ISIS MONOGRAPH SERIES 2005ISSUE NO. 1, VOL. 1Gender, Governance and Democracy:Women in Politics

Editorial TeamGuest Editor Josefa‘Gigi’FranciscoManaging Editor AnjaniAbellaCopy Editor MarilenAbesamisAssistant Copy Editor MariaMelindaAndoLay-out and Graphics Sonic303ComputerCenterGraphics AileenFamilara

VolumeContributorsEurope DrudeDahlerupAsia Josefa‘Gigi’Francisco

Published with funding support from Evangelishes Missionwerk/Church Development Service (EED – Germany) and complimentary funds from the WAGI/UP-NCPAG/UNDP Philippine Governance Portfolio Fund.

Gender,GovernanceandDemocracy:

Strategies to Enhance Women’s Political Representation in Different Electoral Systems

Drude Dahlerup

Women in Politics and Governance: Complex

Challenges from GlobalisationJosefa ‘Gigi’ Francisco

AnIsisInternational-ManilapublicationincollaborationwiththeWomenandGenderInstitute(WAGI)

Isis International-Manila is an advocate ofsharing information for free. As such, it allowsreproductionorutilisationofanyarticleorgraphicin this monograph, provided the authors, artistsandpublishersareappropriatelycited.Informationmay be reprinted upon permission from andacknowledgementofIsisInternational-Manila.

OpinionsexpressedintheIsisInternational-Manilamonograph series do not necessarily reflect theviewpointofIsis-Manila.

Isis International-Manila reserves the right to editmaterials for clarity and brevity to suit the style,designandaudienceofitsmonographseries.

Contents

Preface

Introduction

DRUDE DAHLERUP: Strategies to Enhance Women’s Political Representation in Different Electoral Systems

JOSEFA ‘GIGI’ FRANCISCO: Women in Politics and Governance: Complex Challenges from Globalisation

.............05

...........09

.......12

...34

In the year 2005, Isis International-Manila (Isis-Manila)

witnessed the consolidated shift of attention, energies and

resourcestowardtheMilleniumDevelopmentGoals(MDGs)

andtheattempttocounter,ifnot,‘manage’thefast-risingstate

ofglobal insecurity.As theworldgrapplesandtries tokeep

pace with these developments, women now fear a backlash

in the gains made toward their empowerment as women’s

participation and visibility in public spaces are gradually

beingcurtailed.The low-key reviewof the statusofwomen

followingtheadoptionof theBeijingPlatformforActiona

decadeago,wasreflectiveofanenvironmentwherewomen’s

interestsstillremainremotefromStateagenda.

Globalcapitalismiswritingitsscriptonthebodies

and livesofwomenandgirlsas it intersectswithglobalised

mediaandICTs.Spacesforwomen’sinteractionareincreasingly

shrinkingasorganisationsandnetworkswork to strengthen

trans-regionalfeministactivismandinter-movementdialogue

in challenging new and old manifestations of neo-liberal

globalisation.Thus,Isis-Manilapresents“Gender,Governance

andDemocracy”, the inaugural issueof thewe!monograph

series.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

05

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

06

Thewe!monographseriesisIsis-Manila’strans-regionalpublication

that visibly facilitates cross-border understanding and analysis on cutting-

edge issues and current affairs. Its purpose is to promote a deeper and

critical interrogation of the inter-linkages of global trends and the broader

developmentagenda.Analternativeplatformthatinterrogatesissuesfroma

feminist standpoint, thewe!monographputs forward thevoicesofwomen

scholars and activists. Further, it seeks to elevate feminist perspectives and

analysesinanattempttogenerateawarenessonourcommonsitesofstruggles

againstpatriarchy,corporatehegemonies,right-wingideologicalregimes,and

empire-building.

Inthisinauguralissue,theselectionofcross-borderexchangesbetween

AsiaandEuropeproceedsfromtheFriedrich-Ebert-StiftungPhilippines’(FES)

international conference Women Shaping Democracy: Progressive Politics

TenYearsAftertheWorldConferenceonWomeninBeijinginOctober2005,

co-organisedbytheSoutheastAsianWomen’sWatch(SEAWWatch)andIsis-

Manila. Isis-Manila extends its appreciation to colleagues in SEAWWatch,

WAGI and FES, in particular, to FES former Director, Beate Martin, and

formerFESSoutheastAsiaRegionalGenderCoordinator,AnjaKoehler.The

engagements that took place in this conference served as the bases for this

monographseries.

Isis-Manila is immenselygrateful to its long-timepartnerWomen

andGenderInstitute(WAGI),forcollaboratinginproducingthismonograph

series.Weareespeciallygrateful to theenthusiasmandcommitmentof the

Executive Director of WAGI, Josefa ‘Gigi’ Francisco who served as this

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

07

issue’s guest editor. The direction setting and production of this inaugural

issuewasmadepossiblethroughthecoordinationandleadershipofaninter-

generationaleditorialteamfromIsis-ManilaandWAGIcomprisedofAnjani

Abella, Marilen Abesamis, Maria Melinda Ando, and Aileen Familara. We

alsoextendourappreciationtothealwaysreliableandever-readySonic303

forthecoverdesignandLithwerkeforlay-outandprintingservices.

Finally,Isis-Manilaalsoextendsitsutmostthankstoallitspartners

thatcontinuetosupportandbelieveinourworkandcontributionstoward

people-centreddevelopment and social change. Inparticular, our gratitude

goestotheEvangelischesMissionwerk/ChurchDevelopmentService(EED–

Germany),withcomplimentaryfundsdrawnfromtheWAGI/UP-NCPAG

(UniversityofthePhilippines–NationalCollegeofPublicAdministrationand

Government)/UNDP(UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgram)Governance

PortfolioFund.

Thismonographseriescompilessixcriticalopinionarticlesinthree

(3) volumes, namely [1]Women in Politics; [2] Gender and International

Trade; and [3] Peace and Security. The series reflect Asian and European

perspectivesoncurrentdebatesongender,governanceanddemocracy.

Acommonthreadrunningthroughtheserichcross-borderessaysis

thecallfortheconstructionofdemocraticandgender-sensitivedifferentiated

democracieswitheconomiesbasedonsolidarityandnotonprofit.Assuch,

inthelargerdebateofre-claimingpeace,nationbuilding,andstatebuilding,

all essays call for thepromotionofgender justice andequity and re-affirm

thatrealdevelopmentwillnottakeplacewithoutthepromotionofwomen’s

empowermentandrecognitionofwomen’spro-activeparticipationinpublic

spaces.

Indeedmuchislefttobedone.

Raijeli Drodrolagi NicoleExecutive Director

Isis International-Manila

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

08

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

09The struggle of women to achieve parity with men

in leadership and decision-making within the public

institutions of states, politics and governments is an

important arena of political action and discourse for

contemporarywomen’smovements.AttheFourthWorld

ConferenceonWomen(FWCW,Beijing1995),theretook

place a global consensus around women’s advancement

in the public sphere through the institutionalisation of

nationalmachineriesforwomen,aswellas,theaffirmation

ofthegenderquotainpolicyanddecision-makingspaces.

Inresponse,asignificantnumberofwomen’sgroupsand

individualfeministsintheSouthtookupthechallengeof

morestronglyaddressingandchallengingmaledomination

in politics — a struggle earlier started by sisters in the

North.

WhathaveweachievedsincetheFourthWorld

Conference onWomen? The two essays featured in this

monographprovideaglimpseofthecontinuingreflection

and debates on women in politics and governance. The

contributionfromEuropecriticallyexaminesthecomplex

ofpossibilitiesandchallengeslinkedtoimplementingthe

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

10

strategyof ‘genderquotas’ indifferentiatedelectoralsystemsinreferenceto

the experiences of women in the Nordic and Scandinavian countries. The

contributionfromAsiafocusesonthecontradictedcharacterofgovernance

and politics that arises from the dynamic of globalisation, and points to

its serious implications for Asian women entering politics or occupying

governmentpositions.Whilethefirstessaybeginsbyaddressingtheproblem

of women’s under-representation in politics, the other is introduced by

flaggingthequestionofwhetherwomenshouldatallbeengagingwiththe

state. From their contrasted experiential traditions and political contexts,

together, the essays prompt women’s movements everywhere to reflect on

strategiesandtacticsintheirstruggletomakepoliticsandgovernancemore

justandaccessibletowomen.

ThefirstessayiswrittenbyDrudeDahlerup.Sheexplainsthefast

andincrementaltrackstoachievinggenderbalanceinpolitics,definingthe

formerasthe‘affirmativeaction’routeandthelatterasthelongstruggleroute

againstthecomplexitiesandlayersofdiscriminationagainstwomen.Shethen

exploresindetailtheoutcomesandissuesinimplementingthegenderquota

systemwithrespecttotheproportionalrepresentation(PR)system,plurality-

majoritysystem,andinasystemthatcombinesboth,scanningexperiences

across various countries. In ending, she reaffirms previous claims that the

increasedparticipationofwomencanneverbefullyguaranteedbythekind

of electoral system that a society practises, however, also establishes that

electoralgenderquotaisanimportantstrategyforwomen’spolitical justice

andempowermentunderthe‘rightcircumstances’.

