ALTHOUGH WE ARE still to see the proof of gender quotas’ impact in Ireland, this solution is repeatedly proposed as an answer to gender inequality in politics. I have always had mixed feelings about this policy. In my opinion, gender quotas work more like a cosmetic interpolation altering the optics of our democracy than an intervention improving its health.
Following the 2016 introduction of mandatory gender quotas in general elections we had nearly twice as many women candidates as before. This may be seen as a sign of inclusive democracy. Under the surface, however, our democracy is still showing symptoms of inequality. The increased number of female candidates did not translate to more women being elected. Women won 35 seats in the Dáil in 2016 and 36 in 2020. Despite quotas women still are not achieving equal electoral success to men.
Why? Because quotas only remove barriers to the starting line of the electoral race. Barriers that women encounter between the starting and finish lines stay rather unaffected by this policy change. Gender quotas do not address the key issues that female candidates face namely childcare, safety, and above all sexism and racism, at the ballot boxes.
Gender quotas may be perceived as a way to force political parties to create a welcoming environment for female electoral participation. I think however that inadvertently it offers them an easy way out from making a meaningful commitment to gender equality instead. Tokenism is a real issue for female and other minoritised candidates. Gender quotas are not always followed by further internal policy changes necessary to create a welcoming ecosystem for diversity such as gender-specific support packages or anti-racism protocols.
I also question gender quotas from the perspective of election candidates of a migrant background. Given that election candidates of a migrant background achieved full gender parity I wonder what kind of intervention gender quotas can make for this cohort? Women of a migrant background are also more likely to run as a party nominee than their male counterparts.
If gender quotas don’t seem to bring the expected result, why are we making this policy recommendation the centre of our advocacy for inclusive democracy? Especially at a local level of politics and since we have other tools at our disposal to make gender parity closer to reality.
What’s the alternative? Diversity-focused co-options to local councils and Seanad nominations. The one area where we still should push for introducing quotas is at the appointments to Cabinet. Rather than not supporting quotas overall, I have mixed feelings about it, but it does make sense at some level of politics and may not be the best option at other levels.
In 2015 newly elected Justin Trudeau announced the first gender-balanced cabinet in Canada. In his answer to the question about his motivation for his appointments, he simply said ‘Because it’s 2015’. We should insist that Ireland catch up with the 2015 gender equality standards in politics. If the Government expects a commitment to gender parity from parties, it should lead by example. If we expect gender quotas in candidates’ selection we should expect gender quotas in ministers’ appointments too. Not to mention that this would magnify female role models for aspiring women politicians. The folk wisdom ‘you cannot be what you cannot see’ has been proven to be the truth by political researchers too.
Co-options, where women are effectively moved into positions of power, have been also proven to be an effective tool for increasing both gender and ethnic diversity in politics. Between the 2019 and the 2024 local elections 132 council seats have been vacated. Through co-options, female representation at the local councils increased by 2%. Three additional councillors of a migrant background were also co-opted in that period. It could be more if we hold political parties accountable for their decisions and demand diversity-focused co-options. I wrote about how diversity-focused co-option can turn words of solidarity into acts of solidarity, and why we should insist on political parties to use that tool for gender and ethnic equality. I also recorded a podcast where amongst many things, Dr Michelle Maher of See Her Elected and I discuss the pros and cons of co-option for increasing diversity in politics.
For me, the winning argument for recognising co-option as an effective tool for gender and ethnic equality in politics is that incumbency is still one of the key reasons in deciding on electoral success. In June local elections 10 out of 12 outgoing councillors of a migrant background were re-elected, including three who were co-opted to their first term.
Co-options to local councils can also positively impact national politics since local politics is considered a stepping stone to future general elections. Each time Ireland goes to the ballots to vote for our national representatives around 50 local councillors get in. A co-opted female councillor has more chances to be successful in general elections than a female candidate filling a quota space.
Similarly, Seanad nominations could be used to show the Government’s and above all Taoiseach’s tangible commitment to inclusive democracy and gender and ethnic equality in politics. The Seanad was established to give a voice to those who are underrepresented after all.
Gender quotas is a policy that is straightforward to understand, less divisive and simple to implement. However, let’s not make this policy recommendation as a one-size-fits-all solution. Otherwise, we are risking also taking the easy way out from making tangible progress towards an inclusive democracy.
Teresa Buczkowska is a Polish-Irish migrant rights campaigner. She is the Editor of The Migrant Vote.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say