THAT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY AS ANTITHETICAL TO FREEDOM, EQUALITY AND JUSTICE

Abstract

In contemporary world, there has been gender sensitivists’ agitation for women “equality with men”—despite their obvious or obscure physical dissimilarities or uniqueness and natural/social-condition. Gender sensitivism and the consequent affirmative action may count as valid demands under the democratic tradition which thrives on freedom and equality. In fact, certain segments of state policy do reflect the requirements providing for not just compulsory inclusion, but a ceding/reservation of some percentage of positions to women. Historically, the essence of democracy is the opportunity for popular participation in governance and this thought is replete with three major dogmas/idols: one, the ideal of freedom and equality; two, the principle of majority rule); and three, the idea of representative governance. These three vaunted features are the pillars/idols of democracy—a political system predicated on the conviction/theory that society is socially contracted and based on liberalism. Accordingly, neither the basis of the quest/agitation for gender equality nor whether gender equality is possible, necessary or reasonable is of serious concern to this work. Rather, this work is concerned with the principle of affirmative action policy as it relates to the attempt to prioritize the place of women in public participation, as a gender-based governmental drive. Accordingly, the objective of this paper is to argue that humanity is one nature; that it is void and inconsistent any policy requiring discrimination based on gender as affirmative action seeks for women; that such policy is therefore antithetical to the ideals of democracy, freedom and equality of opportunity. It concludes, however, that if discrimination is immoral, then affirmative action on gender superiority equally is immoral. The suggestion is that the only ideal principle for social relations/participation should be ability and suitability.