ThesecondessayiswrittenbyJosefa‘Gigi’Franciscowhopresents

a contradicted terrain of Asian politics and governance which she sees as

resulting primarily from the contesting processes of a centralising trade

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

11

intensificationprocessandare-democratisationmovementintheregion.As

theseprocessessimultaneouslyinteractandcontest,women’sadvancementis

alsomarkedwithpersistentandnewissues.Shetheninterrogateswomenin

politicsbyposingtwoquestions:Whoarethewomenandtowhomarethey

accountable? In theprocess, she raises the complexities facingwomenwho

engage with the state and urges the women’s movements to address more

resolutely the inter-linking of economic justice and gender justice issues

withinalternativepoliticalspaces.

Across Asia and Europe, women are asserting and entering the

halls of formal power. Through the gender quota, some feminists may be

entering undemocratic political spaces while some undemocratic women

maybebenefitingfromtheexpansionofdemocraticspaces.Andasfeminists

participateindecision-makingwithingovernmentinstitutionsandpolitical

parties, there is danger of de-politicisation but also opportunities for re-

castingpolitics.Theseareissuesthatwomen’smovementseverywhereneedto

continuallyaddressandreflecton.

Anjani Abella andJosefa ‘Gigi’ Francisco

Issue Editors

In 2005, women occupied only 16% of the

parliamentaryseats intheworld,whilemenhad

84%.Notwithstandingeffortsbywomentoclaim

seatsingovernment,politicsisstillaheavilymale-

dominated arena (Inter-Parliamentary Union

Website,RetrievedlastFebruary15,2006).Today,

however,weseetheemergenceofnewdiscourses

of women’s under-representation followed by

manyoldaswellasnewstrategiestochangethis

under-representation.

Itisawell-knownfactthatelectoralsystemsbasedonproportional

representation [PR] benefit women’s political representation. On the

average, the level of women’s representation in parliaments is higher in

systems that use PR than in plurality-majority systems1 (Matland &

Studlar,1996;Norris,2004).Iwilldiscusswhythisisthecase,andwhy

it isdifficult toconstructa systemthatwillwork inaplurality-majority

system. How can one demand, for instance, 30% women on the list in

an electoral system with only one candidate per party? Because of such

difficulties, the gap between the majority system and the PR system in

termsofwomen’s representationmight increase evenmorewith thenew

trendtouseelectoralgenderquotasatcandidatenominations.

Women’smovementstheworldoverhaveattemptedtogivelegitimacyto

thecontroversialdemandforgenderquotasbyreferringtothe landmark

documentthatistheBeijingPlatformforAction[BPFA].Weshallexamine

the varying discourses [with discourse hereby defined as interlinked

constructionsofmeanings,whichincludeperceptionsofpossibleactions,

butnotactualactions].

Firstly,theBeijingPlatformtalksabout‘discriminatoryattitudes

andpractises’ and ‘unequalpower relations’ that lead towomen’sunder-

representation in political decision-making. This may be labelled a

discourse of exclusion. Whereas previously the focus was on women’s

lack of resources or lack of will to participate in politics, attention is

now directed towards those institutional and cultural mechanisms of

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

13

The Beijing Platform for Action: Legitimising Gender Quotas

exclusionthatpreventwomenfromobtaininganequalshareofpositions

inmostpoliticalinstitutions.Moreimportantly,inthisnewdiscourse,the

responsibilityforpromotingchangeisshiftedfromtheindividualwoman

totheinstitutionsthemselves,whichareexpectedtoidentifyandcorrect

thecausesofwomen’sunder-representation.

Secondly,thedemandforaminimumlevelofrepresentationfor

women is being challenged by a new discourse of equal representation,

oftenexpressedbythetermgenderbalance.TheWomen’sEnvironmentand

DevelopmentOrganization(WEDO)“50-50”campaignisagoodexample

of this new discourse.The goal is no longer described as ‘more women

in politics’ but rather as ‘equal participation’ and ‘equitable distribution

of power and decision-making at all levels’. Somewhat contradictorily,

however,theBeijingPlatformforActionalsospeaksofsecuringa‘critical

mass’, the latter often associated with figures of 20 or 30% women

(Dahlerup,1988&2005;FWCW,1995:Art.181–195).

Thirdly, affirmative action is suggested as a possible means to

women’s equal participation in political decision-making, although the

controversialword‘quota’isnotuseddirectlyintheBPFA.Forgovernmental

and public administration positions, it is recommended that the world’s

governmentsuse‘specifictargetsandimplementingmeasures…ifnecessary

throughpositiveaction’(FWCW,1995:Art.190.a).Concerningelections,

the BPFA urges governments to commit themselves to ‘take measures,

including,whereappropriate,inelectoralsystemsthatencouragepolitical

partiestointegratewomeninelectiveandnon-electivepublicpositionsin

the sameproportionandat the same levels asmen’ (FWCW,1995:Art.

190.b). Political parties should ‘consider examining party structures and

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

14

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

15

procedures to remove all barriers that directly or indirectly discriminate

againsttheparticipationofwomen’(FWCW,1995:Art.191.a).2

Evenifitslanguageiscautious,theBPFArepresentsonthewholea

newdiscourse,focusingonexclusionaryinstitutionalpractises,settinggender

balance as the goal, anddemanding that governments andpolitical parties

committhemselvestoaffirmativeaction.

Thispaperarguesthat ifwomenareunder-representedbecauseof

openorindirectmechanismsofexclusionanddiscrimination,theneducating

womenisnotenough,andmayevenresultinlittlechangeiftheinstitutions

are not changed simultaneously. If the problem is not women’s lack of

resources,but lackof acknowledgementof those resources and experiences

thatwomenactuallybringwiththemintothepoliticallife,thenthereisno

needtowaitforwomentobemoreeducatedorexperienced.

Inapreviousarticle,wehaveidentifiedtwotrackstogenderbalanceinpolitics

(Dahlerup & Freidenvall, 2005; Dahlerup, 2006). These current tracks

consist in different assumptions about the women’s movement’s historical

development,differentproblem identificationswith regard to thecausesof

women’sunder-representation,anddifferencesinchoiceofstrategy.

The incremental track discourse sees the primary problem as

women’s lack of political resources relative to men. While this discourse

recognisesprejudiceagainstwomen,itassumesthatprejudicewilleventually

The ‘Fast Track’ versus the ‘Incremental Track’ to Gender Balance in Politics

disappearassocietydevelops.Inherentinthisviewisanotionofgradualism,

oftenembeddedinanoptimistic,linearviewofprogress.

In contrast, the fast track discourse rejects the idea of gradual

improvementinwomen’srepresentation.Itevenassumesthatanincreasein

resourcesmaynotautomaticallyleadtoequalrepresentationbuttoabacklash.

Sinceexclusionanddiscriminationareatthecoreofthemalady,thisviewsees

the solution tobeaffirmativeaction.According to the fast trackdiscourse,

genderbalancewillnotcomeabout‘byitself.’Theresponsibilityfordealing

with the under-representation of women rests with political institutions.

It follows from the understanding of women’s under-representation, that

measures like electoral gender quotas for the recruitment and election of

femalecandidatesarenecessary.Progressforwomenwillnotcomeinevitably,

withouttheinterventionofsignificantinstitutions.

Electoralgenderquotasrepresent‘thefasttrack’toequalrepresentation

ofwomenandmeninpoliticsincontrastto‘theincrementaltrack.’Behind

thefasttrackmodelisagrowingimpatienceamongcontemporaryfeminists

withtheslowpaceofchangesinwomen’sposition.Today,feministsarenot

willingtowaitfiftytoeightyyearstoachievetheirgoals.Thenotionofthe

fast track versus the incremental track is here presented as two discourses,

butmayalsobeusedtocharacterisetwodifferenttypesofequalitypolicies,

andasanaccountoftheactualspeedofhistoricaldevelopmentinwomen’s

representation (Dahlerup & Freidenvall, 2003 & 2005). This distinction

betweenthetwotracksmayberelevantformanyotherpolicyareasbuthas

beendevelopedwithrespecttogenderandpoliticalinstitutions.TheBeijing

PlatformforActionclearlyrepresentsthefasttrackdiscourse.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

16

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

17

In1990,theUnitedNation’sEconomicandSocialCouncilendorsed

aglobaltargetof30%womenindecision-makingpositionsby1995(United

NationsCommissionontheStatusofWomen,1995).Thistargetisyettobe

met.In1995,only10percentoftheworld’sparliamentarianswerewomen,

andtodayitisonly16percent.

TheNordiccountries—Denmark,Finland,Iceland,Norwayand

Sweden — have for a long time displayed the highest number of female

politicians,consistentlyexceedingthe20percentthresholdsincethe1970s

and1980s.TherestofEurope,theAmericas,Asia,andSub-SaharanAfricaare

allclosetotheworldaverage,whilethefigureforthePacificisonly10.9%and

forArabcountries6.8%(Inter-ParliamentaryUnionWebsite,Retrievedlast

February15,2006).However,wefindconsiderablevariationswithinregions,

andtodaydevelopingcountries likeCostaRica,SouthAfrica,Rwandaand

MozambiquehaveovertakenindustrialisednationsliketheUnitedStatesand

the United Kingdom. The US House of Representatives has 15% and the

HouseofCommonsonly19%womenwithintheirrespectivebodies.Today,

we are witnessing an interesting challenge to the Nordic countries, which,

togetherwiththeNetherlands,usedtobeverymuchaloneatthetopofthe

worldrankingintermsofwomeninparliament.

