‘Affirmative action’ could get women on ballot
(CNS): Women make up just 26% of Cayman’s MPs, and just 19 of the 58 candidates who ran for office in April were female. The election mission from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association that watched over the 2025 General Election has suggested introducing affirmative action measures to encourage more women to run for office.
This is just one of eleven recommendations the observers made in their final report, published last week, which also included one on the growing concerns surrounding campaign finance. The observers gave the elections an overall thumbs up, commending the staff and the process. However, they noted a few areas that need to be addressed to improve things.
Head of Mission Rob Ward (Jersey) said he was impressed by the professional, well-organised and smooth-running operation on Election Day.
“In particular, the Elections Office went ‘the extra mile’ to ensure persons with disabilities could cast their vote, either in their own home via mobile voting or in polling stations, where accessibility was clearly prioritised. I hope our observations detailed in this report are a helpful reflection on the operation of these elections and play a part in bolstering democracy in the Cayman Islands.”
Encouraging women to enter the political arena is a challenge worldwide, and one piece of advice the observers offered to achieve a more equal gender balance here is to implement some form of affirmative action to encourage more women to run for election.
“It may be valuable to learn what steps other small jurisdictions have taken in this area,” the observers said in the report, noting that while there are no legal barriers restricting the participation of women, there is, “in practice, a significant under-representation”.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was extended to the Cayman Islands in 2016, but the observers noted that the affirmative action provisions have not yet been used to advance women in the political arena.
In 2024, the CEDAW Committee clarified the obligation upon states to achieve equal and inclusive participation of women in public life through fifty-fifty parity in all decision-making systems. This includes political life.
Another of the election observers’ recommendations is for the Law Reform Commission to take a look at the residency requirements for potential candidates in the Elections Act, as this is acting as a barrier for both men and women. “Residency requirements for standing for election are considerably more onerous than for voting and are arguably unreasonable when compared to international standards,” the mission found.
The law currently requires Caymanians born in the Cayman Islands to have resided in the jurisdiction for at least seven years before Nomination Day. Those born elsewhere must have lived in Cayman for at least 15 of the preceding 20 years. No candidate may have been abroad for more than 400 days in the seven years immediately before being nominated.
“These are, arguably, unreasonable restrictions on the right to stand for election,” the observers said in the report and also recommended a review of the strict exclusion of individuals who have been convicted or served time in prison, even when a criminal offence is spent or happened when a potential candidate was a juvenile.
Among the other recommendations made by the observers were issues that have been raised before by local activists, previous missions and the local political class. The report said Cayman should consider drafting comprehensive legislation to regulate the conduct of referendums, reflecting international good practice.
They also noted the significant disparity in the size of constituencies. They pointed out that the vote of one elector should be equal to that of another, and revising constituency boundaries before the next general election would advance the equality of the vote.
One recommendation that has become a hot political topic concerns the rules surrounding campaign finance, as it is broadly agreed that these need to be revised. Some candidates want to see the amount they can spend increase, especially following the significant overspend this year by the PPM, but the public wants to see much more transparency around who is donating, how much, to whom, and why.
Campaign finance issues that the observers believe should be reviewed include the reporting requirements for unsuccessful candidates, the expenditure limit for candidates, the lack of regulations regarding foreign donors, and the reporting of accrued campaign costs.
“Campaign finance emerged as a key concern with significant gaps in transparency and accountability,” the report stated, noting that accrued campaign expenses may be underreported. They said that campaign finance was “one of the most contentious issues amongst stakeholders who met with the mission”, and the current framework lacks critical mechanisms.
Expenditures made before Nomination Day are not regulated or required to be reported, creating a transparency gap, the mission noted. And while a significant amount of money can be spent prior to the official campaign, none of it needs to be reported, which significantly limits transparency and enforcement.
The Election Office is responsible for receiving the financial reports, but it does not have the power or capacity to investigate candidates’ income and expenditure in detail.
“There is no designated body responsible for reviewing, validating, or investigating discrepancies in campaign finance declarations. The Commission for Standards in Public Life maintains a public register of interests, but there is no requirement for candidates or political parties to submit, publish, or have audited reports of donations or expenditures before polling day,” the observers wrote in the report.
They added that, despite efforts of the elections supervisor and others to reform campaign finance rules, no action has been taken.
The mission also highlighted the “regulatory void” regarding the financing of referendums and the potential for unregulated and undisclosed funding to influence outcomes and undermine fairness.
“The Cayman Islands’ campaign finance laws lack transparency, accountability and oversight, comprehensive regulation and enforcement, particularly outside the official campaign period and in referendum contexts,” the report states, which they suggest potentially undermines the fairness of elections and referendums.
See the observers full report in the CNS Library.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: 2025 General Elections, Elections, Politics
Lottery could make a Caymanian a millionaire. SMH
Considering the quality of most of the men you elect, this should be a no brainer.
it’s simple, the root of this problem lies in religion.
get rid of that and you have equality.
These people seem to be looking for something to say. The most important part of the article is the section that states that “there are no legal barriers restricting the participation of women”. If any qualified individual feels that they have the solutions to the issues facing the country they can put themselves and their ideas forward for scrutiny by the voters of the Cayman Islands. We need to stop with the foolishness.
This is a dangerous road to travel and a very poor recommendation. If more than 19 women wanted it to run, they would have done it.
If anyone, woman or man cannot pony up the “entrance fee” which is very minimal for a top job in the country, then that is the first step in weeding useless candidates out.
DEI comes to Cayman. What an insult to the strong women of Cayman to suggest that they cannot compete with the other 50% of the population when it comes to running for Parliament. Cayman has equality of opportunity, which is as a society should be. We have recently seen in the USA what happens when political candidates are chosen for their sex, race, skin colour etc. instead of their abilities. Many years ago I had dealings with Miss Annie and I can just imagine her reaction if it had been suggested to her that she could not get elected on her own merits! I sincerely hope that our government will resoundingly reject this dreadful recommendation.
I’m sorry, but this isn’t right. Before anyone accuses me of being biggoted—just to be clear, I’m a woman. The best person for the job should get the job. It shouldn’t be forced through as a box-ticking exercise. That approach is actually insulting to women who have earned their positions through hard work. Selection should be based on skill and merit. No one is keeping us out of government. This whole idea is just ridiculous.
That’s how Maples thought and now look at them. Seems the same, doesn’t it?
Hardly the same as the maples situation. Only Caymanians can run for government.
Maples violated the law, does it really seem the same?
I would suggest there be an IQ test before giving someone power, or in this case, even a vote.
If you need “Affirmative Action” to get on the ballot, maybe you should not be on the ballot.
lessons not learnt….
affirmative action has been in place in cig forever with caymanians given civil service jobs when not qualified…..and just look at what a bloated mess the civil service is right now.
Campaign Finance issues are overblown. While I agree all donations to Candidate’s Campaign should be documented, why they are donating makes no difference. What I do not see is what limit should be considered as a maximum. Currently it stands at $40,000 but certainly raising this to $70,000 or $80,000 should not be considered excessive. Some of the candidates that were not elected this time, did not spend as much as those that were elected. Perhaps if their campaign had been better financed, they would have fared much better. And there were some good candidates that lost, that would have made excellent Members of Paliament
I think we should be stricter on who can run for office on the crimes committed part.
Why? None of the women in government are doing much (except for JOCC, who assiduously emptied our coffers)
Having served on a Board with a minority of women with for quite a few years, I can confirm that it’s truly exhausting to be ignored, talked over, patronized and silenced repetitively. If you’re quiet, you need to speak up. If you’re bold, you’re arrogant, If you demand to be allowed to finish your sentence, you’re ‘hormonal’ or a Bi+@#
A man can literally repeat what you just said and get acknowledgment and praise while you got silence. Men will actually say they didn’t hear you speaking. It can be a very toxic environment.
It’s got nothing to do with your gender, it’s the chip on your shoulder.
Completely expected and predictable response. Bet you made a lot of assumptions in categorizing this person without knowing anything about them.
Yep. Every woman who thinks they should have an opportunity to be heard if they have something to contribute has a chip on their shoulder.
nothing more undemocratic than giving voters no choice on human attributes for political office!
“ strict exclusion of individuals who have been convicted or served time in prison, even when a criminal offence is spent or happened when a potential candidate was a juvenile.”
