There are various arguments that demonstrate serious resistance to the implementation of quotas, but at the heart of all of them is sexism — a system that imposes a way of acting and interpreting the world based on sexual differentiation.

This is undoubtedly one of the forms of essentialism that is most difficult to eradicate. Because the way of legitimizing power in a democracy is through know-how and knowledge, we must develop arguments that are more accessible, clear and concise.

Feminists have written many theories, analyses and documents theorizing about these issues. It is important to re-examine them and to be able to take those arguments to different levels so that they are accessible to different audiences.

Assumptions are often repeatedly incessantly as if they were truths that merit no re-examination. This is true of the argument that some people voice that women who are elected because of quotas do not win on their own merit.

The purpose of quota laws is not for women to gain certain positions of power simply because they are women, without requiring them to have professionalism and experience. Women already have merit; that should not be an issue. Women who reach positions of political leadership do so because of their training, experience, ability and commitment, not because they are women. This is an extremely important nuance.

In my opinion, seeing quota laws exclusively as a mechanism for women to gain access to power is short sighted. That is a consequence, not the cause. We should propose quotas as a mechanism for trying to eliminate a serious shortcoming in the world’s democracy, which has to do with representation. If we believe that representation is the backbone and the very substance of democracy, how can we allow 50 percent of the population not to have representation in democratic systems? What argument can justify this democratic deficit?

Putting women at the center of the debate distracts attention and is done deliberately. We must place democracy at the center of the debate and question its limitations. The argument that quota laws undermine equality will therefore not carry any weight, since on the contrary, their goal is to try to correct the fact that more than half the human race does not have representation or the opportunity to defend its interests.

The state is one of the institutions that is most criticized for producing and reproducing inequalities, and is one of the places where decisions are made about our lives and everyday affairs. We have the right to a voice in these decision-making spheres. Moreover, this is right and just for peaceful coexistence in the world, and is in everyone’s best interest.

Another argument, strange and perhaps more veiled, is that women in power will only address women’s concerns. It is clear that so far, men in power have not addressed them until very recently, and even then, they have only addressed, at a high cost, some of the demands made by women and other groups: ethnic, class and age issues; disabilities; sexual identity …. In fact, viewed in this light, many democracies currently represent only a minority, rather than the diversity of their populations, and this is truly a serious problem.

It is therefore crucial to be clear about the concepts and arguments and begin to raise people’s awareness about the importance of the issue with arguments. This is one of the social demands of the modern world — recognition of political plurality.

Gemma Bardají Blasco
UN-INSTRAW
Women’s Political Participation Team
Santo Domingo

This comment was originally posted on the Spanish E-Discussion Forum at http://www.iknowpolitics.org/es/node/5941#comment-1822 .

In Paraguay we have often heard this argument, which claims that women are seeking corporative space and that quotas should therefore also be established for youth, original peoples and other groups.

It sometimes takes a great deal of time, and requires a class on gender discrimination (an educational process that is not easily done in a single presentation before Parliament or a party), to explain that quotas are not corporative, and that they are a starting point rather than a ceiling for working toward equal representation.

It is also important to show that gender discrimination cuts across discrimination on the basis of age, ethnic group or other characteristics. As Gemma says, it is very important to make it clear that quotas are not aimed at pitting men against women, but at the inclusion of other issues, visions and world views, and that women can contribute different ways of looking at life and the world and different ways of doing politics.

These arguments have borne fruit in avoiding the constant argument that “women want to take opportunities away from us and dominate us,” which we have heard more than once.

Best wishes,

Carmen Colazo

This comment was originally posted on the Spanish E-Discussion Forum at http://www.iknowpolitics.org/es/node/5941#comment-1833

Resistance to the quota system in Jamaica is covert, as the limitations of the constitution to enforce such a system are often cited as the reason against its implementation rather than a personal opinion and feeling towards the issue. This, in my opinion, can be overcome if such systems are implemented at the party level, rather than at the state level. Both political parties in Jamaica are quite vocal about their willingness to include women at all levels of decision making and thus would be accepting of measures aimed to increase their participation in politics.

