Legislated Quotas

A quota is an allocation rule through which offices, goods, or political functions are distributed in accordance with a certain formula. A quota system is mostly deployed if an unregulated distribution causes unintentional imbalances and inequalities.

In the political realm, quotas introduced to guarantee a fair representation of all members of a society by facilitating their access to elected positions. The core idea of a quota system is to produce a more accurate microcosm of society in the legislature that does not leave any otherwise disadvantaged social group unrepresented. Therefore, quotas are often established for women or for minorities based on regional, ethnic, linguistic, or religious cleavages. Almost all political systems apply some kind of quotas to ensure a minimum representation for minorities, and quotas are increasing in popularity worldwide.

Comparing quotas with other measures to enhance the representation of otherwise under-represented groups (financial incentives, information campaigns, positive action, etc.), quotas are by far the most effective.

Quotas can be of three types: constitutional quota (mandated in the Constitution), electoral law quotas (determined by electoral law), and voluntary party quotas adopted and implemented by individual political parties. The first and the second quota type are legislated quotas, whereas the third type is a non-legislated quota.

Types of Legislated Quotas

Quota requirements can be on three levels:

• Quotas for the pool of potential candidates This quota type is designed to open up the possibilities for party selection committees or voters in primary elections to select candidates from a more diverse pool of potential candidates than is normally presented to them. “Women only shortlists” is one way of broadening the pool of potential candidates. It is not very common to have legislated quotas at this stage of the process.
• Quotas for candidates/candidate lists Most legislated quotas fall into this category, where a fixed number or percentage of the places on the candidate lists or total number of candidates is set aside for persons belonging to the group targeted by the quota. For this type of legislated quota to be really effective, it is often combined with placement criteria whereby the disadvantaged groups are promised not only nomination but nomination to “winnable” seats. This is sometimes called a “double quota”. Quotas for candidate lists are mostly in place in proportional representation systems and are often part of the electoral or political party laws. One example is the so called “zipper” system, where every second or third candidate on the list is a woman.
• Quotas for the elected representatives Quotas for the elected representatives targets the outcome of the elections. This type of quota is often called “reserved seats” because a certain number or percentage of the seats in the national or sub-national legislature are set aside for persons from the under-represented group. Quotas for elected representatives are more common in majoritarian electoral systems and are often enshrined in the constitution, underlining the strong effort of the state to enhance minorities' representation.

Effectiveness and enforcement of quota systems Whether a quota system achieves its goal of fair representation largely depends upon the correct implementation of the legislated quota system, its enforcement mechanism, and sanctions for non-compliance. Whether or not it is supported by the major political parties, and amongst the general public, also has a bearing on their compliance with that particular quota.

Implementation of a quota system is said to be easier in a new political system than in an older one, where seats are occupied by incumbents. Incumbents in general have better chances to be elected than newcomers and are often reluctant to endorse the introduction of quota systems because they fear losing their seats.

Sanction systems are vital for compliance with legislated quotas. In order to be effective, sanctions must be relevant (related to the election or the functioning of the political party), effective (constitute a serious set-back for non-compliers), and reasonable (administrative rather than criminal). It is also important that a specific body (the Electoral Management Body or other) be tasked with enforcing the law and that they have enough human and financial resources to do so.

In general, one can state that where legislated quotas are properly enforced, they can be extremely effective in fostering a more balanced participation in politics.[2]

Notes:

[1] Dahlerup, Drude (1998): “The World of Quotas”, in: Karam, Azza (Ed.): Women In Parliament: Beyond Numbers, downloadable on http://archive.idea.int/women/parl/toc.htm, 05-09-21.

[2] Ballington, Julie (2004): Strengthening Internal Party Democracy: Candidate Recruitment from a Gender Perspective”, Paper presented at EISA/NIMD workshop on ‘How to Strengthen Internal Party Democracy?’ at the World Meeting for Democracy: Third Assembly, Durban, South Africa, 2 February 2004.

Legislated Quotas for Women's Representation

A quota is an allocation rule through which offices, goods, or political functions are distributed in accordance with a certain formula. A quota system for women’s representation is generally employed in situations where an unregulated distribution would cause unintentional imbalances and inequalities. It is aimed to give women equal or more balanced access to political power by applying positive measures. Why women?

Three main arguments lie behind the call for quotas to enhance women’s representation [1]

• Women represent (more than) half the population and hence have the right to half of the seats (the justice argument)
• Women have different experiences (biological or socially constructed) that ought to be represented (the experience argument)
• Women and men have partly conflicting interests, and thus men cannot represent women (the interest group argument)

 

 

The types of legislated quotas are set out in the section about Legislated Quotas.

