telling someone they are a qualified tradesperson after serving 6 months of a 4 year apprenticeship.

Still, to give the ALP its due it doesn't try to hide its use of a manifestly unfair process. Its slightly more honest than your average 'democratically elected' dictator who rigs the election so that they get an impossibly large number (say 90%) of votes. At least the ALP says 'yeah we know almost no one voted for her but hell we are going to make her President anyway'. 

But why bother with all this malarky, if the article is correct surely the ALP 'girls' could get together and decide who will be National President and then just tell the rest of the members. This would save a lot of people all that pointless voting and wasted time thinking that they actually have a say in who ends up as their National President. 

Make no mistake Affirmative Action is, by its very nature, an unfair and discriminatory process. This makes it subject to attack on the basis that it's a double standard. I mean if it's wrong to prevent a woman being President because she is a woman then its equally wrong to make her President because she is a woman. Its interesting that the supporters of the blanket use of Affirmative Action are opposed to the concept of aristocracy. Still irony has always been a mystery to the Left.

Despite all its problems, I don't oppose Affirmative Action being used, as part of a range of measures, to correct imbalances caused by past sexism or racism. But it has to be used in conjunction with minimum skill or knowledge standards and should never result to promote people irrespective of their level of ability. I believe the indiscriminate use of Affirmative Action is inefficient, generates significant resentment and doesn't guarantee that the best and brightest will reach the top of an organisation. I don't know whether the ALP has some minimum skill or experience levels that must be satisfied before the Affirmative Action rules apply but given their record on real democracy within the party I am willing to bet they don't.

I hope Ms Burney develops new skills from being National President, I hope she makes a significant contribution to the party and I hope she becomes a positive role model for other women. But her promotion will add to the perception that the ALP is not a meritocracy, it will generate resentment amongst all party members who believe in fairness and will help to reduce any incentive for women to improve their ability to garner votes in party elections. All this may result in Ms Burney spending a significant amount of her allotted year dealing with the headwinds generated by her elevation through a process that appears to have nothing to do with ability. 

In the interests of objectivity and a fully informed public I have to declare my own biases. 

I am a man who despite his undeserved position within the 'dominant' sex, has been spectacularly unsuccessful in his efforts to further his career by subjugating women. This has obviously made me bitter and unable to see the 'correctness' in using an unjust approach to address the inequalities inherent in the current system. I also have to admit that I would be very happy for more women to be in positions of power so I can have the option of sleeping my way to the top. Sure, this will never actually happen due to my lack of physical attractiveness but just having the possibility would brighten what has otherwise been a pretty dull working life.

All I can say in my defence is that I have had a few women bosses over the years and I have enjoyed working for nearly all of them. The ones I liked were damn good at their jobs and the ones I didn't like weren't. That's it, all to do with ability and nothing to do with their gender.

I shall henceforth think of the ALP as Control and Ms Burney as Agent 9.9 - you go girl

*"Faulkner win affirms Left's clout" - Australian Financial Review 11 Oct 2006.