Samenvatting: Gender, Diversity and Politics
Introduction: The democratic promise: equality and freedom
● The democratic promise
→ = “Every one is equal and free … to become a politician”
→ Very clear the promise is not met: we are not equal in politics
→ Something problematic about the claim
→ If women and men are equal and free:
❖ why, then, are women underrepresented?
❖ why, then, are women now better represented?
→ Some were already democratic nations in the 90’s: what makes them more equal now
→ The ‘democratic’ answer: there is nothing wrong in the democracy, so the fault is with the woman
❖ Ambition: they don’t want to be in politics, their choice
❖ Merit: they want to use their capacities for something else, they are free to use them however they
want
❖ When we see underrepresentation, given that we are all free, it because of the woman
→ What the research on women in politics learns us:
❖ It is not (only) about personal ambition; structural factors matter greatly
❖ Ambition and merit are gendered (bias), and mediated by networks
→ Is the democratic promise fulfilled?
❖ Research on when women run for office
❖ 3 concepts: ambition, merit, networks
❖ Next week guest lecture by Robin Devroe (VUB) discussing case studies related to 3 electoral phases:
candidates, selection by parties, election by voters (stereotypes)
● When do women run for office?
→ Many structural factors
→ Conditions related to elections and parties
1. Party competition
→ competitions between parties (for votes): decide when women are elected
→ Scandal & electoral failure: ‘glass cliff’ = phenomenon that we see woman being put forward for
office when there is a scandal/electoral failure: doors open for women, they keep the most valuable
politicians safe
1
, ❖ Can go well: they save the party
❖ Can go wrong: the male elite stay safe, woman fail
→ Weak competition & low chances of assuming government: woman it’s okay to give them a
chance, because the party does not have much to loose: has nothing to do with ambition
→ Contagion: where one party infects another party: other parties follow because they also want the
‘womanfriendly’ label: little to do with women ambition and capacity
→ political parties driven by power
2. Party ideology
→ When there is an ideological friendly environment
→ Historical connection between leftist parties and women’s mvt: often those foreground woman
→ Left more women candidates, elected and party elites
→ But right-wing parties are catching up
3. Party organisation
→ Centralisation (but only when party leaders believe in women’s qualities and the principle of gender
equality)
→ the more centralized the power is, the more inclusive the political party can be
→ Decentralized parties tend to have less women
→ Women party leaders and selectors (= people in political parties that are gatekeepers, decide who
gets on an electoral list): they secure positions for women
→ Women sections within parties
❖ Functions
➢ In the past: serve coffee
➢ From the moment woman can vote a lot of change
➢ Mobilize female electorate
➢ Intra party decision-making
❖ Effects
➢ Effective in promoting women for office and quota
➢ Channel for voicing women’s demands
➢ Group consciousness as resource for campaigns addressing party leaders
→ Formal rules
❖ The more formal the better for newcomers (women, ethnic minorities, ...)
❖ Quota and reserved seats
→ Networks
● Networks: Homosocial capital
→ networks extremely important in understanding exclusion
→ Politics very insecure and risky environment: people have tendency to connect to other people that they
think are trustworthy: this creates a bubble of stability
→ being in the group brings you advantages and valuable: you want someone trustworthy in position of power
→ Networks of individuals who share norms, values and perceptions, and therefore are perceived as
trustworthy and predictable
→ Capital that is mobilized in politics, for political mandates amongst others
→ White privileged men historically dominate these networks. They benefit more strongly from these
networks, but also the underrepresented groups do
→ These networks do not intend to exclude (no conspiracy) but do generate exclusion
2
, → the ones who are in the netwerk benefit from being in it (have information, share strategies), also
previously excluded benefit the most from trying to get in the networks rather than building their own
networks because that is not where power is
→ difficult problem to tackle: but understanding that most of the networks are not build to exclude but to
create safety
● Ambition: What motivates women (more than men) to run?
→ Plays out differently for men and women
→ Direct recruitment: actively approached: need that little extra invitation
→ Encouragement
→ Exposure to women office-holders: role-model effect ‘you can’t be what you can’t see’
→ Organisations and programmes committed to women’s recruitment and training: ambition is something
that is build, trained, stimulated
→ Sense of ‘usefulness of politics to solve problems’
→ Capacity to make substantive policy change: : once they see that change can be made, they are more
ambitious
→ ambition very gendered: and maybe womens ambition not stimulated
● Merit
→ Individual qualities used to select candidates- characteristics:
❖ Resources: time and money to run a successful campaign: inequalities existing in society travels to
politics
❖ Charisma
❖ Eloquence and the ability to defend an argument in public
❖ Media appeal
❖ Ability to work a crowd
❖ Intelligence
❖ Networks
❖ Rules are not formal, but are valued
❖ Party loyalty: you deserve to be on the list because you worked for the party: time again which is
unequal
→ Career path:
❖ University degree (‘Ivy League’)
❖ Career in business/law
❖ Local/party political position
→ Criteria are based on previous (male) examples
→ Men greater opportunity to demonstrate their worth
→ Men’s competence is rarely called into question: they benefit from the presumption of competence because
these criteria fit them
→ Meritocratic argument assumes men’s overrepresentation as a correct & fair outcome
→ “women representatives find themselves faced with a triple whammy: They are expected to be as good as
men on traditional male -oriented criteria, while also providing added value, yet may still be perceived as
inferior to their male colleagues and have their competence constantly questioned”
→ Reappraisal of the qualities needed to be an effective representative:
❖ What does a good representative need to do? looks at the role
❖ Symbolic role: embodiment of democracy
3
, ➢ Quality: connectedness
❖ Discursive and deliberative function: voicing of different perspectives to ensure that all views are
taken into account when policies are debated
➢ Qualities: awareness of the diverse needs of their constituents; ability to articulate these
effectively
❖ Decision/policy making role: relaying ideas from constituents to decision makers and then
explaining and defending decisions made to their constituents
➢ Qualities: sound judgment; excellent communication and interpersonal skills to conveying
information to and from citizens
→ Step aside from what you personally want but what benefits larger society
→ Such ‘new quality criteria’ result in:
❖ Devaluation of, e.g.
➢ prestigious careers in commerce or law
➢ personal ambition
❖ (re)valuation of, e.g.:
➢ Lived experience of common concerns
➢ Authenticity
➢ Empathy for the needs of others
→ = ‘degendered’: both women & men benefit
HT1: The role of institutions and actors in shaping political diversity
1.1. Theoretical framework: Legislative Recruitment Model
● Model
→ understand what kind of fases you have to move through
→ selectors also have an impact on who gets chosen
→ start with basis with a lot of people, once we move through the fases, the pool of potential people becomes
smaller
→ Phase 1: eligible: you have to meet specific requirements (nationality, age for example)
→ but not everyone who is eligible will be chosen: also external factors: barrier between aspirant and eligibles
→ Phase 2: Aspirants: Self is very important: political ambition: individuals deciding for themselves if they
have the skills, networks to be in politics
→ Phase 3: candidates: Party gatekeepers: political parties become important in this next phase: decide
who will run on their list (second barrier)
→ Phase 4: Voters: general audience will decide who on this list of candidates will become elected
→ The pool of people becomes smaller, and every phase there are other selectors/barriers
● Supply-(fa)ctors
→ individuals who are eligible for and aspire to political office
→ Influenced by personal resources, political ambition and rules about who can run for office
● Demand-(f)actors
→ party selectors, media and voters
→ decide who of this pool of supply will be voted for, selected,...
⇒ both are important and play a role
4
