[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 13493-13494]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     WOMEN IN CONSERVATIVE POLITICS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. SUE W. KELLY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 17, 1999

  Mrs. KELLY. Mrs. Speaker, I insert the attached speech for the 
Record. This speech was given by Fanny Palli-Petralia, a member of 
Greece's Parliament at a conference that was held in Washington, D.C., 
in March of this year, hosted by the International Women's Democratic 
Union. I found it to be quite insightful and would recommend it to my 
colleagues.

        [At the Conference of IWDU, Washington, Mar. 3-5, 1999]

             Address by the Honorable Fanny Palli-Petralia

       First, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the 
     organizers of the conference for the invitation to 
     participate and address this gathering. I consider it a 
     privilege and a unique opportunity to share with leaders from 
     all over the world my perspectives on the role of women 
     contemporary politics and the problems they face in Europe 
     and especially my own country. I am referring of course, to 
     women belonging to the conservative, or as I prefer to state, 
     Center and Center-Right ideological spectrum.
       However, before I discuss specific problems I believe it is 
     necessary for us to define or redefine certain concepts and 
     to reflect on the following question: what defines 
     conservative politics in our time. I believe a new definition 
     of conservatism is essential, given the fact that the central 
     criterion used to distinguish between Right and Left ideology 
     i.e.--i.e. economic philosophy--is no longer valid. As we all 
     know, belief in a free market economy, espoused by 
     conservative thinkers has been coopted with unrestrained 
     enthusiasm by old and new liberals. Whether we are talking 
     about Great Britain, Germany or the United States, we see 
     Social Democrats, Liberals and their American equivalent, the 
     Democratic Party, endorsing and applying Milton Freedman's 
     doctrine of free markets with the zeal usually displayed by 
     late converts to a cause. No wonder that we now see big 
     business, traditionally viewed as allies of conservative 
     parties, moving to the socialist corner of the political 
     arena. I have only one explanation for this phenomenon: 
     either big business cannot see the difference between the two 
     philosophies, which I doubt, or the dividing lines between 
     ideological camps have been blurred beyond recognition. In 
     either case, now that our economic philosophy has caused 
     global mass conversion among the liberal ranks, there is a 
     need to differentiate our agenda by other criteria.
       Now that liberal and the left-wing politicians have 
     embraced free market over socialist planning, we have to ask 
     what is next in our philosophical agenda in an era that often 
     seems as being in a-moral drift? The answer, in my opinion, 
     is obvious: though the economic philosophy of conservatism 
     has triumphed, a cultural war is under way globally and 
     whether we want it or not, we must be concerned and respond. 
     Far too many of the core values that served as the glue to 
     keep society in harmony have been trashed and a climate of 
     moral relativism permeates the industrial world. We are 
     witnesses to a troubling trend since the collapsed of the 
     Communist bloc: traditions, family, history, religion, 
     culture are under assault by ``feel good crowd.'' These are 
     the values that have and ought to distinguish the Center-
     Right political parties: we cherish them while the Liberal 
     left makes them optional.
       The question is what is the role of women in the field of 
     culture? At the risk of sounding immodest, let me state at 
     the outset that women have always been in the forefront of 
     cultural battles and helped shape the core values of free 
     societies. More precisely, women have been persistent 
     defenders of human rights and effectively linked rights, 
     values, economics and politics and in the process, redefined 
     the latter for the better. However it is also true that, by 
     and large, the contributions of women in the political life 
     of nations and the affirmation of social and political values 
     have been achieved through men. The old cliche ``next to a 
     great man stands a greater woman,'' still rings true. But our 
     concern today is not what Aspasia or Theodora, Eleanor 
     Roosevelt, or Hillary Clinton have done behind the scenes. 
     The question is what happens in the public domain--and here 
     is where a convergence of view emerges among women of all 
     political percussions.


                                   ii

       It is obvious that inequalities between men and women 
     persist and opportunities for women are limited by artificial 
     barriers in all societies, including the United States where 
     the struggle for equality started, at end of the 19th 
     century.
       As conservative women and political leaders in our own 
     right, we can not ignore gender disparities in public life; 
     neither can we ignore the fact that traditions and values, 
     prevalent for generations, do play a role in defining our 
     place in contemporary society. Because women have played a 
     central role in defining core values, they must now assume a 
     similar role in defining a political system that assures the 
     promotion of the most central of all values--equality without 
     qualifications.
       I am cognizant of the fact that social trends take time to 
     be set in motion and even more time to be reversed. We cannot 
     ignore the role of history and special conditions that have 
     played a role in determining a woman's place in society. In 
     Southern Europe, for example, cultural factors, religion and 
     social attitudes made change a slow and arduous process when 
     compared to northern European societies. For example, the 
     right to vote in my country, Greece, was granted to women in 
     1952 and full equality in all walks of life was 
     constitutionally guaranteed in 1974.