In Latin America, South Africa, and in many other developing

countries,theextraordinarilyhighrepresentationofwomeninScandinavian

parliamentshasbeenusedasanargumentinsupportoftheintroductionof

electoralgenderquotas.However,thisargumentismisleading,sincethereal

boominwomen’srepresentationinDenmark,Finland,Norway,andSweden

occurredinthe1970sandinIcelandinthe1980s,waybeforetheintroduction

ofquotas.Genderquotaswereintroducedwhenwomenalreadycomprised20

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

18

to30%seatsintheseparliaments.Moreover,intheNordiccountrieselectoral

quotashavealwaysbeenvoluntary,nevera legal requirement,andareonly

usedbysomeofthepoliticalpartiesatthecentreandattheleft(Freidenvall,

Skjeie&DahlerupinDahlerup,2006).3

Nordiccountriescomeclosetowhatwelabeltheincrementaltrack

towards equal political representation for women and men. It had taken

approximately sixty years from women’s enfranchisement for Denmark,

Norway,andSwedentocrossthe20%thresholdandseventyyearstoreach

30%. This means that the Nordic countries, in spite of the high level of

women’srepresentation,cannolongerbeconsideredthemodel,oratanyrate

theonlymodel,forincreasingwomen’srepresentationintheworldtoday.

Ithasbeenarguedthatgenderquotasonlydealwiththesymptoms

ofwomen’s under-representation,not its causes.Fromoneperspective this

seemscorrect.Genderquotasdonotremovethemanybarriersthatwomen

areconfrontedwithinsociety,betheyprejudiceagainstwomenorproblems

thatcombinework,familylife,andpoliticalobligations.However,seenfrom

anotherperspective,genderquotasdotargetexactlyonemajorproblem—

politicalparties’selectionofmalesastheircandidatesforelectiontoamuch

largerextent,overwomenbecauseoftheirownprejudiceorinanticipation

ofvoters’prejudice.Genderquotasinawayrepresentajumpoverhistorical

barriers to equality. They give the voters the option to choose women

candidates, which they may not have had before [within their preferred

party].Opponentsofgenderquotas,however,arguethatquotasviolatethe

liberalprincipleofmerit—letthebestman[sic]win!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

19

Toanswerthequestionofwhetherelectoralgenderquotasareinfactaformof

discriminationagainstmen,wemustlookathowpoliticalsystemsfunction.

Thegatekeeperstothepoliticalarenaareusuallythepoliticalpartiesbecause

theycontrolthenominationprocess.Theroleofvotersisoftennotasdecisive

asitisoftenbelieved.Whowillbeelectedisoftendecidedbythenomination

committeesofthepoliticalparties—firstly,byselectingthecandidatesand

secondly,byplacingthemingoodorbadconstituenciesintermsofchances

ofbeingelected.Priortothepolls, thepoliticalpartiesusuallyknowwhich

seatswillbe‘safeseats’intheelection.Thus,inallsystems,itisimportantto

examinewhoactuallycontrolsthenominationprocess.Oneofthereasonsfor

thehistoricallyhighwomen’srepresentationintheScandinaviancountriesis

thatwomen’sorganisationshaveconsistentlyaskedthequestion:Whocontrols

thenominationprocess?Subsequently,theyhavedemanded50%womenon

thenominationscommittees.

The question of whether or not to introduce gender quotas is

increasingly influenced by recommendations of international organisations.

Today, we see electoral gender quotas being introduced in nations where

womenhavebeenalmostentirelyexcludedfrompolitics,aswellasinsocieties

withalonghistoryoffemaleinvolvementinthelabourmarketandinpolitical

life,suchastheScandinaviancountries[usingvoluntarypartyquotas].

The introduction of effective quota systems represents a shift in

approach,from‘equalopportunity’to‘equalityofresults.’However,sincemost

quotasystemsspecifythenumberofwomenandmentobepresentedtovoters

Are Gender Quotas a Discrimination against Voters? Against Men?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

20

onelectorallists,andnotthegenderdistributionfollowingtheelection,one

mightprefertoseeelectoralgenderquotasratherasanexampleof‘realequal

opportunity.’Womenandmenhaveanequalchancetopresentthemselvesto

thevoters,andinopenlistPR-systemsaswellasinmajoritysystems,voters

havethechoiceofvotingforafemaleormalecandidate.

Someconsiderquotastobeaformofdiscriminationandaviolation

of the principle of fairness, while others view them as compensation for

structuralbarriers thatprevent fair competition.Some see genderquotas as

violatingtheprinciplesoffairness,meritsandindividualism,othersperceive

quotasasanefficientwayofattaining‘real’equality,thatis,‘equalityofresults’

(Dahlerup,1998).

Ifwetaketheactualexclusionofwomenasthestartingpoint,that

is,ifwerecognisethatmanybarriersexisttowomen’sentryintopolitics,then

quotasmustnotbeseenasdiscrimination[againstmen],butascompensation

foralltheobstaclesthatwomenareupagainst.Whenalloftheseimpediments

areremoved,quotaswillnolongerbenecessary,itisargued.Inthisrespect,

quotas are a temporarymeasure—although itmay takedecadesbefore all

social,culturalandpoliticalbarriers to female representationareeradicated.

Today, the very concept of a linear progressive development toward gender

equalityisevenchallengedbyactualexperiencesofbacklashandstandstillin

women’srepresentation.

Gender Quotas – A New Trend in the World Today

Mybookonelectoralgenderquotas,whichisthefirstworld-widecomparative

analysisoftheintroductionofgenderquotasinpolitics(Dahlerup,2006),seeks

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

21

toanalyse:1)thequotadiscourses;2)theactualquotarules[differentquota

regimes];3)theoftentroublesomeimplementationofquotas;and4)theeffects

ofquotasinbothquantitative[numbers]andqualitative[empowerment]terms.

IncooperationwithInternationalIDEAwehaveconstructedthefirstworld-

widewebsitewithinformationaboutcountriesintheworldwhichareapplying

electoralgenderquotas(seewww.quotaproject.org).

Inthelastoneandahalfdecade,50countrieshaveintroducedlegal

quotas,i.e.quotarulesinscribedinthecountry’sconstitutionorelectorallaw.

Inothercountries,majorpoliticalpartieshave introducedgenderquotas for

their list at public elections, i.e. voluntary party quotas. This is an amazing

development,whichchallengesourprevioustheoriesthatanincreaseinwomen’s

political representation follows from an improvement in women’s education

andaccesstothelabourmarket.

Today we see the world record of Scandinavian countries being

challenged by South Africa, Costa Rica, Mozambique, Argentina — not to

speakofRwanda,whichnowhasthehighestshareofwomeninparliamentin

theworld,placedat48.8%.Genderquotasarepartoftheexplanationbehind

theexceptionalhistoricalleapsinwomen’srepresentationinallthesecountries

(Dahlerup,2006).

Table 1 shows the world ranking order in terms of women’s

representation. Three main features are revealed: Firstly, the Nordic

countries,forsolongonthetopoftheworldrankingorderintermsof

women’s representation, are now being challenged by several developing

countries.Secondly,manycountrieswhichhavemore than30%women

inparliamentmakeuseofsomekindofquotas,betheylegalorvoluntary

party quotas. Thirdly, most of the countries with the highest women’s

representationelecttheirrepresentativesunderthePRsystem.

Table 1. The Top of the World Rank Order of Women in Parliament

Country Women in National Parliament (%)

Quota Type Electoral System

Rwanda 48.8(2203) Legalquotas(C) ListPR

Sweden 45.3(2002) Partyquotas ListPR

Norway 37.9(2005) Partyquotas ListPR

Finland 37.5(2002) Noquota ListPR

Denmark 36.9(2005) Noquota ListPR

The Netherlands 36.7(2003) Partyquotas ListPR

Cuba 36.0(2003) Noquota 2Rounds

Mozambique 36.0(2004) Partyquotas ListPR

Spain 36.0(2004) Partyquotas ListPR

Costa Rica 35.5(2002) Legalquotas(L) ListPR

Belgium 35.3(2003) Legalquotas(L) ListPR

Argentina 33.5(2003) Legalquotas(C) ListPR

Austria 33.3(2002) Partyquotas ListPR

South Africa 32.8(2004) Partyquotas ListPR

Germany 31.8(2005) Partyquotas MMP

Iceland 30.2(2003) Partyquotas ListPR

KeyElectoralSystem:ProportionalRepresentation:ListPR.Mixed:MMP=MixedMemberProportional.KeyQuotaType:Legalquotas:Constitutional(C)orLaw(L).

Source: International IDEA and Stockholm University (2005); official statistics. Election day data, changes after the election are not included.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

22

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

23

Different Types of Quota Regimes

Someconfusionexistsonwhatconstitutesquotaregimes.Inthebook,Women,

Quotas andPolitics (Dahlerup,2006),wedistinguishbetween twodifferent

dimensionsofthequotasystems:Thefirstdimensionfocusesonwhomandates

thequotasystem,whiletheseconddimensionindicatesthepartoftheselection

andnominationprocessthatthequotatargets.

