Barack Obama’s defeat of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Presidential nomination evoked a range of opinions about the extent to which sexism was a factor in Senator Clinton’s loss, and about if and when the US will ever elect a female president. The selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate has brought another angle to these debates. This is not surprising.
However, it would be a mistake to focus exclusively on whether Clinton and/or Palin as individuals have been hard done by due to sexism in American political culture and the wider socio-cultural milieu – important as these issues are – and neglect to discuss political-institutional factors affecting the level of women’s political representation in the US and other liberal democracies.
Some of these political-institutional factors are obviously gender-political in nature. However in this post I want to argue that a political-institutional factor that is not overtly gender-political in nature has also been quite significant in enhancing political opportunities for women in some countries and constraining them in others. This is the electoral system used to elect a country’s parliament or equivalent.
Let’s begin by asking a simple question. Why was Hillary Clinton’s campaign the focus of so much feminist interest? The answer is quite simple. She was the only female candidate in either major American party contesting this year’s presidential primaries – and, for as long as most of us can remember, the only woman to have contested the major parties’ presidential primaries with a reasonable chance of winning.
This brings us to the next question. Why are there so few women in American politics who have aspired for the presidency? There are a range of factors, but an important one surely must be the low percentage of women in the biggest single pool of potential presidential candidates, namely the two houses of the US Congress.
According to the International Parliamentary Union, as of 31 July 2008 the percentages of women in the US House of Representatives and Senate were 16.8% and 16.0% respectively. This is one of the lowest levels of female parliamentary representation in the advanced industrial democracies.
Among the other trends which can be seen from the IPU’s table are, firstly, that among the English-speaking countries, the US, UK and Canada have lower rates of female parliamentary representation than Australia and New Zealand; and, secondly, that the English-speaking countries generally have much lower rates of female parliamentary representation than a number of continental European countries. Some of these countries, such as Sweden and Finland, are renowned for the impact of feminist discourses on their politics, culture and public policies, and might therefore be expected to do well on female political representation. Others, such as Germany, Austria, Spain and Portugal are by a number of benchmarks arguably more socially and culturally conservative on gender issues than the English-speaking countries, yet still have more women in their national parliaments.
What can account for these differences? Part of the answer must lie in the electoral system. In general, the countries with the highest rates of female representation use some form of proportional representation to elect their parliaments, whereas those with lower rates of female representation use some form of single-member constituency electoral system (either first-past-the-post or preferential).
There are exceptions to this trend, notably countries such as Italy and Ireland which employ proportional representation yet have very low levels of female representation. In these conservative Catholic societies, the electoral system has seemingly been less powerful a factor than patriarchal attitudes and practices in national political cultures and sociocultural spheres. However, whilst there are countries which use PR which have done badly on gender balance, it is notable that there is no advanced capitalist democracy employing single-member electoral systems which has done well.
The linkage between electoral system and gender representation becomes clearer when we note that the two elected assemblies in the English-speaking world with the highest levels of female representation, and the only two to join the Europeans in the 30+ per cent range, are the New Zealand Parliament and the Australian Senate (the Canadian Senate is not popularly elected).
The link becomes even clearer when we compare the levels of female representation in countries with bicameral parliaments for which PR is used to elect one house of parliament and a non-proportional system is used to elect the other. The difference between the Australian Senate and House of Representatives is immediately obvious. In Spain, Austria, Germany and Switzerland the same trend is apparent, in a different direction – the proportionally representative Lower Houses in all these countries have higher rates of female representation than their non-proportional upper houses.
Having established an apparent correlation between proportional electoral systems and higher levels of female parliamentary representation, it behoves us to look at possible causal connections.
One is that preselecting several candidates, as a group, for winnable positions on a PR election ticket (be it a European-style list or a quota-preferential ticket) entails different gender-political dynamics than preselecting individual candidates severally for single-member constituencies.