                                  III

       The equal rights movement in Europe, in which women from 
     all political persuasions participated, was fought not only 
     to secure basic political and individual rights but also 
     equal opportunities in education, the work place, equal 
     compensation for comparable work and, above all, equal 
     participation in decision-making structures. No doubt after 
     many false starts and strenuous efforts, progress has been 
     made, albeit slowly, in all fields. The latest achievement 
     that I can briefly mention is the incorporation of an 
     equality clause of the Amsterdam Treaty entered upon by 
     members of the European Union and which, I am proud to say, 
     was ratified only days ago by the Greek parliament. This 
     Treaty makes equality of genders in the European Union a 
     legal, social and political reality. As the Treaty States 
     (article 2) states, ``equality between women and men is 
     now part of the mission of the European Union.'' Yet, in 
     spite of all progress, we are far from the final goal of 
     complete equality between men and women. As far as laws, 
     rules and regulations are concerned, we are fully equal! 
     In practice, matters are quite different. It is hardly a 
     ``militant stance'' to note that:
       In almost every country the working woman continues to 
     maintain two careers, home and the work place without 
     compensation and often without moral recognition.
       Women' unemployment, at least in Europe, is double that of 
     men and concerns younger, female university graduates.
       The presence of women in Cabinet level positions is poor 
     and symbolic rather than substantive.
       These facts suggest that equality between the sexes remains 
     an elusive goal. And I do not believe this goal will be 
     reached unless all human beings are given the opportunity to 
     make their contributions through full participation at all 
     levels of government and wherever economic, political and 
     social issues are decided.
       Conservative women know where inequality exists and have 
     the solutions to the problem. It is to be found in the gross 
     under representation of women in all public institutions. 
     Thus, while the women make up 51% of the global population, 
     the world average of women in parliaments, for example, is 
     12.3%. In the European Parliament itself, out of a total of 
     626 members only 173, or 27.6% are women, while the average 
     the national assemblies of member states of the EU is only 
     21.4%. The gap between countries is even greater. Under 
     representation is higher in the southern countries, while the 
     northern ones have made remarkable strides in

[[Page 13494]]

     the past three decades. In Sweden, for example, women make up 
     40.4% of the Parliament, in Denmark 30.3% and in Germany 
     25.7%. The picture changes dramatically as we look south. 
     Greece, with an electorate of 52% women has only 6% women 
     members in the current parliament.
       The situation is similar for participation in high 
     government positions: Sweden, again has a cabinet divided 
     equally among men and women: 39% of cabinet posts in Finland 
     and 35% in Denmark are held by women. In Greece, in a fifty 
     member cabinet, only three posts are occupied by women.
       These figures show that there is a deficit in the 
     democratic game of politics and a surplus of explanations of 
     its causes.
       Some have argued that culture has been the culprit that 
     discourages women from pursuing public office. There is some 
     truth to this and similar arguments as well as to the 
     argument that the system itself has something to do with it. 
     It is a system built by men and its rules and regulations 
     reflect its origins. As designed, the political system is 
     more like a ``hunting adventure'' rather than a family game. 
     Power, not sensibility or efficiency seem to be its main 
     characteristic. Of course, all women that take part in the 
     existing political game, must learn the man-made rules and 
     how to use them to their advantage. In short, they must learn 
     to ``hunt'' or risk becoming spectators of someone else's 
     game. We have come too far and have too much at stake to 
     accept such a fate.
       Finally, let me conclude with some tentative answers to the 
     question what can be done? Well, as I stated at the beginning 
     there is a general need to redefine the identity, the goals 
     and methods of Center and Center-Right political parties. And 
     there is a greater need to reassess women's roles in the 
     cultural field so as to become full participants in the 
     ongoing debate about values. I believe ultimately it will be 
     the outcome of what some people call the ``cultural wars'' 
     that will shape global political and by extension, economic 
     agendas. Though I am not a proponent of a ``women'' made 
     political system I, nevertheless, believe that women can 
     restructure, sensitize and adapt the existing one with a view 
     of making it fully democratic. This can be achieved, with 
     emphasis on full participation in all level of government and 
     full use of women's imagination, sensitivity, efficiency and 
     intellect to improve the human condition.
       Unless women work for the day when they can place their own 
     seal on the political system, the Margaret Thatchers and 
     Madeleine Albrights, will be looked upon as an alibi for the 
     maintenance of the status quo.

     

                          ____________________