Critical Challenges of Quotas and Parity in Latin America

  • Nélida Archenti
  • María Inés Tula
Chapter
Part of the Crossing Boundaries of Gender and Politics in the Global South book series (CBGPGS)

Abstract

In Latin America, quota laws and parity are the most relevant public policies in promoting women’s political representation. This chapter analyzes the ongoing process of gender-equal political representation and identifies five “broken promises” in the journey to quotas and parity, namely, (i) the adoption of quotas without clear placement mandates, (ii) the fallacy that gender quotas per se would guarantee women’s equal access to decision-making, (iii) the limitation of quotas in achieving women’s equal (proportional) representation in legislative bodies, (iv) the fallen assumption that women legislators would represent women’s interests, and finally, (v) violence against women who reached political office as an unintended consequence of quota systems. Some shortcuts to these policies do not always arise from broken promises, but result from the contrast between high social expectations of change and centuries of patriarchal domination.

References

  1. Albaine, Laura. 2014. Acoso y violencia política en razón de género. Un estudio sobre América Latina. Nuevas formas, viejas prácticas. In La representación imperfecta Logros y desafíos de las mujeres políticas, coords., Nélida Archenti and María Inés Tula, 63–80. Buenos Aires: Eudeba.Google Scholar
  2. Archenti, Nélida. 2000. Representación, ley de cuotas y sistemas electorales. Revista PostData 6: 171–194.Google Scholar
  3. Archenti, Nélida, and María Inés Tula. 2008. Mujeres y Política en América Latina. Sistemas Electorales y Cuotas de Género. Buenos Aires: Heliasta.Google Scholar
  4. Archenti, Nélida, and María Inés Tula. 2010. (Des) Igualdad de género en las listas partidarias. Argentina 2007. In Bicentenario. Otros relatos, comps., Waldo Ansaldi, Patricia Funes, and Susana Villavicencio, 253–272. Buenos Aires: Editores del Puerto.Google Scholar
  5. Archenti, Nélida, and María Inés Tula. 2014. Cambios normativos y equidad de género. De las cuotas a la paridad en América Latina: los casos de Bolivia y Ecuador. América Latina Hoy, Revista de Ciencias Sociales 66: 47–68.Google Scholar
  6. Bataille, Philippe, and Francoise Gaspard, eds. 2000. Como las mujeres cambian la política y por qué los hombres se resisten. Buenos Aires: Ediciones de la Flor.Google Scholar
  7. Billie, Lars. 2001. Democratizing a Democratic Procedure: Myth or Reality? Candidate Selection in Western European Parties, 1960–1990. Party Politics 7(3): 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bobbio, Norberto. 1987. The Future of Democracy: A Defence of the Rules of the Game. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  9. Borner, Jutta, Mariana Caminotti, Jutta Marx, and Ana Laura Rodríguez Gustá. 2009. Ideas, presencia y jerarquías políticas. Claroscuros de la igualdad de género en el Congreso Nacional de Argentina. Buenos Aires: Prometeo Libros.Google Scholar
  10. Celis, Karen, Sarah Childs, Johanna Kantola, and Mona Lena Krook. 2008. Rethinking women’s substantive representation. Representation 44(2): 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Childs, Sarah, and Mona Lena Krook. 2006. Should Feminists Give Up on Critical Mass? A Contingent Yes. Politics & Gender 2(4): 522–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Czudnowski, Moshe. 1975. Political Recruitment. In Handbook of Political Science, Volume 2, Micropolitical Theory, eds. Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, 155–242. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Dahl, Robert. 1971. Polyarchy. Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. ​Dahlerup, Drude, ed. 2006. Women, Politics, and Quotas. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Dahlerup, Drude, and Lenita Freidenvall. 2010. Judging Gender Quotas: Predictions and Results. Policy and Politics 38(3): 407–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dolan, Kathleen, and Lynne E. Ford. 1995. Women in the State Legislatures: Feminist Identity and Legislative Behaviors. American Politics Quarterly 23(1): 96–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dovi, Suzanne. 2002. Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Will Just Any Woman, Black, or Latino Do? American Political Science Review 96(4): 729–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Driscoll, Amanda, and Mona Lena Krook. 2009. Can There be a Feminist Rational Choice Institutionalism? Politics & Gender 5(2): 238–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiorina, Morris. 1989. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Franceschet, Susan. 2008. ¿Promueven las cuotas de género los intereses de las mujeres? El impacto de las cuotas en la representación sustantiva de las mujeres. In Mujer y política. El impacto de las cuotas de género en América Latina, ed. Marcela Ríos Tobar, 61–96. Santiago de Chile: Instituto Internacional para la Democracia y la Asistencia Electoral, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, and Catalonia.Google Scholar
