Gender refers to the socially-constructed (rather than biologically-determined) roles assigned to women and men, and the relationships between men and women in society.

Gender equality implies that women and men enjoy the same status, have equal opportunities to contribute to national, political, social, cultural and economic development, and benefit from the results.

Diversity refers to a state in which all people are accepted and respected, regardless of their age, gender, health status, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

Two Arguments for Women’s Political Participation

Rights versus Better Politics

Researchers have identified two types of arguments for the promotion of women’s participation in politics. The intrinsic approach argues that women have to have an equal share of politics and power from the human rights perspective. As women constitute half of the population of the world, it is fair that they should also have half of the political power. The instrumentalist argument is based on the essentialist thinking that women and men are innately different. It assumes that women in politics will bring a special caring focus and female values to politics and, in the long term, change the nature of politics.

A fairly recent study “Equality in Politics: A Survey of Women and Men in Parliaments” by IPU does confirm that the political priorities of men and women differ to some extent. Nearly 300 parliamentarians in 110 countries in every region of the world contributed to the study, and 40 per cent of the respondents to the survey were men. More than 90 per cent of all respondents agreed that women bring different views, talents and perspectives to politics. Women parliamentarians are at the forefront of efforts to combat gender-based violence, and their role has been strong in ensuring that issues such as parental leave and childcare, pensions, gender-equality laws and electoral reforms that enhance women’s access to parliaments appear on the legislative agenda.

Gender advocates have made strategic use of these more instrumental arguments to mobilize support and resources for women’s rights. According to some researchers, there are also risks in relying on these arguments. For example, drawing on arguments about economic growth rather than rights and justice may be effective at increasing women’s labor force participation but do little to ensure these jobs are safe, fairly paid and non-exploitative. Nor will instrumental arguments effectively address the burden of women’s unpaid care work, which may continue alongside paid employment.

When approaching women’s empowerment from a human rights perspective, it can be warned that instrumental arguments should be used with caution. While investing in women and girls is an important strategy for ending poverty and transforming societies, the most important reason for investing in eliminating gender inequality is to transform women’s lives, safeguard their human rights, and create a fairer world.

Two Perspectives The Human Rights Perspective It is unfair and wrong that women and girls routinely have their rights violated and are condemned to lives of poverty because of gender discrimination and an unequal distribution of power and resources. It is our moral duty to erode these vast gender inequalities of opportunity and outcomes, and uphold principles of human dignity, equality, justice and freedom. The Instrumentalist Perspective Investment in women, or in tackling gender inequality, is good value for money because of its multiplier effect. Women have greater responsibility than men for caring for children and other family members and so are more likely to invest resources in meeting household requirements than for their own consumption. Investing in women is good value for money since it reaps rewards which extend beyond women to their children, families, and whole societies.

Reasons for the Underrepresentation of Women in Politics

The International IDEA (The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance) identifies three types of obstacles blocking women from gaining political parity:

1) Political obstacles

2) Socio-economic obstacles and

3) Ideological and psychological hindrances.

The political obstacles are:

• The masculine models of politics: the political institutions have been tailored for men’s needs, aggressive competition is a universally approved element of politics, and many men take part in fraternal networks

• Women’s world wide lack of party support

• Electoral systems – the so called proportional representation voting system makes it easier for women to get elected (and is probably one of the reasons why Scandinavian countries have such a high proportion of women MPs)

The socio-economic obstacles are:

• The feminization of poverty and unemployment – the economic crisis in countries with so called developing democracies has intensified the risk of poverty for women

• The dual burden: in most countries women carry a disproportionate share of domestic work, and it is hard for them to get involved in politics when their major concern is survival of their families

The ideological and psychological hindrances include:

• Traditional roles: gender ideology, cultural patterns, and predetermined roles assigned to women and men

• Women’s lack of confidence to stand for elections

• The perception of politics as “dirty” (it should be noted that this is not only a perception, as in many countries women who run for politics face intimidation, a culture of corruption, and violence)