Notes:

[1] Dahlerup, Drude (2003) “Comparative Studies of Electoral Gender Quotas” in International IDEA (2003) The Implementation of Quotas: Latin American Experiences, International IDEA, Stockholm.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Legislated Quotas for Women's Representation

Some of the main arguments for legislated quotas for women are the following:

• Quotas are empirically the most effective way of achieving a better gender balance

The biggest leaps towards equal representation of men and women have happened in elections where quotas (legislated or voluntary) have been introduced.

• Legislated quotas can circumvent conservative party leadership

In some cases, a conservative and male-dominated party leadership is seen as the main obstacle to women’s nomination and election. Legislated quotas circumvent these entrenched elites and force them to look for suitable women candidates.

• Once some women are elected, they serve as role models for other women

One of the reasons why few women put themselves forward for election is said to be a lack of female role models in politics. If legislated quotas can get a first number of women elected, more women will follow.

• Legislated quotas engage political parties in finding suitable women candidates

By tradition, habit, and networks, male-dominated selection committees in political parties tend to nominate fewer women than men. Legislated quotas force political parties to seek, find, and train women candidates – efforts that they may not have made otherwise.

• If women are represented in the legislature, they can help remove some of the structural barriers that prevent women from being elected

Female legislators are more likely than male legislators to press for legislation that will remove barriers to more women being elected.

• Legislated quotas are not discriminatory but rather compensate for an already existing discrimination

If one believes that there are as many competent potential female candidates in a country as there are competent potential male candidates, the main reason behind the low representation of women must be structural discrimination. Quotas are therefore not discriminatory in themselves, but merely compensate for an already existing discrimination.

• Rather than limit the freedom of choice, quotas give voters a chance to elect both women and men

Some argue that quotas do not limit the freedom of choice of voters, but rather enhance it, giving voters the chance to vote for both women and men – something they may not have had the possibility to do otherwise.

Arguments against legislated quotas for women’s representation

Legal quotas to enhance women’s representation, while increasingly common, are still highly controversial and heavily debated. Regardless of whether a person thinks that an equal representation of men and women is desirable, there are a number of arguments that speak against the introduction of legislated quotas for women’s representation. Those who oppose legal quotas often use one or several of the following arguments:

• Legislated quotas are discriminatory against men

Some say that quotas are discriminatory against the men who would have won the seat if the quota had not been introduced. The counter-argument is that quotas merely compensate for a structural discrimination (see above).

• Legislated quotas result in a less competent legislature

Some opponents to legislated quotas claim that the women elected through quotas are less competent than their male counterparts, and that the main reason for the low level of women candidates is that there are fewer competent potential women candidates. Women are in this case perceived to have been nominated only because of their gender.

• Women elected through legal quotas are less respected and have no real power

Women elected through quotas may find it more difficult as they are not perceived as being equally competent as their male counterparts. Women may therefore prefer to be elected without a quota.

• Legislated quotas take the freedom of choice away from the voters

Some argue that the basic freedom of choice of voters is taken away from voters if a certain number of seats in the legislature is reserved for women.

• Quotas distort the idea of representation and work against women

Some argue that quotas give the erroneous idea that only women can represent women – while men can represent both men and women. This would work against women in gaining representation based on the political ideas they represent rather than on their gender.

• Legislated quotas benefit the wrong women

Legislated quotas tend to benefit the wives, daughters, sisters, cousins, etc. of traditional male politicians, rather than women who have developed constituencies of their own.

• Legislated quotas (especially constitutional quotas) are very difficult to pass

Some argue that legal quotas are too difficult to pass and require a very strong majority in the legislature. From this point of view, legislated quotas would not work as a ground-breaking rule since a majority of both elected members and political party leadership must be committed to achieving gender equality already. Some argue that it is easier and just as effective to lobby for voluntary party quotas instead.

• Legislated quotas can act as an upper ceiling to women's participation rather than a lower floor

Some argue that legislated quotas place a ceiling on women’s participation rather than a lower floor, and that this hinders women from achieving real parity.

• Legislated quotas (especially reserved seats) make women compete against women rather than struggle together for more influence

Some argue that reserved seats foster an environment where women compete against each other rather than working together to achieve more influence in politics.

Legislated Quotas for National Minorities

A quota is an allocation rule through which offices, goods or political functions are distributed in accordance with a certain formula. A quota system for minority representation is generally employed in situations where an unregulated distribution would cause unintentional imbalances and inequalities.

In the case of national minorities, such imbalances and inequalities could be particularly destabilizing if the minority contested the legitimacy of the political system. The institution of a quota in such a situation is aimed at achieving an equal or more balanced access to political power by applying positive measures.