In the latter case, preselectors are asked to choose the single best person for the job, and in such a situation it is possible for preselectors to plausibly argue for the preselection of a particular male candidate over a particular female candidate on the basis of individual merit, and/or to argue along the lines that “I’m happy to preselect a woman, just not that woman.” This is not to deny that individual preselectors may be sincere in putting forward such arguments in individual cases. Yet the evidence from the Anglosphere suggests that when many such decisions about “the best person for the job” are made severally and separately, all too often they add up in aggregate to a serious gender imbalance.
In preselecting candidates for winnable positions in a PR ballot, by contrast, preselectors are asked to choose (say) the seven best people for seven jobs. It is far less plausible to argue that, in a mainstream democratic political party with many capable active members, five or six of the seven best persons for seven jobs will be male. It is far more difficult to argue against the proposition that a gender-balanced ticket can be preselected which would be the best the party could offer. In European countries which use PR electoral systems, many parties adopt a “Zipper” system of preselection whereby if a man is preselected first on the list, a woman is preselected second and the genders alternate accordingly down the ticket (and vice-versa if a woman is preselected first).
Another possible causal connection is that PR electoral systems have made it easier for new progressive parties, whose progressive praxis entails a strong practical commitment to gender equity including a large female presence in their electoral lists, to enter national parliaments and provide a pole of electoral attraction for the votes of women, pro-feminist men and youth, forcing the established parties into “imitative reorganisation” including measures to increase women’s representation on their own electoral lists. This is most clearly illustrated in the Federal Republic of Germany. Between 1945 and 1980 the percentage of women in the FRG’s lower house barely moved (from 6.8% to 8.3%). Since then it has increased to 31.6%. According to von Wahl (2006)*, a decisive factor was the entry of the Greens to parliament in the 1983 election, with roughly half of Green MPs being women, including charismatic party leader in Petra Kelly. The Greens were also the first party to employ a gender quota system for preselecting candidates. The latter mechanism was soon emulated by the Social Democrats and Christian Democrats.
Returning to the US, it is clear enough that their clunky first past the post electoral system is a major factor disempowering women in US politics relative to most other Western democracies. The result of the 2000 presidential election shows how other clunky features of the US electoral system (FPTP voting, the electoral college system, disenfranchisement of currently and formerly incarcerated voters, etc.) are also disempowering for constituencies and causes which progressives endeavour to represent. I think it behoves liberal Democrats and other US progressives to turn their attention to electoral reform, including proportional representation for State and Federal Congresses, as a high priority for a future Obama administration, Democrat-controlled Congress and Democrat-controlled state governments and legislatures.
———————————————-
* Angelika von Wahl (2006), ‘Gender Equality in Germany: Comparing Policy Change across Domains’, West European Politics, Vol. 29. No. 3, pp. 461-488, May 2006.
It depends what you mean by “gender equity”
Thanks for an interesting and informative read.
A new spin on your endless quest to introduce proportional voting, which by pure coincidence lends the balance of power to outlying types such as, oh, The Greens. Well done.
Not too confident in the LDP getting some traction out of it too Jacques?
FDB — a nationwide PR system would see the Greens, Family First, the LDP, One Nation splinters, Fishing and Shooting party, Monster Raving Looney Party etc etc get senators.
I agree with Paul that electoral systems are extremely influential in the composition and nature of politics in any country. As I recall it Paul wants nationwide PR in the lower house, which to me seems like utter lunacy.
The Australian Washminster system is warty, buggy and odd, but in many ways it’s a damn well-struck compromise. I see PR as a risk too far.
Jacques – The Monster Raving Looney Party is the only party which can lead Australian in the 21st century. Please show some respect.
Paul – I’m not sure you’ve made a conclusive case for causality in this correlation which you outline very well. (And an interesting one it is).
.
What you write simple displays that countries with proportional representation will have a higher percentage of ‘non-mainstream’ participation in their legislative assemblies. This isn’t surprising. Moreover that many of these parties will have a commitment to gender equity that the mainstream concerns don’t share. If they come from the left-hand fringe that’s not surprising either.
.
Therefore there’s a certain trend whereby proportional representation (obviously more democratic) is compatible with increased plurality hence greater access to women entering parliaments.
.
However even under fairly conservative electoral systems (or downright archaic ones like the US) women can still participate. If one adheres to the fundamental principle that women are as capable as men, and I do, then the participation rates should be higher if women are participating. Are they?