In general, when a gender quota law is under discussion, the main source of criticism is represented by the false impression that such laws hide a discriminatory approach towards men or in the best cases and that they work against meritocracy and allow low quality candidates to come to power and represent the population, just because of their sex. In our experience, such resistances could be overcome only by thorough, adequate and systematic sensitisation and information campaigns at all levels of society of a country (grass-root, political, religious) and throughout the whole territory of the country. These advocacy campaigns should be based on objective, preferably economic arguments, showing how a country can hardly progress if half of its population (generally women) is dependant on the other half’s decisions and does not contribute in economic terms to the development of the country.

Gender laws are by definition temporary laws, which are designed to expire at the end of an electoral process. This implies that even though some progress is achieved in terms of womens’ representation following one round of election, at the following round female representation can be lower again. In order to avoid such phenomena, mainly due to backlashes in the society (as it often happens across Arab countries), one of the options is to adopt an equal opportunity law, containing a positive discrimination principle in favour of the marginalised sex. Such a law would have the advantage to represent a legal aqui in terms of female participation. On the one hand, it would avoid re-opening the debate on the opportunity of such positive discriminatory measures, while on the other hand it could already represent by itself a legal framework to reserve some posts/seats within legislative institutions for women, in a more automatic way.

Once gender quota laws are accepted for electoral processes, it is much easier to start introducing quotas for high State functions, at the administrative level. Mauritania is moving towards this direction nowadays, as a natural step forward for reaching equality in female representation in decision-making.

Submitted by Alessandra Pellizzeri

Governance Programme Officer, UNDP Mauritania

Quota can only be a short term solution to increase women representation in decision making positions to allow for more opportunities for women; specifically in conservative societies where women’s role in pubic arena is denied. The application of quota will assist in increasing women representation at different levels. This should be accompanied with a special and systematic capacity building programme for women so that they can participate effectively to ensure the quality and not only quantity of women participation.

I personally believe in a country like Sudan where the level of illiteracy among women is very high; the quota system can be used for the next election (2009) and for a while to increase women’s representation, this should also be accompanied with the systematic capacity building programmes starting from the grass-roots up to the highest level. After that women will be capable to stand for election with no need for positive discrimination (like quota).

Rabab M. A. Baldo

Here are some classic arguments and counter-arguments in the quota debate, along with some advice for ensuring that quotas are actually implemented.

Argument: Quotas are patronising to women, suggesting they can't do it by themselves.
Counter-argument: The systematic exclusion of women from the political arena through bias and discrimination is what is patronising to women. Only by giving women the opportunity to participate can it be proven that women CAN do it by themselves.

Argument: Quotas result in inferior candidates that are only there to fulfil the obligations of the quota.
Counter-argument: Quotas widen the talent pool, resulting in an overall higher class of candidate. Anyone that assumes that men are more likely than women to be a quality candidate has a narrow view of what it takes to be a politician.

Argument: Quotas risk essentialising women by accentuating their difference to men, and this can harm them in the long run.
Counter-argument: Women are a heterogeneous group and it is important for the diversity of women to be present rather than a small token sample. Essentialist assumptions about women are more likely to be made in women's absence.

Problem: A quota is set but parties fail to meet the quota.
Solution: Increase the sanction for failing to meet the quota, eg rejecting a party list that does not meet the quota. If it is a voluntary quota, this can be hard to do, but sanctions can take the form of campaigns and electoral pressure ('this will not play well with women voters' etc). Parties will do what they perceive to be in their best interests - if they can be persuaded that the cost of leaving women out is greater than the cost of including them, they will be more likely to promote women.

(Dr. Rainbow Murray, University of London, specialist on gender parity in France)