Asforthemandate,legalgenderquotasaremandatedeitherbythe

constitution[likeinBurkinaFaso,Nepal,thePhilippinesandUganda],orby

electorallaw[asinmanypartsofLatinAmerica,aswellasinBelgium,Bosnia–

Herzegovina,SerbiaandSudan,amongothers].Butquotasmayalsobedecided

forvoluntarilyby thepoliticalparties themselves,voluntarypartyquotas. In

somecountries,suchasArgentina,Bolivia,Ecuador,Germany,Italy,Norway

andSweden,anumberofpoliticalpartieshashadsometypeofquota.Inmany

others,onlyoneortwopartieshaveoptedtousequotas.However,iftheleading

partyinacountryusesaquota,suchastheANC[AfricanNationalCongress]

inSouthAfrica,thismayhaveasignificantimpactontheoverallrateoffemale

representation.Mostpoliticalpartiesdonotemployanykindofquotaatall.

Concerningtheseconddimension,quotasmaytargetthefirststage

oftheselectionprocess,thestageoffindingaspirants,i.e.thosewhoarewilling

tobeconsideredfornomination,eitherbyaprimaryorbythenominations

committeeandotherpartsofthepartyorganisation.Genderquotasatthisstage

arerulesthatdemandacertainnumberorpercentageofwomen[oreithersex]

berepresentedinthepoolofcandidatesthatareupfordiscussion,suchasthe

controversial‘women’sshortlists’intheUK.

Thesecondstageistheactualnominationofcandidatestobeplaced

ontheballotbytheparty.Thisfrequentlyusedquotasystemimpliesthatarule

[legalorvoluntary]isinstalledaccordingtowhich20,30,40oreven50%of

thecandidatesmustbewomen.Thismayalsobeformulatedinagender-neutral

way,statingthatnosexshouldhavelessthan,forinstance,40%andnomore

than60%.

At the third stage, we find quotas as reserved seats. Here it is

decidedthatacertainpercentageornumberoftheparliamentorlocalcouncil

membershipmustbewomen.Increasingly,genderquotasarebeingintroduced

usingreservedseatsystems.

Table2showsvariationsinquotatypeswhenthesetwodimensions

arecombined,thatis,firstlythequestionofmandateandsecondlythequestion

ofwhereinthenominationprocessquotasareplaced.

Table 2. Types of Electoral Quotas

At What Level?

Mandated by Aspirants Candidates Elected

Legal quotas (Constitutional or electoral law)

n/a Candidatequotas Reservedseats

Voluntary party quotas

Aspirantquotas(Shortlists)

Candidatequotas Reservedseats(*)

(*) Informal agreements among political parties reserving a certain number of seats for women like in the case of Morocco

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

24

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

25

Now it is possible to show that certain types of quotas are more

frequentlyusedinsomepartsoftheworld,andwhyotherquotaregimesare

preferredinothercontinentsmorethaninothers(Dahlerup,2006).

Evenifconstitutionalamendmentsandnewelectorallawsongender

quotasmayseemtobepowerfulcompliancemeasures,itisnotevidentthat

thesemethodsaremoreeffectivethanpoliticalpartyquotasinincreasingthe

numberofwomeninparliament.Italldependsontheactualrulesandthe

possiblesanctionsfornon-compliance,aswellasonopportunitiesthatexist

forquotaswithinthecountry.Concerningrulesfornomination,thecrucial

issue is whether there are rules concerning the rank order on the list. A

requirementofsay40%maynotresultinanywomanelected,ifallwomen

candidates are placed at the bottom of the list. What matters is whether

thenominatedwomenareplaced inapositionwitharealchanceofbeing

elected.

‘Reserved seats’ are found on the national and regional levels in

countries likeRwanda,Pakistan, Jordan,Uganda and at the local levels in

India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and many other countries. A specific number

of seats is setaside forwomenas in theUgandancase,whereanumberof

regional seats is reserved for women. The differences between the various

systemsshouldnotbeexaggerated.Inaclosedlistsystem,quotasmay,infact,

determinewhichofthecandidateswillbeelected,butthenumberofseatsto

beawardedtoeachpartyisstillfortheelectoratetodecide.

Insomecountriesquotaspertain tominoritiesbasedonregional,

ethnic,linguisticorreligiousdivides.Almostallpoliticalsystemsutilisesome

kindofgeographicalquotatoensureaminimumlevelofrepresentationfor

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

26

adensely-populatedarea,suchasanisland.Thistypeofquotaisusuallynot

consideredascontroversialasagenderquota.

Quotasworkdifferentlyunderdifferent electoral systems.Quotas

aremoreeasilyintroducedinPRandothermulti-listsystems.Butevenina

PRsystem,becauseofthefewelectedcandidates,smallpartiesandpartiesin

smallconstituenciesexperiencedifficulties in implementingquotaswithout

interferencefromthecentralpartyorganisation.

Quotasmaybeintroducedindemocraticpoliticalsystems,inthose

withlimiteddemocraticfreedoms,oreveninnon-democraticorauthoritarian

ones.

Why Are Women Doing Better under the PR System?

Thefrequentuseofvariouselectoralsystemsdoesnotcorrespondtogeneral

socio-economicorculturalfactors.Thesameelectoralsystemmaybeinstalled

inverydifferentcountries,andverysimilarcountriesmayuseverydifferent

electoralsystems.However,researchonwomeninpoliticshastriedtoisolate

the effects of the electoral system per se for the level of women’s political

representation, and the result is unambiguous. Women are more likely to

be electedunder proportional representation thanunder plurality-majority

electoral systems. In 2000, the difference amounted to 15.4 versus 8.5%

womeninparliaments.Inmixedsystems,womenhaveontheaverageashare

of11.3%(Norris,2004,p.187).However,theaveragehidesthefactthatin

somePRcountrieswomendoworsethaninsomeplurality-majoritysystems.

Pippa Norris concludes that “although there is a strong and consistent

association,byitselfthebasictypeofelectoralsystemisneitheranecessary

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

27

norasufficientconditiontoguaranteewomen’srepresentation”(Norris,2004,

pp.187-188).However,focusingonstructuralvariations,PippaNorrisshows

that the differences between the outcomes in PR-systems versus plurality-

majoritysystemsaremuchmoredistinctin‘post-industrial’societies,whereas

the differences between these two electoral systems in terms of women’s

representationaremuchsmallerinindustrialsocietiesandminimalinpoorer

agrariansocieties(Norris,2004,p.188).

The ideal test to isolate the effect of the electoral system, is to

monitorthosecountrieswhichoperateamixedelectoralsystem,combining

thePRsystemwithconstituency listsbasedonplurality-majority.Electoral

statistics show that in these countries, women’s representation tends to be

higheramongthepartoftheparliamentelectedunderPR,thanamongthose

electedinsingle-memberdistricts.ThishasproventobethecaseinGermany

and New Zealand, while the new Scottish parliament turns out to be an

exceptiontothisrule,becauseoftheScottish“Twinningsystem”4(Lundgren,

2005).

Howcanwe explain thedifference inoutcomesbetween the two

electoral systems in highly industrialised or post-industrial societies? The

most important factor seems to be the nominating party organisations’

anticipationofvoterreactions.Whenchoosingitscandidatesforelection,the

partyorganisationtriestoapplyavote-maximisingstrategy.However,factors

suchasconsiderationfortheincumbentMP,fractions,andgeographicalunits

withinthepartyarealsoimportantintheselectionprocess.

In plurality-majority systems, the local party organisation has

only one candidate, and in anticipating the reaction of the voters of their

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

28

constituency,thepartyingeneralprefersa‘safe’candidate.Inmostsystems,

amalecandidateisconsideredsaferthanawoman,becauseheisbelievedto

beabletoattractmorevoters.InPR-systemsincontrast,eachpartylisthas

manynamesandconsequently,thelocalpartyorganisationwilltrytoattract

manyvotersbycomposingalistwithavarietyofcandidateprofilestoattract

all types of voters: young and old, candidates from different geographical

partsoftheconstituency,differentoccupations,andwomenaswellasmen.

However,wehave seen importantchanges in thecompositionof theparty

listsfollowingaperceptionthatdifferentcategoriesofpeopleareconsidered

anadvantage.

As Diane Sainsbury has pointed out, the electoral system in

itself cannot explain the increase in women’s political representation over

time incountries like theNordic countries,where the increase inwomen’s

representationfirst tookoff in the1970s,becauseallfiveNordiccountries

hadusedthePR-systemsallthroughoutthe20thcentury(Sainsbury,1993).

In my opinion, it is important to reformulate the thesis of the benefit for

womenofthePRsystemtoread:ThePRsystemismoreopentochangethan

theplurality-majoritysystem,becauseitcanincludenewtypesofcandidates,

such as women or immigrants, without replacing the old and well-known

politicalprofiles.

