“Tokenism: The practice of making only a
perfunctory or symbolic effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting
a small number of people from under represented groups in order to give the
appearance of sexual or racial equality within a workforce.”
Dictionary definition.
SUMMARY
Equality requires inclusion
of the group that suffers discrimination. Equality is not the result of a hierarchical system that asks who comes first
and only promotes one person. For the government to have a succession law that
is inclusive of women, the cultural structure of society has to include all women
and their historical identities.
Equality needs the creation of maternal surnames that are hereditary
through the maternal line, and the Royal family would have to recognize the
maternal lines of Queens.
INTRODUCTION
Sweden was the first country
with gender-blind primogeniture, and most monarchies of Europe copied this law
without critical thinking. There is no evidence that gender-blind primogeniture
promotes equality in society or for the monarchy; gender-blind primogeniture is
not equality, because it creates/promotes a category of inequality, and this is
the irrational preferences for the firs-born. Gender-blind primogeniture is a
bad example for children and adults. This idea ignores the unequal treatment of
non-royal women.
REASONS WHY GENDER-BLIND PRIMOGENITURE FAILS TO
PROMOTE EQUALITY FOR THE MONARCHY AND SOCIETY:
Tokenism:
Gender-blind primogeniture is the classic case of tokenism, there is promotion
of one woman to a symbolic role, but the political system fails to increase the
number of women in parliament. Equality is not the result of one cosmetic
change; instead it requires a change in the culture of society. If parliament
wants to change society, the composition of parliament has to be an example to
others.
Concepts that promote equality benefit everyone, and examples of this are universal suffrage and
equal treatment under the law. What
benefit of equality would gender-blind primogeniture bring to the 99.99% of the
population? There is no benefit for most of the population, because most people
do not have a royal connection.
This idea is like fashion, it
is very popular now, but eventually working class people would become
indifferent to it; this is a law only for the 1% of 1% of the population. If
parliament wants to have a monarchy with gender equality, it has to find an all-inclusive
idea that benefits/applies to everyone in society. There is plenty of room in
society for more gender equality.
Chicken and egg question: Gender-blind primogeniture is an attempt at
redesigning society/culture by asking: What came first the monarchy or
primogeniture? Neither, culture had a patriarchal structure before the birth of
the monarchy or primogeniture. The preference for men is a reflection of
cultural values.
What is the unequal structure of society? The patriarchal cultural system gives preference to
men, because culture/society only recognizes paternal lines. Equality requires
a cultural organization that is both patrilineal and matrilineal.
For example, the surname
tradition is analogous to male-primogeniture, and both situations are a
reflection of patriarchal culture. In English speaking societies surnames are
of paternal line derivation. The structure of the family follows the paternal line; men have traditions, social status, and prestige thanks to the
patrilineal surname tradition, but women do not have this.
Gender equality is not about
primogeniture. Equality is inclusion of
the maternal lines of men and woman. This is a simple concept that would change
society and the monarchy from a patriarchal organization to an all-gender inclusive
and dual lineage system.
What can parliament do to be more inclusive of royal
and working class women? Any changes
to the law of succession must include changes to the surname tradition. Equality
for society requires adding/creating a (dual) surname tradition that is of maternal
(paternal) line derivation.
Changes to the succession of
the monarchy would require recognition of royal maternal lines; it is
hypocritical to include a token woman as queen, but exclude in society the
history of women and their maternal lines. Recognition of maternal royal lines
would bring equality to the monarchy, since the monarchy/society only recognizes
the paternal lines of kings and men.
How can the monarchy be more inclusive of women? The name of a dynasty only comes from a man, and women
never had this right/tradition. If the Queen names the dynasty, the house of
Bowes-Lyon Windsor after her mother and father, this is recognition of the dual
maternal and paternal lineages of the monarchy.
This would be a positive
example for society; it would grant women and their maternal lines equal social
status. And for the first time in
history the monarchy would include a tradition of female origin.
