Gender Quotas in Politics: Impact and Challenges

Posted on Dec 23, 2024 in Social sciences

Gender Quotas: Advancing Women in Politics

Gender Quotas are designed to address historical and systemic barriers that limit women’s participation in politics and leadership.

Main Barriers

  • Cultural norms and gender roles.
  • Structural obstacles (electoral system, economic inequality, party structures).
  • Historical exclusion (patriarchal systems).

Objective

Guarantee a minimum threshold for female representation (typically 30-40%).

Types of Gender Quotas

  • Reserved Seats: Specific seats allocated to women regardless of election outcomes.
    • Example: Rwanda (30% guaranteed → 60% in practice).
  • Legislated Candidate Quotas: Legal obligation for parties to include a minimum percentage of female candidates.
    • Example: Mexico (50% men, 50% women in legislative elections).
  • Voluntary Party Quotas: Internal policies adopted by parties to ensure gender equality.
    • Example: “Zipper system” (Sweden): alternating male-female candidates in party lists.

Why Are Gender Quotas Necessary?

  • Closing the Gender Gap: Only 26.7% of parliamentary seats are held by women globally (2023).
  • Fast-tracking Equality: Without intervention, gender parity could take 130 years (UN).
  • Overcoming Structural Barriers: Majoritarian systems and closed lists without quotas disadvantage women.
  • Strengthening Democracy: Diverse perspectives on key issues (education, health, gender-based violence).
  • Challenging Cultural Norms: Foster acceptance of women in positions of power and leadership.
  • Building Female Leadership: Creates a pipeline of experienced and qualified female leaders.
  • Economic and Social Benefits: Diverse leadership improves decision-making and governance outcomes.
  • “True equality does not exist simply by removing formal barriers; discrimination and hidden obstacles persist.”
  • Quotas are seen as an immediate solution versus long-term structural reforms.

Why Are They Unnecessary? Challenges in Implementation

  • Questioning Meritocracy: Selection may prioritize gender over qualifications.
  • Token Representation: Women may lack real decision-making power.
  • Institutional Resistance: Parties may prefer to pay fines rather than comply (e.g., France).
  • Temporary Fix: Quotas don’t address structural issues like cultural norms or economic disparities.
  • Social Stigma: Women elected through quotas face doubts about their legitimacy.
  • Manipulation: Parties may place women in “unwinnable” districts to meet quotas.
  • Polarization: Resistance in conservative societies; perceived as “external imposition.”
  • a) Insufficient Enforcement: Lack of mechanisms to ensure compliance in some countries.
  • b) Cultural Resistance: Pushback in traditional societies.
  • c) Mixed Results: Varied success in countries like France, South Africa, and Brazil due to cultural and political differences.

Case Studies: Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan

  • Taiwan (42% women in parliament): A leader in global female representation. Success is driven by strong gender quotas at local and national levels. Symbolized by former President Tsai Ing-wen.
  • South Korea (19% women in the National Assembly): Progress has plateaued since the 2004 quota introduction. Challenges in SMD elections due to a lack of financial and institutional support.
  • Japan (10% women in parliament): Lags behind the Asian average (20.3%). Impacted by structural barriers and deeply rooted cultural norms.

Electoral Systems and Gender Representation

Proportional Representation (PR)

  • Generally more favorable for women.
  • Taiwan: Strict 50% gender quotas → significant gains.
  • South Korea: 50% PR quota but only 18% PR seats in the legislature, limiting the impact.
  • Japan: No PR quotas; limited representation (13%).

Single-Member Districts (SMD)

  • Women are underrepresented across all three countries.
  • Taiwan: 33% of SMD seats.
  • South Korea: 11.4%.
  • Japan: 8%.

Implementation of Quotas

  • Taiwan: Local quotas since the 1950s. In 2005: 50% PR quotas with strict enforcement. Impact: 42% women in parliament and a pipeline for experienced female leaders.
  • South Korea: In 2004: Mandatory 50% PR quotas; 30% SMD quotas only “recommended.” Challenges: Perception of women as “quota candidates.” Weak SMD enforcement.
  • Japan: 2018 Gender Parity Law: Voluntary, no penalties for non-compliance. Minimal impact due to a lack of party commitment.

Perception of “quota candidates”: The legitimacy of women elected under quotas is often questioned.

Institutional Barriers

  • Party Gatekeeping: Political parties limit women’s access to leadership and prominent roles.
  • Limited Upward Mobility: PR experience often does not translate to SMD success. Women frequently leave politics after one term due to a lack of advancement.
  • Japan’s Dual Candidacy System: Combines SMD and PR candidacies; advantages men.
  • Taiwan: A success story with strong quotas and cultural shifts enabling women’s political progress.
  • South Korea: Mixed progress; PR quotas are effective, but weak SMD enforcement limits broader representation.
  • Japan: Lags significantly; a lack of mandatory quotas and entrenched cultural barriers stall progress.

Gender Tensions in South Korean Elections

The election revealed deep gender tensions, particularly among young people in their 20s and 30s.

  • Young Men: View feminism as disadvantageous to them.
  • Young Women: Support feminism as a response to systemic inequalities.

Factors Contributing to Gender Tensions

  • Economic and Social Changes:
    • Women: Progress in education and employment, but challenges persist (wage gap, underrepresentation).
    • Men: Feel neglected, impacted by economic stagnation, unemployment, and mandatory military service.
  • Politicization of Feminism: Feminism is framed as a divisive ideology in political discourse. Politicians exploited gender polarization to mobilize voter bases.

Voting Groups

  • Young Men (Anti-Feminists): View feminist policies as “special treatment” for women. Organized online and supported conservative candidates like Yoon Seok-yeol.
  • Young Women (Feminists): Mobilized in response to anti-feminist rhetoric. Pragmatically supported Lee Jae-myung to counter the conservative.

Electoral Dynamics

  • Conservative Candidate (Yoon Seok-yeol): Strong anti-feminist messages (e.g., abolishing the Ministry of Gender Equality). Framed feminism as a distraction from real societal issues.
  • Progressive Candidate (Lee Jae-myung): Initially sought male voters but later focused on appealing to women. This shift was perceived as insincere by many female voters.

Impacts of Gender Polarization

  • Social Polarization: Increased resentment between young men and women. Hinders reconciliation and social cooperation.
  • Threat to Women’s Rights: Anti-feminist policies risk rolling back progress on equality and representation.
  • Democratic Risks: Rise in populism and authoritarianism. Exploitation of social divisions for political gain.

Conclusion

South Korea reflects global challenges in societies undergoing rapid changes. Addressing perceptions of inequality is crucial without exacerbating social divisions.