Howaretheplurality-majoritysystemsperformingduringthisnewperiodof

introductionofelectoralgenderquotas?Isthisastrategywhichcanhelpimprove

the bad record of majoritarian systems in terms of women’s parliamentary

Quotas and the Plurality-Majority System - A Difficult Equation

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

29

representation?Unfortunatelynot. It is verydifficult tofind aquota regime

thatwillmatchaplurality-majoritysystem.Theobviousreasonisthatitisnot

possibletotakeforinstance30%of1!Whenthepoliticalpartiesonlynominate

onecandidate,bothvoluntarypartyquotasandlegalquotasintheformofa

minimumpercentageofthenominated,evidentlydonotwork.

ConsideringthecategoriesinTable2,atwhatlevelandmandatedby

whomaregenderquotasinplurality-majoritysystemspossible?Dowefindany

exampleofquotasystemsatallinmajoritysystems?Pleasenotethatingeneral,

gender quotas are not relevant for every category inTable 2. Legal aspirant

quotas are not found, and seldom do we meet voluntary quotas in reserved

seatssystem,Morocco’s“Gentleman’sAgreement”beingatemporaryexception.

Quotacountriesarefoundinallfourremainingcategories.However,onlyafew

countriesoperatingaplurality-majoritysystemhaveintroducedgenderquotas.

Consequently,genderquotasaremuchmorefrequentinPR-systems(Matland

inDahlerup,2006).

However,wedofind somecountrieswhichhave tried to solve the

unsolvableequationofcombiningquotasandtheplurality-majorityelectoral

system.Afewsuchexamplesarecited.Itshouldbenotedthatonlythreeof

thecategoriesinTable2areusedbymajoritysystems,sincenolegalcandidate

quotasystemsexistinmajoritysystems,eveniftheyaretheoreticallypossible.

Onecould,forinstance,imaginealegalquotasystem,inwhichthepartiesmust

nominate a candidate from theunder-representedgender for every free seat,

followingthewithdrawaloftheincumbentMP.Suchquotameasuresarenotin

useinpublicelection,butareknownasanequalitymeasureinappointments

topositionsinasex-segregatedlabourmarket;however,thesearealwaysheavily

contested.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

30

Among the few examples of quotas in plurality-majority systems

onecanmentionisIndia,wherequotaprovisionsforlocalelectionsreserve

certain seats for women and, in combination, for scheduled castes. This

systemfunctionsonarotationbasis,whichmeanstheelectedwomenusually

onlyserveoneperiod,iftheydonotchoosetostandforoneofthe‘free’seats

inthefollowingelection.InBangladesh,thereservedseatsforwomencover

threeconstituencies[wards],whichdeprivetheelectedwomenaconstituency

baseoftheirown(Rai,Bari,Mahtab&MohantyinDahlerup,2006).

ForelectiontothenewScottishparliament,quotaswereintroduced

bythelabourparty.Heretheproblemofcombiningsingle-memberdistricts

andquotasweresolvedby‘twinning’twoconstituencieswhotakentogether

shouldnominateonemanandonewoman.Thissystemresultedinwomen’s

representation in the Scottish parliament overtaking the Westminster

parliament(Lundgren,2005).

Theconclusionisthatitisinfactpossibletocombinetheplurality-

majority electoral systemwith some formof gender quotas, but onlywith

somedifficulty. If thiscombination isnotdeveloped further, thedifference

betweenwomen’srepresentationinmajority-systemsversusPR-systemswill

increase,becausegenderquotasarenodoubtanequalitymeasurethatwillbe

usedmorefrequentlyinthefutureinordertosolvetheproblemofwomen’s

under-representation.

Thefocusofthispaperhasbeentheconnectionbetweenelectoral

systemsandstrategiestoenhancewomen’spoliticalrepresentation,especially

throughelectoralgenderquotas.Ingeneral,electoralgenderquotasturnout

tobepurelysymbolic,especiallyifthechosenquotasystemdoesnotmatch

theelectoralsystemofthecountry,ifnocapacity-buildingisorganisedbythe

women’smovement,andiftherearenosanctionsfornon-complianceandno

rulesabouttherankorderofcandidates.Quotasmayalsoleavetheelected

women relatively powerless, unless other factors change simultaneously.

However, electoral gender quotas can be, under the right circumstances,

an important and more efficient strategy to increase women’s political

representationinnumericalterms(Dahlerup,2006).

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

31

Editor’s Note: This paper was presented at an International Conference held last 24 – 25 October, 2005 entitled: Women Shaping Democracy: Progressive Politics Ten Years After the World Conference on Women in Beijing. The conference took place in Ortigas, Philippines and was organised by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Philippine Office (FES) and Isis International-Manila (Isis-Manila) in consultation with the Southeast Asian Women’s Watch (SEAWWatch).

References

Dahlerup,D.(1988).FromaSmall toaLargeMinority:WomeninScandinavianPolitics. Scandinavian Political Studies, 11 (4):275–298.

Dahlerup,D.(1998).UsingQuotastoIncreaseWomen’sPoliticalRepresentation.InA.Karam (Ed.), Women in Parliament. Beyond Numbers (pp. 91 – 106) Stockholm: InternationalIDEA.

Dahlerup,D.(2005).Women, Quotas and Politics.London:Routledge.

Dahlerup,D.&Freidenvall,L. (2003,August).Quotas as a “Fast Track” to Equal Political Representation for Women: Why Scandinavia is No Longer the Model. PaperpresentedattheAmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation’sAnnualMeeting, Philadelphia.

Dahlerup,DandLenitaFreidenvall(2005).‘QuotasasaFastTracktoEqualRepresentationfor Women’,International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7,1:26-48.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

32

International IDEA (2003a). The Implementation of Quotas: Asian Experiences, Quota Workshop Report Series no 1,Stockholm:InternationalIDEA.

International IDEA (2003b). The Implementation of Quotas: Latin American Experiences, Quota Workshop Report Series no 2,Stockholm:InternationalIDEA.

International IDEA (2004). The Implementation of Quotas: African Experiences, Quota Workshop Report Series no 3,Stockholm:InternationalIDEA.

InternationalIDEAandStockholmUniversity(2005).Global Database of Quotas for Women. RetrievedFebruary15,2006fromwebsite:<http://www.quotaproject.org>.

Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) (2004). Women in National Parliaments. Retrieved February15,2006fromwebsite:<http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm>.

Lundgren,H.(2005).BeforetheBumsareontheSeats.Women’sRepresentationinScottish DevolutionPolitics. InTheResearchProgramonGenderQuotasatStockholm University,DepartmentofPoliticalScience,Working Paper Series, 1.

Matland,R (2006).ElectoralQuotas:Frequency andEffectiveness. InD.Dahlerup (Ed.), Women, Quota and Politics(pp.275–292).London:Routledge.Matland, R. & Studlar, D.T. (1996). The Contagion of Women Candidates in Single-Member District and Proportional Representation Electoral Systems: CanadaandNorway.The Journal of Politics,58(3):707–733.

Norris, P. (2004). Electoral Engineering. Voting Rules and Political Behaviour. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Sainsbury,D.(1993).ThePoliticsofIncreasedWomen’sRepresentation:TheSwedishCase. In J.Lovenduski&P.Norris (Eds),Gender and Party Politics (pp.263–290). ThousandOaks:Sage.

Rai,S.M.,BariF.,Mahtab,N.&MohantyB.(2006).SouthAsia:GenderQuotasandthe PoliticsofEmpowerment–AcomparativeStudy.InD.Dahlerup(Ed.),Women, Quotas and Politics.London:Routledge.

United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women (FWCW) (1995). Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action Fourth World Conference on Women. Retrieved February 15, 2006 from website <http://www.unesco.org/ education/information/nfsunesco/pdf/BEIJIN_E.PDF>.

Women’s Environment & Development Organization (WeDo) (2005). 50/50 Campaign. Get the Balance Right!. Retrieved February 15, 2006 from website <http://www.wedo.org/campaigns.aspx?mode=5050main>.

Endnotes

1 The ‘plurality-majority system’ is here preferred to the more common ‘majority system,’ because within the family of the plurality-majority system, only the Two Round System and the Alternative Vote system actually try to ensure an absolute majority for the winning candidate, while in the First-Past-The Post system as in UK, India, and the US the winner only needs a plurality of votes to win the constituency.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

33

2 Some of these formulations may in fact be found in the CEDAW convention from 1979. The convention recommends for states to adopt ‘temporary special measures’ (UN 1979: Art. 4). Also, the Interparliamentary Union, IPU, and other international and regional organizations formulated early on new claims for women’s representation. However, it is the Beijing Platform that is most often referred to in the quota debate.

3 Argentina, the leading Latin American country promoting quotas, used the argument that the Nordic countries did apply quotas by law, which in fact was never the case. (Oral communication from Mariá José Lubertino, president of the Instituto Social y Politica de la Mujer. Professor of Human Rights and Guarantees at the Universidad de Buenos Aires).

4 “In the first elections to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales in 1999, the Labour Party used a system of selecting their candidates by “twinning” neighbouring seats. The “winnability” of the seats was taken into account, so that each pair would select one man and one woman. Under this twinning system, the members of the two constituencies come together for the purposes of selecting candidates. Party members have two votes - one for a woman and one for a man. The man and woman with the most votes is selected.” (http://www.quotaproject.org/displayCountry.cfm?CountryCode=GB, Retrieved Last March 7, 2006).