Gender-blind primogeniture is discrimination. Is there a moral reason that gives the first-born the
right to inherit the crown? No, there is no moral reason, or logical argument
why the first-born should be given preference in inheritance. The idea that
civil rights or succession rights are only equal for the first-born is morally
indefensible. The only place in the world where gender-blind primogeniture would
make sense is the People’s Republic of China, where in the near future most
people would be an only-child and probably the first-born.
Most people in the world are
not the first-born, and for that reason primogeniture represents unequal
treatment. Primogeniture is a poor example for children who are not the
first-born, because it means that they are not good enough to succeed in life.
Also, there are situations in society where some parents show irrational favor
for the first-born. Equality requires succession that alternates the order of
birth or uses a lottery system.
Below is a journal reference
of order of birth discrimination. This type of discrimination is not well
known, but it exists in society.
Overpeck, M D et al. “Risk Factors for
Infant Homicide in the United States.” New England Journal of Medicine: 339
1211-1216 October 22, 1998.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199810223391706
There are different systems of inheritance. Primogeniture is one of many systems of inheritance,
and two additional examples are election in succession and inheritance of the
last-born (Borough-English). A seniority system like gender-blind primogeniture
is the least democratic succession, since seniority systems give the successor
more time to accumulate power through patronage. It is a mystery to me why
parliament failed to research other alternative forms of succession that are more
democratic than primogeniture.
The monarchy is not hereditary; it is successive. Many kings and queens came into possession of the
crown only because they had the support of parliament. The Queen is not the
senior person of the oldest line; the senior person of the oldest line is a
member of the former Royal family of Bavaria.
Gender-blind primogeniture is
an idea for an absolute hereditary monarchy, since it grants the first-born exclusive
rights of succession. Gender-blind primogeniture implies that legitimate
inheritance of the crown only comes from primogeniture; indirectly gender-blind
primogeniture questions the legitimacy of the Queen and all previous Queens and
Kings after James II.
The lesson from history is
that succession to the monarchy is not
the absolute right of the first-born, since there is a practical side to the
monarchy. The ability of the successor
to work with the political system is more important than being the senior
person of the oldest line. Every person who abdicated, deposed, or excluded
from succession would become king with gender-blind primogeniture. James II, his
son, and grandson would be the kings, instead of William and Mary, George I,
George II. Edward VIII would be the
King, instead of George VI.
Inventing a non-traditional monarchy. I will provide an imaginary comparable example to
illustrate the lack of critical thinking behind gender-blind primogeniture;
this hypothetical situation uses the surname tradition. The surname tradition
is more patrilineal than the monarchy, because it originates exclusively from
the paternal line; there are no surnames of maternal derivation that are 100
years old.
If tomorrow parliament were
to enact a law that makes all surnames illegal, because this is unequal
treatment of women. The imaginary law would say that the name of the closest
street to the individual’s birthplace is his/her surname, if this person was born
in a building. But if birth were in a
ship, airplane, train, or car, the individual would use ship, airplane, train, or
car as the surname. Would this be an acceptable replacement for the male-derive
surname tradition? This hypothetical example is irrational, arbitrary, and
non-traditional way to solve the unequal situation of the male surname
tradition.
Gender-blind primogeniture is an
irrational idea, because it ignores maternal lines, women’s history, and the
unequal social status of all women. Gender-blind primogeniture implies that
the maternal and paternal lines of peoples are of no significance in society
and history. All cultures find meaning in their maternal and paternal lines. Women need the prestige and historical
awareness that comes from their maternal lines, if society is to exist with
gender equality.
CONCLUSION
Every ethnic group has at least one thing that
is unique and great about them. I have no doubt that Sweden has many things
that are unique and great. Representational democracy is the gift to the world
of English speaking nations. The British and Commonwealth Parliaments are
capable of a thoughtful answer to succession that is not an imitation of the
monarchy of Sweden.