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.
- 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.
