Securing Mainstreaming in a Hostile Political Environment
| Date | 01 December 2005 |
| Author | Sue Nott |
| Published date | 01 December 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1177/135822910500800207 |
International Journal
of
Discrimination and the Law, 2005, Vol.
8,
pp. 121-140
1358-2291/2005 $10
© 2005 A B Academic Publishers. Printed in Great Britain
SECURING MAINSTREAMING IN A HOSTILE POLITICAL
ENVIRONMENT
SUE NOTT
University
of
Liverpool, UK
ABSTRACT
There has been a dramatic reshaping
of
the political landscape in the United
Kingdom since 1997. This has brought about substantial changes in equality law
and practice, both nationally and regionally. One
of
the most talked about innova-
tions has been the adoption
of
mainstrearning as a strategy for the promotion
of
equality. In the United Kingdom, this has produced a complex, varied and, on
occasion, obscure pattern
of
duties in respect
of
mainstreaming. Yet despite this,
mainstreaming
is
delivering gains to previously marginalized groups within society,
though the extent
of
those gains varies according to the context and the type
of
mainstrearning involved. What has
to
be avoided
at
all costs, however,
is
a situation
where equality
is
neglected and disregarded. This article, therefore, explores the case
for securing mainstrearning and investigates how effectively mainstreaming in the
United Kingdom has been safeguarded against a hostile political environment.
INTRODUCTION
Mainstreaming
has,
in
a
relatively
short
period
of
time,
become
a
widely
used
strategy
for
promoting
equality.
1
The
most
commonly
encountered
form
of
mainstreaming
is
gender
mainstreaming
which
has
been
defined
as
...
the
(re)organisation,
improvement,
development
and
evaluation
of
policy
processes,
so
that
a
gender
equality
perspective
is
incorporated
in
all policies
at
all levels
and
at
all stages,
by
the
actors
normally
involved
in
policy-making
(Verloo,
1999, 13).
In
the
United
Kingdom
the
more
inclusive
concept
of
equality
main-
streaming
is
employed.
Equality
mainstreaming
works
on
the
same
premise
as
gender
mainstreaming
but
in
respect
of
a
range
of
targets
-such
as
sex,
race,
age,
disability,
sexual
orientation,
religious
belief
and
political
opinion.
As
has
been
documented
elsewhere,
2
mainstreaming
is
regarded
as
a
source
of
potential
gains
as
well
as
potential
dangers.
To
its
supporters,
mainstreaming
represents
a
shift
from
the
individualism
122
of
anti-discrimination
legislation
to
an
enterprise
where
the
emphasis
is
on
determining
the
equality
impact
of
laws
and
policies.
As
a
con-
sequence,
mainstreaming
is
credited
with
the
potential
to
transform
the
policy
agenda
of
government
by
alerting
decision
makers
to
the
adverse
impact
a
policy
may
have
on
the
promotion
of
equality.
Furthermore
the
thinking
behind
mainstreaming
has
been
used
as
an
argument
for
greater
participation
by
its
target
groups
within
the
decision
making
process
(Lovecy, 2002)
as
well
as
for
the
adoption
of
policies
that
take
account
of
the
needs
of
previously
marginalized
sectors
of
the
population
(Jahan,
1995).
Yet,
for
all
its
potential,
mainstreaming
is
not
without
its failings.
There
is still
confusion
over
what
precisely
the
concept
means,
whilst
in
some
quarters
mainstreaming
has
been
used
as a
pretext
for
dismantling
equality
machinery
(A
WID,
2004).
In
addition,
officials
responsible
for
implementing
mainstreaming
often
show
a
lack
of
commitment
to
the
strategy
and,
as
a
consequence,
restrict
its
ability
to
transform
the
policy
agenda.
3
One
of
the
reasons
why
mainstreaming
may
have
failed
to
live
up
to
expectations
is
the
apparent
ease
with
which
the
strategy
may
be
sidelined.
In
the
United
Kingdom,
when
mainstreaming
took
the
form
of
guidelines
to
policy
makers,
4
the
process
was
treated
as
little
more
than
a
'paper
exercise'
(McCrudden,
1998).
This
proved
possible
because
mainstreaming
focuses
on
policy-making,
a
process
that,
unlike
law-making,
lacks
transparency.
The
success
of
main-
streaming
depends
on
the
willingness
of
decision
makers
to
subscribe
fully
to
the
strategy.
If
they
do
not,
then
there
needs
to
be
some
means
to
call
them
to
account.
Furthermore,
in
situations
where
mainstreaming
is
taken
seriously,
there
is
no
guarantee
that
such
support
will
continue
indefinitely
Indeed,
there
is evidence
to
show
how
easily
apparent
gains
can
be
undermined.
For
example
Sawer
(Sawer,
1999)
and
others
have
detailed
how
in
Australia
mainstream-
ing
served
as
an
excuse
for
the
dismantling
of
equality
machinery
in
an
adverse
policy
climate.
5
Furthermore
mainstreaming's
achieve-
ments
have
occurred
in
a relatively
short
space
of
time
and
equality
activism
may
not
continue
to
be
perceived
in
such
a positive
light
by
politicians,
civil
servants
or
indeed
the
public
more
generally.6
It
is
worth
recalling
that
in
the
United
Kingdom,
equality
almost
disappeared
off
the
political
agenda
when
the
last
Conservative
government
was
in
power.
7
Arguably,
the
solution
to
these
dilemmas
is
to
put
in
place
mechanisms
that
not
only
protect
mainstreaming
in
a
hostile
political
environment
but
also
impose
a
sanction
if
policy-
makers
attempt
to
sideline
this
strategy.
The
purpose
of
this
article is,
therefore,
twofold:
first
to
explore
in
greater
detail
the
case
for
securing
mainstreaming
and
second
to
evaluate
how
effectively
mainstreaming
has
been
To continue reading
Request your trial