Jennifer M. Piscopo is a Professor of Gender and Politics and Director of the Gender Institute at Royal Holloway, University of London. Her research examines gender, elections, and democracy, with a focus on women’s political participation in Latin America and the United States. Jennifer Piscopo joined a two-day Expert Group Meeting (EGM) organized by UN Women to address one of the most persistent barriers to gender equality in political and public life: discriminatory social norms. The event held on 4-5 February 2025 brought together feminist scholars, policymakers, activists, and practitioners to chart a path forward for transforming social norms and ensuring women’s full and effective political participation. This experts’ meeting was organized under the WYDE | Women’s Leadership, funded by the European Union, which is a collaborative global effort aimed at advancing women’s full and effective political participation and decision-making at all levels, especially those most often left furthest behind.
-
What sparked your passion for studying women's representation and gender in elections?
I'm American, and when I was growing up, there were very few women in U.S. politics. Unfortunately, that’s still the case today—there are very few women in key political leadership roles.
But in some countries, that wasn’t the case. They elected more women to office and even as heads of state and government, which is what led me to comparative political science. I wanted to be able to compare and understand why some countries break barriers to women’s political participation more successfully than others.
-
What are the key barriers to women’s political participation?
There are many barriers. One common narrative is that women doubt their own abilities and capacities to run for office – which is perhaps true in some cases. So many development programs and organizations have therefore focused on boosting women’s confidence and encouraging them to see themselves as political actors. But actually, self-doubt isn’t the biggest barrier! If this were the case, we wouldn’t see such stark differences across countries in electing women. One of the real, more significant obstacles is political parties. Political parties have historically been male-dominated, which means men control who gets nominated, what resources are provided for campaigns and how elected officials maintain power. Women often find themselves blocked from these institutions that have been historically dominated by men. Even when women meet the required qualifications, the bar shifts. First, they’re told they lack the right education, so they get degrees in law or business. However then, they’re told they lack political experience. So the goalposts keep moving for women, which is the reason we focus so much on the preparing women as political leaders. But this emphasis on preparing women means we actually miss out on policy interventions which should focus on the barriers. We need to target political parties or party leaders to change their attitudes and beliefs, and redefine what qualifications matter. The real issue isn’t women "fixing themselves"—it’s fixing the institutions that gatekeep political opportunities.
-
How do gender quotas help?
Gender quotas are a great example of policies that cut through or bypass cultural and individual beliefs that society may have about women political leaders. Quotas can challenge both cultural biases and party structures, since they require parties to nominate women, forcing the parties to recruit, train, and position them women candidates for success.
And quotas work. When quotas are enforced, suddenly political parties find, support, and elect women. And not only do women win, but they also prove to be effective leaders and successful at governing.
Quotas can be viewed as a sort of shortcut, to swiftly raise number of women in office, overcoming individual and partisan barriers.
Finally, beyond increasing numbers, quotas transform institutions. They have a knock-on effect. They lead to changes within party cultures, parliamentary codes of conduct and meeting structures, ensuring a more inclusive and professional environment. Quotas, and women entering institutions through quotas, actually have a transformative effect across the board within parties and parliaments in addition to the fact that elected women may hold different policy priorities.
-
Why is it important to apply a gender lens when analyzing elections?
When I started this work, I worked with political scientists who said, "Elections are about the best candidate winning. This is democracy and this is what we study." But taking a gender lens in this work makes us question that assumption. Because, if men are always winning, despite no inherent difference in abilities or talent, then what does that say about our electoral processes? If democracy means equal opportunity, why don’t we see equal outcomes for men and women in elections? Studying gender in elections reveals whether a democracy is truly substantively meaningful and inclusive. If the same types of candidates always win, are we really getting diverse representation? Are institutions truly accountable to all citizens, or just to those who have historically held power?
-
What advice would you then give young women entering politics?
It’s not you, it’s them! Institutions are designed to preserve themselves and it may feel like the bar keeps moving for women when entering these institutions.
At first, you’ll be told you don’t speak up enough. So, you start speaking up. Then, you’ll be told you lack credentials. So, you’ll get them. And still, the bar shifts again.
This isn’t about your shortcomings, it’s about those in power wanting to maintain the status quo. Adjust when necessary, but don’t lose hope, trust yourself, keep pushing. And keep knocking down these barriers, change will happen!
Click here to see the original post published on Capacity4Dev (European Union) on 23 April 2025.