About the Author

Drude Dahlerup is a reputable author, researcher and academician on feminist

theory and thewomen’smovementwho is particularly known forherworkonwomen in

politicsandelectoralsystems.SheiscurrentlyconductingaresearchprojectwithInternational

IDEA[InstituteforDemocracyandElectoralAssistance]inSwedenon“GenderQuotasin

Politics–AKey toEquality”and isauthorof thebookWomen,QuotasandPolitics—a

groundbreakingbook thatdocuments andpresents aglobaloverviewon theuseofquotas

based on research in major regions worldwide. Drude Dahlerup is also a professor in the

PoliticalScienceDepartmentoftheUniversityofStockholminSweden.

Women’sexclusionfromthestateascitizens

andaspoliticalagentshasbeenalongrunningissue

withinwomen’smovementseverywhere.Several

feministsfromtheSouthhavecharacterisedthe

relationshipofthewomen’smovementswiththe

patriarchal state as ambivalent (Taylor, 2000),

ambiguous (Shaheed, 1997), complex and

contradictory(Vargas,2000).

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

35

Thisrelationshipisparticularlyperplexing,tosaytheleastfor“…whilethe

stateiscorrectlyseenaspatriarchalandclearlybiasedagainstwomen,much

of themovement’s activism is, in fact, addressed to the state andcarries a

definite, albeit unarticulated expectation that the state will, or should, or

must, support women’s rights and equality” (Shaheed, 1997). Worse, the

relationship sometimes shows adangerous trend towardsde-politicisation:

“Thequestioniswhetherwehavethiscritiqueanylonger–ofpatriarchy,the

stateortheUN–orwhetherweareonlyinterestedinbeingincludedinthe

system”(KhancitedinAntrobus,2004).

Butthereisnothingambivalent,ambiguousorcontradictoryinthe

consensusreachedby189countriesinBeijingwhentheypledgedtopromote

the equality of women in decision-making and in strengthening national

machineries for enabling women’s co-equal governance with men. Section

G on “women and power and decision-making” of the Beijing Platform

for Action [BPFA] supports the advancement of women’s participation in

public leadershipandgovernance.Central to this commitment is thegoal

ofachievinggenderbalanceinpoliticalrepresentationanddecision-making

[seeDahlerupinthisseries].Theresponsesfromthewomen’smovementsare

widespreadandvaried.Women’sactionsinmanypartsoftheSouthexpand

intoissuesrelatingtowomen’scitizenshipandissuesofdemocratisingpower

relationsatalllevels(Vargas,2000).Someofthemoreprominentresponses

includedthefollowing:monitoringprojectspressuringgovernmentstokeep

their promises in Beijing; women’s participation in electoral politics and

entryintopoliticalpartiesaswellasassumptiontoappointivegovernment

positions; lobbying for lawsprotectingwomen fromall formsofviolence;

strengthening of national machineries for promoting women’s equality in

governance;andthepromotionofvariousgendermainstreamingstrategies

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

36

particularly in development and anti-poverty programmes. Putting these

responsesinaperspective,Antrobuswrites:

There is also no gain saying the fact that women need the state. This is especially true for women in the South. The dilemma for women’s movements in the South in relation to the state is that on the one hand, the majority of women lack resources and therefore must depend on the state to provide the basic services essential to women’s multiple roles; on the other hand, women must be careful that these dependencies are not used to reinforce traditional roles within the family. (Antrobus, 2004)

TenyearsafterBeijing,theoverallsensecomingoutofseveralstudies

intheAsianregionisthatthegoalofstatetransformationthroughwomen’s

equality indecision-making is far frombeingachieved.Doubtshavebeen

evenraisedonwhethertherehasbeenarealmovement.Worse,abacklashand

areversalofearliergainshavebeennoted,linkingthemwiththeemergence

ofamoredifficultpoliticalclimateandchallengingeconomicenvironment.

Theseputintoquestioncurrentnotionsandstrategiesforwomen’sentryinto

politicsandgovernance(APWW,2005;FES&SEAWWATCH,2005;ISIS

International-Manila,FESandSEAWWATCH2005).

In the past “politics and governance” was understood in relation to the

sovereign state. However, globalisation [by which is meant the rapid

integration of global production and markets in recent years] has altered

not only the conventional functions of national governments but more

fundamentally the nature of the nation-state or what it is all about.

Nowadays, governance has expanded to include global, regional and sub-

nationalspheres.Despiteclaimstothecontraryandthehypeaboutthe“free

Strange Bed Partners: Trade Intensification and Democratic Politics

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

37

market juggernaut” (Sen, 2005), national governance is alive and strong.

InAsia,somestatesmaybepoliticallybeleaguered,publicadministrations

weakbuttherearestatesthatrefusetowitheraway.SomeAsianstateswith

authoritariangovernmentshadbeentheprimemoversofmodernisationin

the70s and80swhich enabledNewly IndustrialisedCountries [NICs] to

emerge(FranciscoandFong,1999).SomeAsiangovernmentsmayhavelost

muchofthecharismaandpowerthattheirpastdictatorsenjoyedbutthese

governments,nevertheless,continuetoplayacentralroleinre-structuring

theireconomiesandsocietiesalongtradeintensificationthusgivingcredence

towhatsomehaveclaimedthatstates[andtherefore,nationalgovernments]

remain relevant in globalisation although their primacy and [their] actual

capacityas [actors] isbeingaltered (HeldandMGrew[2000] inEncinas-

Franco,2006).

Today Asian states govern within a context in which global and

regional institutions foremost of which are theWorldTrade Organization

(WTO) and International Financial Institutions (IFIs) wield tremendous

influence in thedomestic sphere.These global institutionsdo sowithin a

formal global agreement meant to coordinate policy direction and negate

inconsistent advise given to governments (Floro and Hoppe, 2005).Two

decadesearlier,theIFIsmanagedentryintodomesticpolicyandprogramme

formulationthroughtheirstructuraladjustmentprogrammes.Butitwasthe

trade-financelinkage,ormorespecifically,theneedforregulatoryframeworks

thatcouldprovidemarketstabilityandpredictabilityforcapital’sexpansion,

andespeciallytoavertmarketfailuressuchasthedevastatingAsianFinancial

Crisis in 1997, that finally led to the agenda of ‘good governance’ in the

reformanddevelopmentpackagesoftheIFIs,theUnitedNations,andthe

donorcommunity(Encinas-Franco,2006;BakkerandGill,2003).1

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

38

In this period of trade intensification, governments now rarely

speak of ‘import substitution,’ or ‘government owned corporations,’ or

‘local content and equity.’ Rather they speak enthusiastically of the need

to ‘liberalise the economies,’ ‘remove barriers to trade,’ ‘attract foreign

investors,’or‘exporthumanresources.’Governmentsarenotonlychanging

their language, they are also changing laws and codified regulations.Even

Constitutionsarebeingre-negotiatedto‘harmonise’themwithnewglobal

trade rules. Legal guarantees of patrimony, self-sufficiency or the social

functionofpropertyarenowsupersededbyterminologiessuchas‘national

treatment,’ ‘most favoured nation,’ or ‘right of ownership for foreign

individuals or corporations.’ One socially progressive provision found in

the Philippine Constitution, among others, is expected to be amended

in ongoing efforts by the current administration at charter change.2 The

provisionispremisedonthestate’sdutytopromotejusticeandhasbeenthe

resultoflongyearsofstruggle.Toquote:“Theuseofpropertybearsasocial

function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the common good.

Individuals and private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and

similar collectiveorganisations, shallhave the right toown, establish, and

operate economic enterprises, subject to thedutyof theState topromote

distributive justiceandto intervenewhenthecommongoodsodemands”

(PhilippineConstitutionArticleXII,Section6).

Moreover, governments are re-structuring through strategies of

right-sizing,out-sourcing,devolution, andprivatisationofpublicutilities.

Povertyreductionstrategiesnolongertalkof‘people’butof‘humancapital.’

Governmentsubsidisedprogrammesarebeingovertakenbyincometransfer

strategies while long-term social protection, instead of being treated as a

stateobligationisnowwidelyviewedingovernmentas“directconsumption

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

39

andthereforeunproductive”(Cook,Kabeer,andSavannarat,2003).Finally,

governancereformsrelatedtotradeandfinancemanagementhaveprivileged

the executive branch of government and created a special place within it

for technocrats, often without adequate political check and balance from

the legislativeandjudicialbranches.DAWNcalls thisphenomenonasthe

“marketisationofgovernance”(Taylor,2000).

This ‘marketisation’ or the hyper-consolidation of governance

around intensified trade began at a time when Asian women were also

actively seeking entry into politics and governance, buoyed by strong

women’smovementslinkedtotheresurgenceofdemocraticmovementsand

re-democratisationprocessesfollowingthefallofdictatorialregimes.3Onthe

onehand,acrossAsiaandotherregionsintheSouth,formsandinstitutionsof

governancepatternedaftercapitalist-baseddemocraticpractisesincoloniser

countries were easily accommodated by trade intensification that was also

aglobalpoliticalandeconomicprojectof these formercolonisers.Onthe

other hand, democratic demands by social movements that were honed

in struggles against colonialism, dictatorships and ‘elite democracy’ were

takingadvantageofrestricteddemocraticspacestocreate‘counterpublics’

(Frazer,1997)toraiseissuesofrights,socialjusticeandsubstantivepolitical

participation. Among the democratic demands of women’s movements

aregender equality in all spheresof thepublic and theprivate, an end to

discriminationandviolenceagainstwomen,sexualandreproductivehealth

andrights,personalautonomyandfreedoms.Thephenomenonof“people

power”inthePhilippines,ThailandandIndonesiawasanexpressionofthe

newdemocraticandprogressiveforcesthatemergedinthe1980sand1990s.