• The role of the mass media: on top of not adequately informing the public about the rights and roles of women in society, or engaging in measures to promote women’s position, the media often depict women as beautiful objects, thus encouraging the long-standing stereotyping of women as sexual objects and second class citizens

Four Key Lessons in Promoting Gender Equality in Politics

1. Quotas do work, as a first step: Quotas increase opportunities for women in electoral processes and have been proven to be a significant aid in fast-tracking women’s access to political decision making. In its 2012 elections, Senegal achieved a doubling of the number of women in Parliament through quota legislation. The use of quotas is widespread 110 countries use quotas in some shape or form whether voluntary, legislative or through reserved seats.

Though amongst researchers, there is some dispute over the results and what kind of policies would work for women’s benefit. According to some, the demand of a “critical mass” of 30 per cent (the aim of the quota system) is not strategically wise: men may find the increasing amount of women politicians a threat, and a backlash may occur. As for quotas, it has been established that in conflict contexts they may not work as planned, as strong male politicians tend to manipulate the selection of candidates to their pleasing it is important also how the quota system is structured!

Quotas are only the first step towards gender equal politics. Even though, the quotas help in pushing the women forward becoming role models for other women, they do not tackle the most profound reasons of inequality – attitudes.

2. The type of electoral system matters: A review of electoral results for countries using proportional representation, majority or mixed electoral systems indicates that majority systems result in lower numbers of women elected. This is often due to single-member districts in which political parties prefer to nominate men, and the problems in shifting from patterns of male incumbency in local districts. Global 2012 statistics from the Inter-Parliamentary Union show that proportional representation yielded on average 25 % women in parliament, mixed systems 17 % and majority systems 14 %.

3. Systemic changes are needed to political parties: Quotas and electoral systems alone are not sufficient to provide women with a strong voice. As political parties are the gatekeepers for entry into politics, they are critical to securing women’s participation in political decision-making. International IDEA’s work has shown that political parties systematically fail to take measures to combat de facto discrimination against women. Although they might have manifestos packed with ambitious commitments on gender equality, these rarely translate into reality when it comes to the difficult decisions on selecting candidates for leadership positions within the parties. Systemic change is therefore needed in political parties to support women in advancing a political career and getting access to power. Women and men need to both recognize, and refuse to accept, patriarchal party cultures which discriminate against women. Only then can there be equal opportunity to access power. And in turn, with more women, the exercise of power will likely become less corrupt and more results-focused. Just as diversity on corporate boards produces good results, more diversity in political power centers will do the same.

4. Political finance matters: Research shows that there are more barriers to women seeking political funding for campaigns and that women are often more reluctant than men to ask for money for electoral campaigns. IDEA’s work in Latin America has shown that women are severely disadvantaged in accessing political finance, which has enormous consequences for how they conduct their campaigns and for their access to the media. Rules on public funding of campaigns can be one way to address this 25 countries around the world allocate public funding to political parties based on gender-equality criteria, or have gender-sensitive regulations for parties in relation to campaign spending. But there is more to equality in political finance than just structures and regulations. Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer, Cheryl Sandberg, advises women to be sure to ’lean in’ and be proactive when they are seeking success in business. The same holds true for politics – unless women candidates demand, and expect, the same levels of political finance as men, they will continue to fight a losing battle.

The need to be an agent of change applies not only to political candidates at elections, but in particular to women who have the power to make changes. Once successfully elected, many great women in politics have a hard time being agents of change on the inside. As with the corporate world, when women reach the heights of decision-making they often pull the metaphorical ladder up after them. Former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, famously said that ‘the battle for women’s rights has been largely won’ and then went on to appoint only one woman to her government! When both women and men continue to work within the patriarchal structures which elected them, they do nothing to further gender equality in democratic politics. And where political equality is poor, the quality of politics is poor.