Jo Silvester PhD is a Professor of Organisational Psychology and Christina Dykes MA (pictured) is Political Advisor to Dominic Grieve MP and was Head of Candidates at Conservative Central Office.
The new Leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron is absolutely right to focus on promoting women candidates. Not only is it fair, it makes complete sense for the Party’s future success. Why would any organisation, political or otherwise, rule out 50% of its potential talent pool? Women bring votes: they also bring competence and new ideas. Interestingly, it was only once Nike promoted the first woman to its Board of Directors that training shoes for women were taken seriously as a business proposition. What new thinking might women bring to the Conservative Party?
In reality, the Conservative Party is well placed to meet the challenge of promoting women. It is the only political party to have implemented a professional, rigorous and objective assessment process for prospective Parliamentary candidates. It therefore leads the field in terms of recognising and developing the potential of political candidates – male and female. The Conservative Party also has provided the first scientific evidence that women and men are equivalent in terms of political competence (Silvester & Dykes, in press). We also know that there was no difference in performance between male and female candidates in the 2005 general election. This puts pay to the myth that women lack the skills or resilience required for political life. However, it does refocus attention on the question of: ‘why - if women are as competent as men - aren’t they making it to the green benches?’
The challenge that David Cameron now faces is how to ensure more women are chosen to fight winnable seats. We know the objective: we must now consider the mechanisms by which this can be achieved.
Methods range along a spectrum of positive discrimination and centralised control. At one end of this are all women shortlists. Although these were used with great success by the Labour Party in the 1997 general election, they can be unpopular among associations (who feel, perhaps correctly, that their right to choose has been removed), among male candidates (who see a reduction in their own field of opportunities), and among women candidates (who feel that all-women lists might perpetuate the belief that women are less competent and need help to succeed). Thus using all-women shortlists risks short-term unpopularity for long-term gains in representation. Undoubtedly a risk that some consider worth taking.
But what are the alternatives? One, of course, is to leave things as they are – to let nature take its course and allow the electorate to vote for women (or not). There are two problems with this. First, it ignores the fact that women are much less likely to be selected as Parliamentary candidates, and that the electorate therefore has less opportunity to vote for women. Second, leaving things as they are would mean, in one estimation, that it would be another 400 years before women achieve equal representation.
A popular alternative is ‘fast-tracking’: that is creating an ‘A-list’ of candidates (50% of whom would be women), from which some of the safest Conservative seats would be obliged to choose. Fast-tracking is not unusual in other organisational contexts: it is used to identify individuals with the skills and qualities required to make them future organisational leaders. This approach has a number of advantages. In a political environment, it means that the Party takes strategic responsibility for identifying the qualities associated with excellent Conservative candidates and MPs. By sharing these with Associations – selection decisions based on ‘does this person fit our constituency needs’ can be complemented by ones that consider ‘does this person fit with what the Conservative Party needs to succeed in the next election?’ Conservative Headquarters should not make decisions for associations, but it is of utmost importance that Party’s vision is communicated to create a shared understanding of wider issues.
Another advantage to this approach is that it focuses attention on what skills a political candidate needs to be successful. The issue of political competence has been sorely neglected. Indeed, it is generally assumed that ‘anyone can be an MP’. Not only does this undermine the credibility of the role, it makes it very difficult to celebrate excellence. What is missing is recognition of the expertise required to be an effective politician. An A-List can therefore be an excellent means of re-building the credibility of politicians and therefore the willingness of the public to trust them.
We wish David Cameron every success in his efforts to increase the number of Conservative women in Westminster. However, we will end on a note of caution. While the idea of an A-List has much to offer, the way in which it is created requires considerable thought. How will men and women be selected for it, and how can the Party ensure that these decisions are valid, fair and reliable? Will decisions be transparent? Fortunately, analysis of candidate performance in the 2005 General Election provides some of the information needed to guide these decisions: but a degree of reflection would be worthwhile at this point. After all, handpicking a slate of the best candidates will not necessarily ensure higher standards. Selection is only one step towards being elected. The next is to ensure that all candidates are encouraged to develop the skills needed for future political success.
