top of page

Why gender quotas are not the right way forward


“The fast and most effective way to increase female representation in politics” and “a way to correct gender discrimination”: these are, among others, the two main arguments to encourage the adoption of gender quotas in politics.


For those less familiar with the concept, gender quotas are a tool to increase female representation in political institutions and, in general, in all positions of power. In practice, these can be implemented in a variety of ways, from reserving seats in the parliament to requiring parties to include a percentage of women in their electoral lists. In whatever way these are implemented, they aim at ensuring an adequate representation of female candidates in an historically male-dominated context.


Presented like this, gender quotas represent a wonderful tool to rebalance the discrimination women experience in politics. But gender quotas do not come without criticism, and I will try to explain why I am not 100% sure they are the best way towards a better representation.


Spelled out in a different way, in a system where gender quotas are in place, a woman is elected to power because of her gender. And this is problematic for the following reasons:


Choosing one gender over another is not an equalitarian choice. And here I am not worried for the few men who may lose their seats. I worry for all the individuals who do not fit into one of the two genders in the first place and I would not want to support a system that works only on a binary construct. If we “reserve a seat” for a woman, then we should do the same for other categories too. Inclusivity does not work like this, and cannot be imposed by a quota. Inclusivity is fostered by education, by subverting traditional schemes, by showing the importance and the advantages of a diverse representation.


As a woman (and I think some women would agree), I wouldn’t want to be elected only because I am a woman. I would like to be elected because of my skills and qualifications, I would like to be elected because I have and I can bring a concrete change to my community by representing them in a political institution. I would not want to be tokenized for being who I am, and effectively have little to no power of action.


To return to the two opening statements of this article: quotas are indeed fast and efficient, but are they equalitarian and inclusive as a concept? And yes, they do correct existing and long-standing discrimination toward women, but toward women only and I think this is no longer acceptable.


But what presses me most is the general concept behind it: in order to achieve an adequate representation of women (or others) in a political institution, we need to force the electorate to vote in a certain way. But is a forced change a real, meaningful change? Or should we strive to live in a society in which representation is the natural consequence of acceptance? I’m leaning towards the latter.

 

By Alessandra Giliberto


Comentarios


bottom of page