Many of these groups and networks have grown in strength and actively

pushed for the expansion of the democratic space within their countries.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

40

Theycontributetothecreationofmoreparticipatoryandinclusivepolitical

ethos and practises, and continue to be a part of new regional networks

ofresistanceagainstcorporate-ledglobalisationandtheirpushforstatesto

followmoresociallyorientedpathsofdevelopment.4

The tensions rising from the interaction of forces between, on

the one hand, state-led integration of domestic economies into a single

global market economy and, on the other hand, the democratic mass

movementresistancestosuchconsolidation,markanimportantcontextfor

understandingtheterraininwhichAsianwomeninpoliticsandgovernance

findthemselves.Thebroaderscenarioalsoincludesdisturbingindicationson

theoverallstatusofwomenintheAsianregion.Thepersistenceofpoverty

amongwomen isakey issueand includes aswell thewidespreadpractise

ofsexselectiveabortioninIndiaandChina,theemergenceofa‘newpoor’

amongwomen(andmen)inEastAsia,increasedtraffickinginwomen,the

persistenthigh incidenceofmaternalmortalityandwomen’s illiteracyand

malnutrition in some countries, the increasing number of ‘losers’ among

womenproducersfromtradeliberalisation,theincreasedworkloadofwomen

asaresultofstatewithdrawalofsocialsupport,andthebacklashreactionto

Asianwomen’snewlyguaranteedrightsandtheirsocialassertions,including

therapingofwomenincommunalconflictsandwithdrawalofreproductive

healthservices.

Re-examining Women in Politics and Governance

Themovement forwomen’s equality indecision-making andpolitics aims

atthere-distributionofformalpoweranddecision-makingbetweenwomen

and men. The target of raising the proportion of Asian women decision-

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

41

makers to at least 30% is a benchmarkusedby lobbyists that call for the

institution of quota systems or allocated seats for women in institutional

bodies,suchas,politicalparties,parliaments,nationalgovernmentalagencies

or ministries, local government units, and courts. Passing legislation that

allocates seats for women called gender quotas, and engaging in electoral

politicsaretheleadingmodesforreachingthequantitativegoal.Tenyears

after Beijing, the quantitative target remains elusive as ever, with results

showingnoprogressbutinsteadreflectingerraticbehaviourifnotstagnation

and regression (FES and SEAWWATCH, 2005). The exception is South

Asiawhereordinarywomenhavemanagedtocaptureseatsinthepanchayat

[villagelevel]winningasmuchas80%buteveninsuchsituations,women’s

participationinhigherlevelpoliticsechothetrendfoundinSoutheastAsia

(ISIS,FESandSEAWWATCH,2005).

Given the broad context just presented in the previous section,

twokey issuesare raisedwithregard toAsianwomen’sentry intopolitics.

Thefirstisthequestionof:“Whoarethesewomen?”Exceptforgrassroots

womenwhohavebeenelectedtovillagecouncilsinSouthAsia,byandlarge,

womeninpoliticalpartiesandnationalgovernancearemiddle-classeducated

women. Political and ideological differences exist among them. Some of

thesewomenreflectaclass-basedelitedemocracyorientationandareoften

reluctanttopushforchangewhileothers,particularlythosewhohavebeen

involvedindemocracystrugglesandhumanrightsissuesintheircountries

showmoreprogressivepoliticalideas.Thedivideis,however,notasstraight-

forwardasitmightseem.InSoutheastAsia,somewomenpoliticiansfrom

traditional elite-controlled political parties who do not question unequal

economic relations have been instrumental in pushing for legislation

that address various forms of violence against women as well as women’s

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

42

access to reproductive health services. On the other hand, a few women

parliamentarians who radically challenge class and ethnic-based injustices

committedbythestateseemless interestedonanti-VAW[violenceagainst

women] and reproductive and sexual rights legislation. In thePhilippines,

womenparliamentariansassociatedwiththenewsmallerpartieshavedone

muchtomoveademocraticandsocialequalityagendathatsimultaneously

address“economicandgenderjustice”(Sen,2005)issueswithintheirparties

andinthebroaderrealmofpoliticsandgovernance.5WomeninLeftparties

in South Asia have similarly done so (Basu, 2005). Further contesting in

politicsareemergingwomenleadersfrombroad-basedpoliticalpartiessuch

asthoseassociatedwithreligious-basedpartiesandwithinsomepatriarchal-

nationalistmovementswhopromotesociallyprogressiveeconomicagendas

tainted with ultra-conservative views on women and gender relations that

comeeitherfromreligiouslyandpoliticallydefinedcommunitariandogma.

Thesecondkeyquestionisthatofaccountability.AsBasu(2005)

hasqueried:“Towhomarethesewomenaccountable?”Withintheregion,

therearehardlyfeministorwomen’spoliticalpartiesexceptinthePhilippines

wheretwosmallwomen’spartieshaveemerged.Thereisnounifiedregional

women’smovementbutinsteadatapestryofdiversewomen’smovements.6

Nationalwomen’sgroupsaredividedalongclass,ethnic,andideologicallines

and locked in contesting claims for recognition and positions within the

publicsphere.Sometimes,theyareincapableofworkingtogether.

Meanwhile, individualwomenwhobecomemembersofpolitical

partiesareexpectedto“toethepartyline”andthosewhoareappointedto

governmentpositionsincludingseats inthenationalwomen’smachineries,

havetoact“consistentwiththenationalpolicy.”Beingwiththemainstreamof

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

43

governance,womeninpoliticsbecomevocalproponentsof‘soft’development

andwelfareissuesframedbytheprinciplesof‘temporaryspecialmeasures,’

‘affirmativeaction’andothercatchphraseswithinthemainstreamtheyhave

learnedtoflowwith.

Itisraretofindwomenpoliticiansandappointedwomenofficials

criticallyengagingwiththestateonthelinkageofwomen’sissueswith‘hard’

developmentissues,suchas,policiesandprogrammesonfinance,monetary

andtrademanagement.Withthespateofcapacitybuildingprogrammesin

theregion,attentionhasshiftedfocusongainingskillsinthetechnicalaspects

ofgendermainstreamingaimedatensuringthatwomenparticipateinand

benefitfromgrowth-orientednationaldevelopmentprogrammesthatdonot

addressunequalwealthandpowerarrangements.Thesewomenpoliticians

haveturnedtheirattentionawayfromtheclamourofwomen’smovements

forthestatetoaddressmoredirectlyissuesarisingfromtheimpactoftrade

intensificationpoliciesonthepoor.Andwhentheylisten,theyrelyonthe

languageoftechnicallyorientedadvocateswhotranslate‘political’demands

into ‘technical’ inputs, processes, and outcomes. The ‘technicalisation’ of

women’s equality, empowerment and gender justice issues has become a

familiar terrain for women. Economics and hard development issues now

lookevenmoredistantandevenmoreincomprehensible.

Givenalltheseconsiderations,womeninpoliticsandgovernance

by a combination of both historical and social circumstances and default

aresimultaneouslyburdenedwithcompetingaccountabilityclaims—from

multilateralagenciesthatexpectthemtoproducesoundsurveillanceoftheir

government’s national development and anti-poverty plans, the party in

powerwhichappointsthemtoofficialpositions,thepoliticalpartieswhere

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

44

theybelong, to thewomen’snetworkswith theirmultiple demands.How

havewomeninpoliticsandgovernancerespondedtothesecompetingclaims

astheydeterminewhichgenderjusticeandeconomicjusticeissuestosupport

ornottosupport?Thisessayarguesthatthequestionsposedinrelationto

women’sparticipation inpoliticsandgovernanceneedtobemoredirectly

addressed by women’s movements. Clearly the issues are complex, their

interrogation requiring a situatedness within a diverse set of political and

culturalrealities,andasarguedbythispaper,improvedcognisanceisrequired

ofthechangingandcontradictedsocio-politicalterrain.Onequestionworth

asking is:Howdowomen inpoliticsandgovernancenegotiate forgender

and economic justice throughgovernance institutions that “emphasise the

technicalandquantitativeoverthesocialandhumancomponents”(Bakker

andGill,2003).