Regional quotas are among the most commonly applied quotas. The quota distributes parliamentary seats to representatives of all regions of a country, not just according to their share of the population, but giving non-proportional seats to certain regions over others. Over-representation for certain regions works to the advantage of minority groups that are concentrated in those parts of the country.

The advantages and disadvantages of legislated quotas for minority representation are covered in the file "Advantages and disadvantages of legislated quotas for minority representation".

Fair minority representation is very often referred to in the constitution and can be achieved through any of the types of quotas. The reserved seats system is a widely used quota system to ensure the representation of minority groups in the legislature by setting aside a certain share of parliamentary seats for candidates representing the minority group. Representatives from these reserved seats have in most cases been elected in the same manner as other representatives, but at times only members of these minority groups are entitled to vote for their candidates. Please read the file about "Legislated Quotas" for the different types of legislated quota.

Some countries with clearly defined ethnic or religious groups have taken minority representation and reserved seats to their logical extreme: all or almost all seats in the legislature are reserved for specific groups, and only members of a group can vote for the representatives of their group. Each ethnic or religious group has a separate voter’s roll. This system has in some cases been used to try to deal with post-conflict situations. However, in the long run, systems of communal representation tend to undermine the path of accommodation between the different groups, given that there are no incentives for political intermixing between communities. The system also runs the risk of cementing a constituency situation resulting from ethnic cleansing.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Legislated Quotas for Minority Representation

Legal quotas to enhance minority representation are highly controversial and heavily debated.

Arguments against legislated quotas for minority representation

Those who oppose legal quotas often use one or several of the following arguments:

• Legislated quotas are discriminatory to the majority group and breed resentment

Some say that quotas are discriminatory to the members of the majority group who would have won the seats if the quota had not been introduced. The counter-argument is that quotas merely compensate for a structural discrimination (see below).

• Legislated quotas give a less competent legislature

Some opponents of legislated quotas claim that the persons from the minority group elected through quotas are less competent than their majority counterparts. It is sometimes argued that persons holding reserved seats are perceived as less competent than their colleagues elected to the non-reserved seats – given that they are perceived to have gained their seats because of their ethnic or religious background rather than their personal aptitude. Reserved seats might breed resentment on behalf of the majority group and thereby undermine trust between ethnic groups.

• Persons elected through legal quotas are less respected and have no real power

Persons elected through quotas may find their legislative work more difficult as they are not perceived as being equally competent as their majority counterparts.

• Legislated quotas takes the freedom of choice away from the voters

Some argue that the basic freedom of choice of voters is taken away from them if a certain number of seats in the legislature is reserved for minorities.

• Legislated quotas (especially constitutional quotas) are very difficult to pass

Some argue that legal quotas are too difficult to pass and require a very strong majority in the legislature. From this point of view, legislated quotas would not work as a ground-breaking rule since a majority of both elected members and political party leadership must be committed to achieving an ethnic and religious balance already. Some argue that it is easier and just as effective to lobby for voluntary party quotas instead.

• Legislated quotas can act as an upper ceiling to minority participation rather than a lower floor

Some argue that legislated quotas place a ceiling on minority participation rather than a lower floor, and that this hinders persons of minority background from achieving a more balanced representation.

Arguments for legislated quotas for minority representation

Some of the main arguments in favor of legislated quotas are the following:

• Quotas are the most effective ways of achieving a more balanced representation

The biggest leaps towards a more balanced representation have happened in elections where quotas (legislated or voluntary) have been introduced.

• More balanced representation can increase minority support for the political system in general and increase political stability
• Legislated quotas can circumvent conservative party leadership

In some cases, a conservative party leadership dominated by a social elite is seen as the main obstacle to nomination of minority candidates. Legislated quotas circumvent these entrenched elites and force them to look for suitable candidates from different ethnic and religious groups.

• Elected representatives serve as role models

If persons from minority backgrounds are elected to the legislature, they will serve as role models for younger persons who might be more inclined to put themselves forward for election in the future.

• Legislated quotas engage political parties in finding suitable candidates

By tradition, habit, and networks, selection committees in political parties tend to be conservative and nominate fewer persons from disadvantaged groups. Legislated quotas force political parties to seek, find, and train a more diverse pool of candidates – efforts that they may not have made otherwise.

• Legislated quotas are not discriminatory but rather compensate for an already existing discrimination

The main reason behind the low representation of minorities in some countries is a structural discrimination against them in the society. Quotas are therefore not discriminatory in themselves, they merely compensate for an already existing discrimination.

• Rather than limit the freedom of choice, quotas give voters a chance to elect candidates for a more diverse pool

Some argue that quotas do not limit the freedom of choice of voters, but rather enhance it, giving voters the chance to vote for candidates from a more diverse pool – something they may not have had the possibility to do otherwise.