Irish Centre for Human Rights Blog

Vebi Levni is a member of the Istanbul Bar Association and currently pursuing an LLM in International Migration and Refugee Law and Policy at the Irish Centre for Human Rights.

–

“Today, women’s leadership is a cause. Tomorrow it must be the norm”.
(António Guterres 2021) UN Secretary-General.

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR 1948) states that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” and should act with “reason and conscience.” Article 2 emphasizes that everyone is entitled to these rights without discrimination. Despite these universal principles, gender inequality in political representation is widespread. Women, who constitute half the population, are underrepresented in political decision-making (Dahlerup 2003), creating a gap between reality and the ideals of the UDHR. Although women were granted the right to vote and be elected, their election rates remained very low throughout the 20th century. In 1995, only eleven percent of parliament members were women (Sezer 2022, p.59).

According to Sezer (2022, p.59-60), gender-neutral rules in constitutions and international agreements alone have not achieved equal representation of women in politics. Therefore, debates on how to achieve greater representation of women in leadership positions in politics are incomplete without addressing the role of gender quotas. Gender quotas, which mandate a specific percentage of women in political roles, have proven to be a successful solution. For instance, Putti’s (2021, p.33) research indicates that such quotas have been effective in overcoming Ireland’s traditionally male-dominated political culture.

To better understand the importance of women leadership positions in politics, it is essential to look at the upcoming general elections in Ireland. This election is a significant milestone for women in Irish politics. It will be the country’s third election utilizing a legislative gender quota (LGQ) for candidate selection and the first to mandate that political parties achieve a forty percent gender balance on their party tickets, an increase from thirty percent in 2016 and 2020. Ireland implemented LGQs in 2012 to combat the severe under-representation of women in its political landscape. Although Ireland was among the first European countries to grant equal suffrage to women and men in 1922, by 2011, women’s representation in Dáil Éireann was only 15%. Since the introduction of LSQs, women’s candidacy has risen by ninety percent, and the number of women elected to Dáil Éireann has grown by forty eight percent. Political parties are incentivized to comply with the law through a financial mechanism; under the Electoral Acts, parties that fail to comply lose fifty percent of their State funding (Buckley and Marian 2024).

Gender quotas are introduced to guarantee a minimal level of female representation in politics (Women in Parliament 2015, p.13), influenced by historical imperatives and bolstered by international legal frameworks. The 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action marked a crucial milestone in advocating quotas to address gender disparities in political leadership. In paragraph 190 of the declaration (Beijing Declaration 1995), it was accepted that states could take “positive actions” to increase women’s representation rates. This global initiative underscored the importance of affirmative measures to enhance women’s participation in decision-making processes.

Moreover, international agreements such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) emphasizes the critical need for proactive measures to promote gender equality. This includes the implementation of quotas to ensure that women have greater representation in political institutions. Such measures are seen as essential to redress historical imbalances and to provide women with the opportunity to participate equally in the decision-making processes that shape their societies.

As such measures gain momentum, the debates on gender quotas reveal both their effectiveness and controversies. Dahlerup (2003) notes that some view quotas as discriminatory, while others see them as compensation for structural barriers preventing fair competition. Proponents argue that quotas ensure fair representation by addressing historical and structural disadvantages faced by women. They believe quotas are a means to achieve equality by ensuring equal outcomes. Quotas, considered a form of compensation for discrimination, are essential until a fair society is achieved (Dahlerup 2007, p.73-75). 

Although some perceive quotas as unfair to men, it is argued that mitigating men’s inherent advantages —which are themselves unjust— promotes fairness (Williams 2009, p.59). Women’s underrepresentation is often due to societal gender norms and stereotypes, not a lack of qualifications (Dahlerup et al. 2014, p.20). Studies indicate that women selected through quotas are just as qualified as men. Quotas do not eliminate competition for candidacy and election (Women in Parliament 2015, p.12) but rather increase it (Dahlerup 2007, p.88), as seen in Sweden where quotas have improved the qualifications of elected men by increasing competition (Women in Parliament 2015, p.12-13).

More precisely, quotas have been shown to enhance the overall quality of politicians. A study of the Italian electoral or constitutional gender quota implemented in 1994 found that women were five percent more likely than men to have local government experience (Ana Catalano Weeks and Lisa Baldez, p.120). Additionally, women attended legislative sessions seven percent more than men. Another study of Italy’s previous gender quota revealed that the education level of politicians significantly increased after its implementation. One explanation suggests that the quota replaced less educated men with highly educated women, thus raising the average quality of politicians (Nayar 2021).

Quotas do not violate voters rights since political parties, not voters, determine candidates (Dahlerup 2007, p.74). Excluding women’s experiences from governance constitutes a democratic deficit, as they make up half of the population and have the right to equal representation. Equal representation is increasingly seen as essential for modernisation and democratic legitimacy (Dahlerup 2007, p.74). Women contribute unique perspectives from their experiences in business and social spheres, which can significantly enrich political decision-making and broaden political horizons (Erzen 2019, p.28). Williams (2009, p.61) argues that without women in the legislature, their experiences are likely ignored. Increased representation through quotas highlight women’s unique qualities in politics, addressing structural inequality (Williams 2009, p.59). Despite barriers, female legislators are more proactive in advocating for women’s interests. Dodson (2001, p.237) notes that feminist women are more dedicated to ensuring government attention to women’s needs than feminist men.

On the other hand, opponents of gender quotas argue that such systems replace more-qualified men with less-qualified women, especially in developing nations where women often have lower levels of wealth and education. Additionally, opponents assert that women in the legislature won’t necessarily represent women’s interests due to their diverse backgrounds and concerns. They believe that laws should treat all genders equally without special measures for disadvantaged groups (Williams 2009, p.54-55,58). Critics also argue that women elected through quotas may be seen as unqualified “quota women” (Women in Parliament 2015, p.12). They view quotas as undemocratic, as voters should choose their representatives, and quotas can cause disputes within party organizations (Gender Quotas Database 2024).

There are also concerns about how gender quotas impact the representation of other minorities. People worry that gender quotas might push other minority groups out of politics, as only women from the dominant classes tend to be elected (Alexander and Varun 2019, p.4, A-3). Consequently, it has been argued that gender quotas could lead to endless demands for quotas from other groups (Dahlerup and Freidenvall 2009, p.420). Moreover, some evidence suggests that quotas are not particularly effective. A study using quantitative models found that quotas do not explain the variation in the percentage of women elected to parliament across different countries (Nayar 2021). Generally, studies indicate that quotas are only effective under specific conditions, which many countries are unwilling to implement. If quotas do not significantly help to elect women, they generate much controversy with minimal benefit (Nayar 2021).

Although the arguments in this piece present certain critiques of gender quotas, they emphasize that achieving a fair and balanced political system and opening new horizons requires better representation of women in leadership roles. Contemporary society demands increased female representation in politics. Gender quotas have been effective in addressing historical inequalities and promoting gender equality, as seen in Ireland. Increased participation of women in politics brings diversity and new perspectives to decision-making processes. However, quotas should be seen as temporary measures, similar to how CEDAW viewed positive action (General Recommendation No. 23).  The ultimate goal is to create conditions where women can compete based on merit, without the need for mandatory quotas. This may involve broader strategies such as challenging gender stereotypes through education, promoting mentorship programs for female leaders, and ensuring equitable access to resources. Until this is achieved, making women’s leadership a norm, as Guterres suggests, may be necessary.