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.