.
That’s the rub.
.
Good post.
A perhaps slightly off-topic anecdote: When I was involved with the Greens there was a discussion on the lack of female representation in the party apparatus (as opposed to the electoral tickets). There was an automatic assumption that the problem was due to some kind of hidden sexual discrimination and that an affirmative action policy was required.
.
Someone took upon themselves to write such and it was duly adopted by the branch. Then two openings came up on the higher councils of party management (whose byzantine acronyms always seem to escape me) – no-one nominated. There were a couple fellows who were interested but they declined to put up their hands because of the discussion viz gender equity.
.
No-one nominated. The room was full of women including one with stated political ambitions – nada. The positions remained unfilled.
The premise behind all this debate is that women and men should have a 50/50 representation in elected office. This I believe to be an impossible nonsense. No functioning society has ever achieved it and none will.
Women are primarily nurturers and not suited to the peacock parade of parliamentary representation which passes for governing in western democracies.
Progressives cling to this utopian goal but the rest ignore and just get on with it.
Hilary was doomed from the start, by sexism, being married to a man who chose younger women. She was a “woman scorned” , doomed.
Palin has a chance. Her fecundity and “sassiness” will enable her to perhaps attain the 16%, the one in six who will be female candiates for VP on a Republican ticket.
The more aggressive left wing men who have usually had to overcome entrenched privilege to reach the top, will not welcome women as a threat in their quest for power.
Jack Hackett
http://images.onesite.com/my.telegraph.co.uk/user/neanderthaler/20080617163547.jpg
Wow, this is quite exciting. I thought they were extinct.
It sounds to me that this enforcing of gender balance (a very different thing to gender equality) would be the primary driver behind the higher levels of female representation rather than the subtleties of the election process.
PC, it’s kind of sweet: he thinks women are too good for modern parliamentary politics. Now all we have to do is convince him that men are too good for it too.
BBB
I have a far better idea: do nothing.
I’m just assuming Jack Hackett is another one of these conceptual character stunts that get road tested on blog threads first.
Mind you, that’s what I first thought about Graeme Bird. But he turned to out to be the real deal. A brilliantly crazed idiot savant.
So Jack, convince us you’re for real. Otherwise we’ll just end up playing along. And that will give you no comfort in the long run, whether you are a performance artwork or genuinely a bloke furious with women doing better than you.
Desipis, my point about zipper systems was that (a) they are particularly applicable to the preselection of party lists for multi-member constituencies and (b) it is much more difficult for entrenched male interests to find superficially merit-based arguments against gender balance in preselection of lists of candidates than it is to find (or contrive) such arguments when preselecting individuals for single-member constituencies.
Apropos Jacques Chester’s comments, yes I do advocate PR for Australian Lower Houses (Federal and State). International evidence suggests that it need not end in disaster, usually does not, and can be as element of sound and stable democratic government. Here is a list of countries using proportional representation, and the type of PR system employed.
Country Type
Algeria Party list
Angola Party list
Australia (Senate) Preference voting (Single Transferable Vote)
Austria Party list
Argentina Party list
Belgium Party list
Bolivia Mixed Member Proportional
Brazil Party list
Bulgaria Party list
Burkina Faso Party list
Burundi Party list
Cambodia Party list
Cape Verde Party list
Colombia Party list
Costa Rica Party list
Croatia Party list
Cyprus Party list
Czech Republic Party list
Denmark Party list
Dominican Republic Party list
Equatorial Guinea Party list
Estonia Party list
Finland Party list
Germany Mixed member proportional
Greece Party list
Guinea-Bissau Party list
Guyana Party list
Hungary Mixed Member Proportional
Iceland Party list
Indonesia Party list
Ireland Preference voting (Single Transferable Vote)
Israel Party list
Italy Mixed Member Proportional
Latvia Party list
Lesotho Mixed Member Proportional
Liberia Party list
Liechtenstein Party list
Luxembourg Party list
Malta Preference voting (Single Transferable Vote)
Mexico Mixed Member Proportional
Moldova Party list
New Zealand Mixed Member Proportional
Namibia Party list
Netherlands Party list
Netherlands Antilles Party list
New Caledonia Party list
Nicaragua Party list
Norway Party list
Northern Cyprus Party list
Paraguay Party list
Peru Party list
Poland Party list
Portugal Party list
Romania Party list
San Marino Party list
Sao Tome and Principe Party list
Scotland Mixed Member Proportional
Slovakia Party list
Slovenia Party list
South Africa Party list
South Korea Party list
Spain Party list
Sri Lanka Party list
Suriname Party list
Sweden Party list
Switzerland Party list
Suriname Party list
Turkey Party list
Uruguay Party list
Venezuela Mixed Member Proportional
Wallis and Futuna Party list
Also, see here.