  21. Franceschet, Susan. 2011. Gendered institutions and women’s substantive representation: Female legislators in Argentina and Chile. In Gender, Politics and Institutions: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism, eds. Mona Lena Krook, and Fiona Mackay, 58–78. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Franceschet, Susan, and Jennifer M. Piscopo. 2008. Gender Quotas and Women’s Substantive Representation: Lessons from Argentina. Politics & Gender 4(3): 393–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freidenberg, Flavia. 2003. Selección de candidatos y democracia interna en los partidos de América Latina. Lima: Ágora Democrática, Instituto Internacional para la Democracia y la Asistencia Electoral and Transparencia.Google Scholar
  24. Freidenberg, Flavia, and Manuel Alcántara Sáez, eds. 2009. Selección de Candidatos, Política Partidista y Rendimiento democrático. México, D.F.: Tribunal Electoral del Distrito Federal, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Instituto de Iberoamérica.Google Scholar
  25. Gallagher, Michael, and Michael Marsh. 1988. Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective. The Secret Garden of Politics. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Heath, Roseanna, Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayer, and Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson. 2005. Women on the Sidelines: Women’s Representation on Committees in Latin American Legislatures. American Journal of Political Science 49(2): 420–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hennl, Annika, and André Kaiser. 2008. Ticket-Balancing in Mixed-Member Proportional Systems. Comparing Sub-national Elections in Germany. Electoral Studies 27(2): 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hibbing, John. 1991. Congressional Careers. Contours of Life in the U.S. House of Representatives. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hibbing, John. 1999. Legislative careers: why and how we should study them. Legislative Studies Quarterly 24(2): 149–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Htun, Mala. 2005. Case Studies: Latin America. Women, Political Parties and Electoral Systems in Latin America. In Women in Parliament: Beyond Numbers, eds. Julie Ballington and Azza Karam, 112–121. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.Google Scholar
  31. Ibarra Cárdenas, Jesús. 2013. Cuota de género vs. Regla de la Mayoría. El debate constitucional. Cuestiones Constitucionales. Revista Mexicana de Derecho Constitucional 28: 141–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Immergut, Ellen M. 1992. Health Policies: Interests and Institutions in Western Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jones, Mark P. 2000. El sistema de cuotas y la elección de las mujeres en América Latina: El papel fundamental del sistema electoral. In La Democracia Paritaria en la Construcción Europea, ed., Paloma Saavedra Ruiz, 35–46. Madrid: CELEM.Google Scholar
  34. Jones, Mark P. 2009. Gender Quotas, Electoral Laws, and the Election of Women. Evidence From the Latin American Vanguard. Comparative Political Studies 42(1): 56–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karl, Terry Lynn. 1991. Dilemas de la democratización en América Latina. Foro Internacional 3: 388–417.Google Scholar
  36. Katz, Richard. 2001. The Problem of Candidate Selection and Models of Party Democracy. Party Politics 7(3): 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kirchheimer, Otto. 1965. El camino hacia el partido de todo el mundo. In Teoría y sociología de los partidos políticos, eds. Kurt Lenk and Franz Neumann, 328–348. Barcelona: Anagrama.Google Scholar
  38. Krook, Mona Lena. 2009. Quotas for Women in Politics: Gender and Candidate Selection Reform Worldwide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krook, Mona Lena, and Fiona Mackay. 2011. Gender, Politics and Institutions: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krook, Mona Lena, and Juliana Restrepo Sanín. 2016. Género y violencia política en América Latina. Conceptos, debates y soluciones. Política y gobierno 23(1): 127–162.Google Scholar
  41. Lijphart, Arend. 1987. Las democracias contemporáneas. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
  42. Llanos, Beatriz. 2014. Ojos que (aún) no ven. Nuevo reporte de 8 países: género, campañas electorales y medios en América Latina. In La representación imperfecta. Logros y desafíos de las mujeres políticas, coords, Nélida Archenti and María Inés Tula, 81–104. Buenos Aires: Eudeba.Google Scholar
  43. Mackay, Fiona. 2008. ‘Thick’ Conceptions of Substantive Representation: Women, Gender and Political Institutions. Representation 44(2): 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mainwaring, Scott, and Timothy R. Scully. 1995. Building Democratic Institutions: Party System in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Mainwaring, Scott, and Matthew S. Shugart. 1997. Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mansbridge, Jane. 2005. Quota Problems: Combating the Dangers of Essentialism. Politics & Gender 1(4): 622–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marques-Pereira, Bérengère. 2001. Cupos o paridad: ¿actuar como ciudadanas? Revista de Ciencia Política XXI(2): 101–121.Google Scholar
  48. Marx, Jutta, Jutta Borner, and Mariana Caminotti. 2007. Las legisladoras: Cupos de género y política en Argentina y Brasil. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
  49. Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Medina Espino, Adriana. 2010. La participación política de las mujeres. De las cuotas a la paridad. México, D.F.: Centro de Estudios para el Adelanto de las Mujeres y la Equidad de Género, Cámara de Diputados and Honorable Congreso de la Unión.Google Scholar
