By Rebecca Schiavo
With the rise of feminism, we have seen more and more women starting to be included in all disciplines, including politics. The inclusion of women is essential for several reasons. They provide a variety of perspectives, support policies that meet the concerns of women in society more broadly, alter the gendered structure of the public arena, and strengthen democratic legitimacy in addition to helping to create a more inclusive and representative government. To provide further insight on gender quotas, I interviewed Dr. Diana Dávila Gordillo, an assistant professor of Comparative Politics at Leiden University that focuses on studying women’s representation and party organisations. As Dr. Dávila Gordillo clearly states, the inclusion of women is not contingent on whether it improves politics or brings peace. Rather, “women should be included just because we make up 50% of the population,” and therefore, there should be an equal representation of that percentage in politics. This is a question of ensuring all voices are considered in governance. Most importantly, women bring different perspectives to politics, shaped by their distinct experiences that men might overlook. These differing viewpoints are vital for more comprehensive and inclusive decision-making.
However, women have only recently been officially permitted to engage in politics on an equal footing with men. Historically, political systems were dominated by men, with women excluded from decision-making roles. Over time, education, feminist movements and advocacy efforts have pushed for greater inclusion. So, how else can we include more women? One approach is gender quotas, which contribute to women being increasingly included in the same spaces as men. The first gender quota law was introduced in Argentina, named Ley de Cupos, in the 1993 election of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies. The Ley de Cupos, along with persistent efforts from women’s advocacy, meant more women held legislative office. In fact, “27% of women were elected in 1997”. Gender quotas have proven to be an effective tool in ensuring women’s representation.
How do gender quotas affect political representation?
Gender quotas are measures designed to ensure that women are represented in the political arena from which they have previously been excluded. There are three main types of gender quotas: reserved seats, party quotas, and legislative quotas. Reserved seats entail the obligation of setting aside a specific number of seats for female legislators. This not only guarantees a minimum level of female representation in political bodies but also ensures that women are elected. Furthermore, party quotas are measures that aim to include a particular proportion of women on the list of candidates for a political office. These measures are voluntarily adopted by individual parties and vary by party. Lastly, legislative quotas require all political parties to appoint a specific ratio of female candidates. However, these legislative quotas are mandatory, established by national parliaments, and apply to all political parties, not just those that choose to adopt quotas. Overall, gender quotas seek to increase women’s representation in politics, reduce gender disparities, and challenge the historical exclusion of women. In closed-list proportional representation systems, in which voters cast their votes for the party and the party determines the order of candidates on the list, candidates are elected based on their position. Therefore, it is crucial to regulate the order of candidates on the list to ensure that parties do not place women at the bottom while still complying with the necessary quotas. Placing women on the bottom of the list reduces their chance of getting elected, ignoring the whole point of gender quotas and decreasing their effectiveness.
Gender quotas in different electoral systems:
Gender quotas are established in different political systems in numerous ways. In majority systems, the disputed seat is given to the party or candidate who receives more than 50% of the vote in a constituency. In majority systems, it is important to guarantee that female candidates are selected as candidates in winnable constituencies because parties can include women in constituencies where they are less likely to win, limiting the impact of gender quotas on representation. Therefore, it is common in majority systems to reserve a certain number of seats exclusively for women, increasing their representation. Unlike majority systems that need a formula to “poll more votes than the opposition”, plurality systems require one candidate per district to win more poll votes than any other opponent. As plurality systems focus on candidates’ lists, not party lists, gender quotas are less effective in increasing women’s representation than other systems. In proportional representation systems, the distribution of seats needs to be generally proportional to the distribution of popular vote among competing political parties. This structure, reliant on proportionality, means that parties can include the necessary ratio of female candidates on their electoral lists, facilitating the fulfilment of gender quotas. Mixed systems, on the other hand, are a combination of both proportional representation and majoritarian systems. Their goal is to balance constituency representation, where elected representatives directly represent specific geographic areas or voters, with proportionality. This dual characteristic allows gender quotas to be applied to the proportional element of mixed systems. Therefore, they similarly “mandate” that party lists include a percentage of female candidates in the candidate list. Dr. Dávila Gordillo specifies that proportional representation systems with larger multi-member districts make it easier to enforce quotas for women. In such systems, where multiple seats are available, parties face lower electoral risk because there is a greater chance for a broad range of parties to win. Thus, increasing the likelihood of women being elected as parties can include underrepresented candidates without affecting their chances of getting elected. With more seats up for grabs, political parties are incentivized to field a diverse slate of candidates, including women, which enhances the chances for women to win.
The case of Rwanda:
The World Economic Forum states that Rwanda, a country in East Africa, is leading the world in women’s representation; women hold more than 60% of the seats in parliament. In 2008, they were the first country to have a female majority parliament. The Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) won the 2018 parliamentary elections, and they formed a coalition with the Centrist Democratic party, the Ideal Democratic Party, the Party for Progress and Concord and the Democratic Union of Rwandan people. Out of the 80 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, 61% of women held seats, and 53 of the seats were for directly elected members. The indirectly elected members made up 27 seats, in which 24 were reserved for women. This means that 48 women, including both indirectly and directly elected members, were part of the majority coalition. Although Rwanda has a proportional representation system with multiparty elections, the Freedom House Index classifies Rwanda as “Not Free”. This suggests that Rwanda functions as a nondemocratic or hybrid regime, where formal democratic structures exist but significant restrictions on political freedoms and civil liberties persist. Dr. Dávila Gordillo explains that in non-democratic regimes, quotas are often used strategically to signal legitimacy to the international community. Due to the lack of democratic values and institutions, women’s roles may be just symbolic, thus, their ability to accomplish change is limited.
Controversies and challenges of gender quotas:
A common controversy with gender quotas is whether or not these laws committed to the inclusion of women are bringing underqualified women simply to a target of women represented in politics. This perception of less competent candidates reinforces the stereotypes of women’s credibility in leadership roles. However, Dr. Dávila Gordillo affirms that the importance of gender quotas does not merely lie in representation but also in their role in driving investment in the training of women politicians, ultimately improving democracy. As women become more represented in politics, greater emphasis is placed on educating and training women to become qualified candidates, addressing concerns about competence. Dr. Dávila Gordillo further emphasises that increasing women’s representation enhances the political system by diversifying both male and female candidates, thereby making the political system more inclusive and enhancing democratic legitimacy.
Another challenge of gender quotas is substantive representation, which refers to the extent to which elected officials advocate for and advance the interests of the group they represent. Dr. Dávila Gordillo states that although descriptive representation, the idea that elected officials represent a group in terms of characteristics, is improved with the increase of women in politics, it does not necessarily mean that women elected will effectively influence policies that promote gender equality. Barriers like gendered institutions, exclusion from informal networks, and cultural expectations limit the extent to which women can push for policy change, leading them to be ostracised. She summarises that quotas are not a “silver bullet” for achieving gender equality in politics, but they do open spaces for change.
About Dr. Diana Dávila Gordillo:
Dr. Diana Dávila Gordillo is an Assistant Professor of Comparative Politics at Leiden University. Her research focuses on political institutions and representation, with a regional emphasis on Latin America. She specializes in women’s political representation and party organizations, exploring the challenges women encounter in politics and the role of various stakeholders in shaping their experiences.
Photo: Joakim Honkasalo on Unsplash