Can anyone explain why Kenny is in Parliament then? I thought the prohibition was convicted of an offence either invokving dishonesty or carrying a potential sentence of more than 12 months( which is how Mac dodged the bullet as common assault has a max of 12 minths). But Kenny was convicted of dealing drugs, which must surely carry more than a 12 month max, even if he spent less than that inside. I had assumed it was because his conviction was spent die to the passage of time, but this article suggest spent convictions count. CNS, can you throw any light on this?
CNS: The disqualification of MPs is in the Constitution here. People cannot hold office if they have SERVED a sentence of 12 months or more. It doesn’t say anything about a potential or maximum sentence.
What? Granted, women’s suffrage efforts materialized later in Cayman than some places, yet it did yield fruit before we became a Crown Colony. Civically and politically speaking, that’s quite commendable.
But women were never ‘kept down’ in Cayman. In fact we were significantly a matriarchal society, as most able-bodied men were at sea.
I came to Cayman by pain in 1957 and my memories go back to the early 1960 when, from then, there were women holding prominent roles in society. A few examples are Miss Annie Bodden, lawyer and legislator; Ms. Evelyn Wood NH; Ms. Una Bush head of Government Savings Bank, the only banking institution pre-dating Barclays Bank; the hospital’s Matron Ruth Mclaughlin, Mrs. Sybil Mclaughlin NH (then legislative clerk), Ms. Frances Bodden, many teachers. By the 1970s came Post Master General Hope Glidden-Borden, Chief Education Officer Islay Conolly, Ms. Lucille Seymour and on and on.
Meanwhile, in the growing private sector, women like the Merren sisters, Mrs. Valda Bodden (Home Supplies/Bodden’s Funeral/Vampt Motors; Mrs. Corrine Thompson (ALT), Mrs. Foster (Daisy Dairy…perhaps the percursor to Foster’s enterprises); Mrs. Jenice Godfrey (Godfrey’s Enterprise), among others, stewarded, and were the “face” of companies which remain major contributors to our society.
I’ve never lived outside Cayman for more than 3 years at any one time, meaning, I never lost contact with happenings here. I’ve never known of women being kept down or held back from opportunities just for being women.
I guess it happens, like everywhere else but to the extent that election observers have to call it out and recommend “affirmative action” is way over-dramatized.
I guess they had to justify their trip? 🤷♂️
I support the concept of more women entering politics, but only if they are qualified to do the work. The practice of having a 50/50 split just because of gender is ridiculous.
Nomination gets any gender on the ballot…just gotta want to serve and find two other endorsing Caymanians (that don’t work for the Civil Service) that agree.
“These are, arguably, unreasonable restrictions on the right to stand for election,” the observers said in the report and also recommended a review of the strict exclusion of individuals who have been convicted or served time in prison, even when a criminal offence is spent or happened when a potential candidate was a juvenile.
Right off the top of my head, I can’t think of anyone who served time in prison that I would like to see elected, but I can think of a lot of people whom we elected that I would like to see serve time in prison.
Gender didn’t stop JOCC from shredding whistleblower protections, indemnifying herself and Cabinet against criminal prosecution for illegal doings, and generally running this place into the ground.
Sorry, I’m not a fan of JOCC either, but when you make statements like this, you backhandedly paint all women with the same brush.
As many an OAG has pointed out in annul reviews: the real governance hurdle is unseating the cabal of conspiring obstructive career civil servants that still can’t produce the legal minimum public reporting standard, chief among them, unelected Franz Manderson who presides with impunity over it all. Restore whistleblower protections, give anti-corruption agencies the teeth and resources to arrest, apply the Nolan Principals, then honest people, regardless of their gender, can start pointing out the rot.
yawn….just pick the best people for the job.
the last thing cayman needs is people shoe-horned into roles just because of their gender.
why would grown women need hand holding to run for elections? If its any affirmative action needed in Cayman it should be all company management should be 50% Caymanian. Ohhhhh noooo, thats not something the foreigner’s would get behind. Just look at the responses to this comment :-))))
I think they already are. You are trying to separate born Caymanian with paper Caymanian
Quotas.
Next thing you know they will want the right to vote!
God forbid we ever make the mistake of letting them drive.
You have a point there.