  51. Millard, Eric. 2008. La paridad en Francia. Anuario de Derechos Humanos 9: 431–460.Google Scholar
  52. Mouffe, Chantal. 1993. Feminismo, ciudadanía y política democrática radical. Debate Feminista 4(7): 3–22.Google Scholar
  53. Navarro, Marysa. 2000. Desafíos desde este lado del mundo. In Como las mujeres cambian la política y por qué los hombres se resisten, eds. Philippe Bataille and Francoise Gaspard, 15–28. Buenos Aires: Ediciones de la Flor.Google Scholar
  54. Norris, Pippa. 1985. Women’s Legislative Participation in Western Europe. West European Politics 8(4): 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Norris, Pippa. 1997. Passsages to Power: Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Norris, Pippa. 2004. Electoral Engineering. Voting Rules and Political Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nugent, Mary, and Mona Lena Krook. 2016. All-Women Shortlists: Myths and Realities. Parliamentary Affairs 69(1): 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1998. Accountability Horizontal. Ágora 4(8): 5–34.Google Scholar
  59. Pitkin, Hannah F. 1985. El concepto de representación. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.Google Scholar
  60. Przeworski, Adam. 1999. Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense. In Democracy’s Values, eds. Ian Shapiro and Casiano Hacker-Cordón, 23–55. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Przeworski, Adam. 2003. Why do political parties obey results of elections? In Democracy and the Rule of Law, eds, José María Maravall and Adam Przeworski, 114–145. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Rahat, Gideon, and Reuven Y. Hazan. 2001. Candidate Selection Methods: An Analytical Framework. Party Politics 7(3): 297–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Remmer, Karen L. 1996. The Sustainability of Political Democracy. Lessons from South America. Comparative Political Studies 29(6): 611–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rule, Wilma. 1987. Electoral Systems, Contextual Factors and Women’s Opportunity for Election to Parliament in Twenty-Three Democracies. Western Political Quarterly 40(3): 477–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rule, Wilma. 1994. Parliaments of, by, and for the People: Except for Women? In Electoral Systems in Comparative Perspective: Their Impact on Women and Minorities, eds. Wilma Rule and Joseph E. Zimmerman, 15–30. Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  66. Sartori, Giovanni. 1990. Teoría de la Democracia. In Tomo 2: Los problemas clásicos. Buenos Aires: REI.Google Scholar
  67. Sartori, Giovanni. 1992. Elementos de teoría política. Buenos Aires: Alianza.Google Scholar
  68. Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1942. Party Government. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  69. Schlesinger, Joseph. 1966. Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  70. Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A. 2005. The Incumbency Disadvantage and Women’s Election to Legislative Office. Electoral Studies 24(2): 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A. 2010. Political Power and Women’s Representation in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schmidt, Gregory. 2014. Disparidad de género en las reelecciones : los ciclos electorales 2006 y 2010–2011 en el Perú. In La representación imperfecta. Logros y desafíos de las mujeres políticas, ed. Nélida Archenti, and María Inés Tula, 129–158. Buenos Aires: Eudeba.Google Scholar
  73. Siavelis, Peter, and Scott Morgenstern, eds. 2008. Pathways to Power: Political Recruitment and Candidate Selection in Latin America. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Torres García, Isabel. 2013. Paridad para el fortalecimiento de la democracia incluyente: el caso de Costa Rica. In La apuesta por la paridad: democratizando el sistema político en América Latina. Los casos de Ecuador, Bolivia y Costa Rica, eds. IDEA, OEA, and CIM, 181–234. Lima: Instituto Internacional para la Democracia y la Asistencia Electoral, Comisión Interamericana de Mujeres/Organización de los Estados Americanos.Google Scholar
  75. Tremblay, Manon. 2006. The Substantive Representation of Women and PR: Some Reflections on the Role of Surrogate Representation and Critical Mass. Politics & Gender 2(4): 502–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. UNDP, TEPJF and UN Women. 2012. Violencia contra las mujeres en el ejercicio de sus derechos políticos. México, DF: Tribunal Federal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación, United Nations Development Programme and UN Women.Google Scholar
  77. Vidal Correa, Fernanda. 2013. La descentralización de los procesos de selección de candidatos en los partidos y su impacto en la nominación de mujeres en los congresos estatales de México. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales LVIII 217: 171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vincent, Louise. 2004. Quotas: Changing the Way Things Look without Changing the Way Things Are. Journal of Legislative Studies 10(1): 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ware, Alan. 2002. The American Direct Primary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nélida Archenti
    • 1
  • María Inés Tula
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations