On 8 March, International Women’s Day (IWD) will commemorate the women’s rights movement and highlight the progress still needed to be made regarding gender equality, reproductive rights and gender-based violence.
In some quarters, such as York, the preceding week is being celebrated as International Women’s Week, with a whole raft of activities. Women’s suffrage – women participating in elections – is one right that is celebrated and endorsed during this commemorative day.
Similar to women gaining the right to vote which caused a major change to the electoral system, today the campaign for electoral reform is also gaining steam for a change to the electoral system – the case for proportional representation (PR). With the government’s recent introduction of a new Representation of the People Bill, advocates are campaigning for an amendment to include replacing the First Past the Post (FPTP) system with a proportional alternative for electing MPs. Westminster’s current voting system has been criticised for denying representation for millions of voters, electing parliaments and governments that do not reflect public opinion, and no longer guaranteeing single-party majorities – long touted as a supposed benefit.
While women voting is considered uncontroversial today, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was a concerted anti-suffrage campaign, whose members and leaders included women. It is perhaps worth looking back at their arguments to see what they might show us about opposition to electoral reform today.
Political expediency and calculation
Governments usually claim to have more pressing matters to attend to. However, while the Liberal Asquith ministry (1908-1916) had to contend with welfare reforms, the European balance of power, industrial strikes and the Irish question, there were attempts to allow some women to vote in general elections via three Conciliation Bills, introduced between 1910 and 1912, all of which were defeated.
When considering measures that change how elections operate, whether it is to who can vote, or how votes are counted, potential electoral disadvantage would be a major concern, although this may be publicly expressed as concerns regarding efficacy. During parliamentary debate on the 1918 Representation of the People Act, Lord Curzon said that he was “unconvinced that it is either fair, or desirable, or wise, in the manner that is proposed, to add six million female voters to the electorate of this country.”
With the current government having won under a third of the national popular vote at the last general election, do their arguments about priorities and propriety seem convincing?
The fabric of British society
It was believed that British society was divided into two separate, but equal, gendered spheres: the ‘public’ sphere of men, which included politics, and the ‘domestic’ sphere of women, which encompassed the home, family, education and philanthropy. Leading female anti-suffragists included accomplished writers, social reformers and philanthropists, such as Mary Augusta Ward, Margaret Elizabeth Leigh and Sophia Lonsdale.
It was argued that women engaging in politics would merely imitate men, lose their moral authority and lack the insight to influence national policy. These arguments were even framed in apocalyptic terms, with Sir Charles Hobhouse MP stating that women voting “might mean an immense destruction of the population of the country”, citing declining birth and marriage rates. The violent tactics of the suffragettes – in contrast to the peaceful suffragists – were proof for anti-suffragists that women could not cope with politics.
Comparisons may be drawn to anti-proportional representation (PR) arguments that British voters would struggle to understand how to vote – which often involves crossing one or two boxes, or the ability to count and express preferences – or that it would lead to chaos.
The Empire and the wider world
This train of thought extended to Britain’s imperial policy, as it was argued that enfranchising women would weaken the hold that Britain had on colonies where societies were male dominated. Leading anti-suffragists included key imperial figures such as Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, and former quasi-viceregal Controller-General and Consul-General in Egypt, Evelyn Baring.
Before Britain expanded its national franchise to include women in 1918, nations both in and outside the Empire had already done so. These nations included the dominions of New Zealand, Australia and Canada; and Norway, Denmark and Finland (the autonomous Grand Duchy within Tsarist Russia). Eighteen US states had granted women full suffrage by 1918, before the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.
Opponents of PR will claim that it will cause chaos in the UK, despite its use in 130 countries worldwide, many of which have greater levels of satisfaction with governance, social services and the economy. While some may further argue that many of these countries have histories and cultures incomparable to Britain’s, they include our former colonies, namely Australia and New Zealand.
We already have it
While it was feared that women were too uninformed to vote in general elections, some women had been given the right to vote in local elections since 1869. As this right was reaffirmed and extended in 1895, over a million women were registered to vote in English local elections by 1900.
Similar to the debate around electoral reform, opponents of PR for Westminster elections also discount its use in local and devolved elections in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Greater London. Given when it was implemented, there are Britons with at least two decades’ experience of voting under PR.
Parallels with today
To a modern audience, the objections of the anti-suffrage campaign seem outlandish. Many of them at the time overlooked the fact that women’s suffrage was already a reality outside of Westminster.
Given the many parallels between these objections and those to electoral reform today, I wonder what voters, after a century of PR, may think looking back at the latter?
More on society:
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
