Is Gender like Ethnicity? The Political Representation of Identity Groups

Abstract

Some 50 countries officially allocate access to political power by gender, ethnicity, or both. Yet in the world's electoral democracies, the policies used for women differ systematically from those used for ethnic groups. The former receive candidate quotas in parties; the latter, reserved seats in legislatures. Why? My explanation focuses on the varying ways that gender and ethnic identities intersect with partisan cleavages and on the distinct "work" performed by the different remedies for underrepresentation. Quotas, which make space within existing parties, are appropriate for groups whose boundaries crosscut partisan divisions. Reservations, which create incentives for the formation of group-specific parties and permit them direct representation, suit groups whose boundaries coincide with political cleavages. Since gender is crosscutting while ethnicity tends to be coinciding, women receive candidate quotas while ethnic groups get legislative reservations. Claims for inclusion via quotas pose less of a challenge to liberal institutions than claims to difference through legislative reservations. Case studies of representational politics in France, India, and Peru illustrate the argument. P olitical leaders take our money, lead us to war, and write the laws that govern our lives. Must their ranks include men and women, rich and poor, masters and slaves? For most of world history, the answer was no. Men ruled; women worked at home. Female interests were represented by husbands and fathers. The same was true for members of subordinate ethnic groups: conquerors would care for colonial subjects, the rich for the poor, whites for browns, and so on.As the twentieth century progressed, however, a consensus emerged in international society and within democratic polities that one social segment should not monopolize political power. Special efforts were made to include previously excluded groups-generally defined in terms of gender and ethnicity. Today, some 50 countries officially allocate access to political power along the lines of gender, ethnicity, 1 or both: they have laws on the books reserving a fixed number of electoral candidacies or legislative seats. Narrowing the focus to electoral democracies reveals a fascinating pattern: institutional remedies for the underrepresentation of women and ethnic minorities (or majorities) assume distinct forms. Women tend to receive candidate quotas in political parties, whereas ethnic groups are granted reserved seats in legislatures.How does gender differ from ethnicity? Why do democracies apply distinct policies to different previously excluded groups? What does this imply about the normative status of various claims to representation and the appropriate response of liberal states?This article argues that different remedies for underrepresentation are logically appropriate for different groups. Quotas, which make space within existing parties, suit groups whose boundaries crosscut partisan divisions. Reservations, which create incentives for the formation of group-specifi...

Why Are Representational Guarantees Adopted for Women and Minorities? Comparing Constituency Formation and Electoral Quota Design Within Countries

“…Although normative theorists often compare arguments for the representation of different groups (e.g., Kymlicka [1995]; Mansbridge [1999], Young [2000]), there have been relatively few systematic empirical comparisons of how quotas are designed for women and minority groups (but see Htun [2004]; Krook & O'Brien [2010]). …”

“…Analyzing electoral democracies, she points out that different types of quotas are adopted for women versus minority groups (Htun 2004). …”

“…Statemandated gender quotas have been adopted in approximately 50 countries across the globe (Dahlerup [2007]; Krook [2009]). Yet, a fairly limited number of studies analyze and compare the adoption of quota policies for both groups (notable exceptions include Htun [2004]; Htun & Ossa [2013]; Hughes [2011]; Krook & O'Brien [2010]); most research on electoral quota adoption concerns either quotas for women (e.g., Dahlerup [2006]; Krook [2007Krook [ , 2009;…”

“…We analyze these propositions by using a novel research strategy, as well as a new and innovative conceptual distinction between quota types. Theoretically, we move beyond the conventional distinction between reserved seats and candidate quotas (e.g., Dahlerup [2006]; Htun [2004]; Krook [2009]) to explore whether special (separate or overlapping) constituencies are created for the targeted group, or whether the quota is instead incorporated into existing constituencies. We suggest that such a distinction better captures the extent to which an electoral quota is designed to separate or integratethe targeted group.…”

Diversity Matters: Intersectionality and Women's Representation in the USA and UK: Table 1

“…As Mügge and Erzeel (forthcoming) observe, an intersectional framework allows us to understand the power dynamics underpinning the various mechanisms at work in the political recruitment process; moreover, it can help reveal identities that are particularly advantaged or disadvantaged by formal and informal representational norms and values. To date, gender and race has been the principle intersection that has been studied; in particular the underrepresentation of women of colour (Htun, 2004;Hughes, 2011;Minta, 2012;Strolovitch, 2006;Reingold and Smith, 2012). Studies in the US have suggested that women of colour have more electoral ambition than white women (Moore, 2005) with women of colour making the majority of electoral gains made by women in recent years (Hardy-Fanta et al, 2006).…”