A nice read and one that it timely. Love your work.
Thank you Mrs Doyle, a picture taken after the last election when Mr.Rudd managed to con the populace that a man with a cup of weak tea could do better than a similarly clad male politician from the other side of politics holding a cup of weak tea.
I am unaware of any past society where the parliamentary rulers had a majority of women.
I may be wrong.
Now take that feckin tea away, Drink ! Drink!
Jack Hackett
You’ve missed a key design assumption of the Washminster system, which is that the government forms a majority in its own right in the lower house. This is necessary because the Executive is melded to the Parliament and there needs to be a clear, unambiguous and stable mechanism for determining this at any point after and between elections.
PR undermines that by forcing odd coalitions to form, with the stability held captive to any one group of loonies: Greens, LDPs, Family First, whomever your bogeyman is.
I don’t mind the Senate having a PR flavour because of its evolved role as the deliberative chamber of review, inquiry and debate. But the continuity and stability of the Executive branch in a Westminster system relies not on the post-Washingtonian strict separation of powers, but rather on the stability of the governing party in the lower house. Proportional representation in the lower house, especially in a ‘single electorate’ design, destroys that design and unleashes a very different kind of politics which Australia is not adapted to by experience or constitutional form.
Very quickly Jacques, there have been several recent examples of Australian State governments which have not had a majority in the lower house (or the single house in Queensland) and have had to govern on the basis of arrangements with single independents or groups of independents (NSW Labor’s first term after 1994, QLD Labor 1998-2001, Vic Labor 1999-2002). These were not unstable governments. In Queensland and NSW they were also superior, on the scores of competence and accountability, to the Labor majority governments which have succeeded them.
The argument for the superiority of single member electorates (on the basis that they provide stable government) has to be looking even weaker after events of the last few weeks.
Plenty of proportional representation nations are being hit as well, but the current economic crisis looks set to undermine the perception of American economic superiority over Europe, and the UK doesn’t look to be handling it well either.
Europe has clearly done a better job at distributing wealth amongst its citizens, the claim for US/UK superiority depends on a major advantage in wealth creation, and that looks increasingly unlikely to be sustained.
No. You are lying..
Jacques -
.
Will it? Seems to me that places where there are unstable coalitions like Israel or Italy have an inherently fragmented political culture anyway. Funnily enough these countries seem to persist reasonably well despite having corrupt and/or fragmented governments.
.
Here minor parties seem to form to address policy areas that are ignored by the mainstream. I doubt that they’d win a seat in the lower houses unless the candidate was very hardworking, very popular and the mainstream parties were on the nose locally.
.
I might be wrong. It’ll be interesting to see how the Greens fare now that both the Libs and the ALP have finally started paying attention to the environment (sorta).
Sorta is the key word there, Adrien.
Family First might bite the dust soon considering Fielding’s little bit of obtuse elitism.
.
Aw damn what a shame.
.
One thing this country needs more of is fundamentalist paleolithic dingbats in the houses of government. Not.
Well sorta.
.
I think the real keywords are myopic, greedy dickheads myself. But that’s just me. I do believe that Turnball will take the problem seriously. Once he starts having to wear gumboots to keep his socks dry whilst visiting other bluebloods living on the harbour.
.
Kevvie’s got it all well in hand with his
loophole bonanzacap n’ trade. Coming soon: MethaneWatch