It isof strategicvalue toanchor such interrogationofwomen in

politics and governance within the discourse and politics of the women’s

movements.After all,placingwomen inpoliticalpositions and leadership

in governance constitutes but a piece of what is political. Politics and

governancearenot justabout ‘governments,’ ‘states,’and ‘elections.’These

encompass broader questions of ‘voices,’ ‘identities,’ ‘parity,’ ‘justice’ and

‘socialchange.’Thepublicspace isnot justthegovernmentalorthe inter-

governmentalspacesbutincludesseveral“subalterncounterpublics”(Frazer,

1997).Democracyafterallisaboutthecontestsofpoliticalideasandutopian

visionsbysocialgroupsthatengagewithoneanotherinopenandenlarging

spaces.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

45

Conclusion

Theessayhaspresentedabriefcriticalreflectiononwomeninpoliticsand

governancewithincomplexpoliticalandgovernanceterrainsinAsiawhere

thedynamicsof trade intensificationandre-democratisationconvergeand

contest.Ithastouchedonanumberofissuesthatwomen’smovementsneed

totakeafullerunderstandingof,suchas,thepoliticalsignificance,potentials

andrisksofdiversegroupsofwomenenteringpoliticsandgovernance;the

riseofnewpoliticalpartiesandmovementsandtheirrelationshipwithissues

ofdemocracy,genderjustice,andeconomicjusticeissues;thetechnicalisation

of gender mainstreaming; the persistence of women’s issues of women’s

poverty and discrimination; the backlash reaction against women’s visible

social assertions.The essaybeginswith the re-articulationof thedilemma

of women’s movements and feminists in their engagement with the state

and ends with a call for progressive women’s movements and feminists

in the region to re-claim and re-position the discourse on women’s entry

into governance and politics within the broad-based women’s movements

struggle for both economic and gender justice. The essay reiterates what

DAWNhas repeatedlyarticulated:“Ourengagementwith the state isone

thatissimultaneouslyanactofcooperationbutalsoofmaintainingcritical

distance.”Itisadifficultbutnecessarybalancingact.(Taylor,2000andSen,

2005).

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

46

Editor’s Notes: Parts of this essay were read in a speech entitled “Challenge of Trade Intensification to Women Recasting Governance” that was presented at the 6th Congress of the Asia Pacific Women in Politics, Asian Institute of Management, 11 February, 2006.

References

Antrobus,P. (2004).The Global Women’s Movements: Origins, Issues and Strategies.London: ZedBooks.

AsiaPacificWomen’sWatch(2004).Women’s Voices: Proceedings of the Asia Pacific NGO Forum. Manila:WomenandGenderInstitute.

Bakker, I. and Gill, S. (2003). Power, Reproduction and Social Reproduction. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.

Basu,A.(2005).WomenPoliticalPartiesandSocialMovementsinSouthAsia.United Nations Research Institute for Social Development in Geneva Occasional Paper,5.

Beneria, L. (2003). Gender, Development, and Globalisation Economics As If All People Mattered.NewYorkandLondon:Routledge.

Cook, S., Kabeer, N., and Suwannarat, G. (2003). Social Protection in Asia. New Delhi: HarAnandPublicationsandtheFordFoundation

Durano, M., and Francisco, J., (2006) Gender Issues in International Trade in the Asia- Pacific. InternationalGenderandTradeNetworkPapersubmittedtoUNIFEM- NewYork.

Encinas-Franco,J.(forthcoming)Report on Mainstreaming Women’s Rights and Gender Equality in Selected Governance Reform Initiatives in the Philippines: An Indicative Study. Manuscript.Manila:WomenandGenderInstitute.

Floro,M.,andHoppe,H.(2005).EngenderingPolicyCoherenceforDevelopment.Friedrich Ebert Stiftung – Berlin Office Occasional Papers, 17.

Francisco, J., and Fong S. (1999). Political Restructuring and Social Transformation: Critical Feminist Perspectives in Southeast Asia. Manila: Development Alternatives with WomenforANewEra.

Frazer, N. (1997). Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Post Socialist” Conditions. NewYorkandLondon:Routledge.

FriedrichEbertStiftungandSouthEastAsiaWatch.(2005)Gaining Ground: Ten Years After Beijing.Manila:FESandSEAWWATCH.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

47

ISIS International-Manila. (2005). Narrative Report on Women Shaping Democracy: Progressive Politics Ten Years After the World Conference on Women in Beijing: A Manuscript. Conference co-sponsored by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, IsisInternational-ManilaandEAWATCH.Manila,October24–25,2005.

Sen,G.(2005).Neolibs,NeoconsandGenderJustice:LessonsfromGlobalNegotiations.United Nations Research Institute for Social Development in Geneva Occasional Paper, 9.

Taylor, V. (2000). The Marketization of Governance. Fiji: Development Alternatives with WomenforaNewEra.

Shaheed,F.(1997)Women,StateandPower:TheDynamicsofVariationandConvergenceAcross EastandWest.InN.Hussain,S.MumtazandR.Saigol(Eds.),Engendering the Nation-State.Lahore:SimorghPublications.

Vargas,V. (2000).Democratic InstitutionalityandFeministStrategiesduring theNineties. InAbout Women’s Powers and Vision.Montevideo:DAWNandREPEM.

Endnotes

1 The UNDP has twice broadened its governance discourse from a narrow focus on ‘sound economic management’ to encompass citizens’ rights and participation (Jayal [2003] in En-cinas-Franco, 2006). However, Bakker and Gill (2003) see this as a limited and weak attempt at democratisation.

2 The administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has formed a Constitu-tional Committee to begin drafting a new charter for the country. The idea of a charter change was first envisioned under the presidency of Fidel Ramos [1991-1997] whose government fast-tracked the liberalisation of the Philippine economy.

3 For specific contexts and strategies related to Asian women’s engagement in politics and governance, two readings are informative: Basu, Amrita (July 2005)”Women, Political Parties and Social Movements in South Asia”, UNRISD Occasional Paper Number 5. Geneva; Friedrich Ebert Stiftung & South East Asia Women’s Watch (2005) Gaining Ground: Ten Years Afte Beijing. Manila: FES and SEAWWATCH. Also, the collection of papers presented at the Women Shaping Democracy: Progressive Politics Ten Years After the World Conference on Women in Beijing. Con-ference co-sponsored by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Isis International-Manila and SEAWWATCH. Manila, October 24 – 25, 2005.

4 In the World Social Forum, Asian activist networks are one of the most prominent. There are several region-wide networks, including the Asian Social Movements, Asian Social Forum, and Asian anti-war movements.

5 In post-dictatorship Philippines, there is an existing party list system that led to re-served seats in the lower house of Congress for marginalised groups, women included. In Thailand and Indonesia, newer forms of political parties have also emerged similarly challenging the age-old control of politics by elite-dominated parties.

6 The diversity of women’s movements was recognised by Peggy Antrobus who neverthe-less adopted the singular global women’s movement for the title of her book. She writes in her in-troduction: “I welcome this opportunity … to write about the process through which the movement has been transformed over forty years from a rich diversity of local movements into an international women’s movement and finally into a trans-national or global movement” (Antrobus, 2005, p. 1).

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

48

About the Author

Josefa‘Gigi’FranciscoisSoutheastAsianRegionalCoordinatoroftheDevelopment

AlternativeswithWomenfor theNewEra(DAWN)—anetworkofwomenscholarsand

activistsfromtheeconomicsouthwhoengageinfeministresearch,analysesanddiscourseon

theglobalenvironment.SheisCoordinatoroftheAsiaGenderandTradeNetwork(AGTN)

andisExecutiveDirectoroftheWomenandGenderInstitute(WAGI)inMiriamCollege,an

all-women’scollegewheresheisalsoafacultymemberofitsInternationalStudiesDepartment.

FormerlyamemberoftheboardofIsisInternational-Manila,GigiFranciscoisGuestIssue

EditorofIsis’firstmonographseriesongender,governanceanddemocracy.

In line with Isis International-Manila’s commitment tounderstandingand‘reinterpretingnotionsofpower’,itsvideo,“WOMENTALK: Challenges to Masculinist Politics,” captures the salient point ofthe in-depth studies of five Southeast Asian Countries on the issue ofpoliticaljusticeforwomen.Thestudiesarefeaturedinaresearchprojectandarepresentedinthebook“GainingGround?SoutheastAsianWomenin Politics and Decision-Making,Ten Years after Beijing.” The researchproject and book are collaborated on by the Southeast Asian Women’sWatch(SEAWWatch)andFriedrichEbertStiftung(FES).

Both the video and the book highlight the need for creativestrategies in the light of the strong resemblances that run through theproject’scountrystudies,andthatdespitethedifferencesincontextsamongcountries,theemergingregionalscenarioisnotencouragingand,infact,pointtoveryrealandseriousconcerns.

Forinquiries,writeto:Isis-ManilaEditorialTeam

[Gender,GovernanceandDemocracy]IsisInternational-Manila

P.O.Box1837,QuezonCityMainQuezonCity1100,Philippines

communications@isiswomen.org

ISIS AD

Isis International-Manila is a feminist NGO dedicated to women’s information and communication needs that advances women’s rights, leadership and empowerment throughout Asia and the Pacific. It is committed to empowering women with adequate information, communication tools and networks that enable pro-active participation in global, regional and national development processes.

Isis-Manila promotes South-South and North-South dialogues to enhance diversity and collaborations within the global women’s movement. Further, it aims to contribute to the growing social justice movement globally by challenging inequities, stereotypes and cultural and political homogenisation furthered by globalised media and ICTs. Through its programmes and services, Isis-Manila offers spaces and channels to communicate, share information, exchange ideas and experiences and build networks for support and collective action.

Write To: Isis-Manila Editorial Team [Gender, Governance & Democracy]Isis International – ManilaP.O. Box 1837, Quezon City MainQuezon City 1100, Philippinescommunications@isiswomen.org