Yes you may. Please send your paper/case study to us, and we will publish it under “Papers & Conferences” and in the section “Other Contributions”. This is a service provided by IDEA and Stockholm University to encourage sharing of information on issues related to quotas. Please note that these papers are posted as received from the authors. IDEA, nor Stockholm University, is responsible for the content of these papers.
This web site gives figures on women's representation in national parliaments from the last election. Other web sites sometimes give figures on the present situation, including changes since last election, for instance the result of by-elections.
Data regarding the number of women represented in parliaments around the world can be found at the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
Please click on the link to “resources” and then select the region or country of interest. Note that only countries with quotas are listed. On that page, see also the box “Papers and Conferences”. Here you find links to information on IDEA publications, Stockholm University working papersand other contributions.
This web site covers the introduction of quotas and different quota types, and not the substantive representation of women politicians. However, research shows that once elected many barriers still block women's ability to make use of their positions as elected representatives in the way they wish. Quotas do not remove such barriers like the double standards women politicians face in politics, the lack of campaign funding, the negotiations between family responsibilities and politics.
In terms of number, electoral gender quotas can be a very efficient tool to rapidly increase women's representation in politics, or to start a process of inclusion of women in male-dominated political institutions. A comparison between countries with and without quotas shows that the number of women in parliaments is higher in countries with quotas. However, if the quota rules are unclear and do not match the electoral system in place, and if there are no sanctions for non-compliance and no rules about the ranking on the list, quotas may lead to minimal or no numerical increase in women's political representation.
The introduction of gender quotas has not resulted in uniform increases in the numbers of women parliamentarians worldwide. The web site reveals discrepancies between quota requirements and actual representation. Since the website only gives information about quotas rules that have been adopted and not about the compliance in practice in individual countries or parties, it is not possible to make conclusions about the connection between types of quota provisions and women's representation – other than many quota provisions are not properly implemented. Costa Rica and Belgium (legal quotas), South Africa and Sweden (voluntary party quotas) as well as Uganda and Rwanda (reserved seats) are successful examples. For further reading, see Dahlerup ed. (2006) Women, Quotas and Politics. London: Routledge.
In many Arab and African countries, this is exactly what women's movements are requiring. In patronage systems, the means of women's access seem to be very important for legitimacy and effectiveness. To reject any relevance of such a project is to deny that there might be a link between the exclusion of women and the lack of democratic development as well as development in general. In newer development discourses equality between the sexes is not just seen as something that will gradually evolve from development. Rather, the emancipation of women and women's active involvement is perceived as a prerequisite for social and economic development.
Even if quota provisions are often controversial, the use of the quota tool facilitates historical leaps or jump starts in women's political representation. For instance, the introduction of gender quotas in Costa Rica made the number of women in parliament increase from 19 to 35 percent in one election. Also 30 percent women were elected in the very first democratic parliamentary election in South Africa.
Many see electoral gender quotas as a compensation for structural discrimination and barriers against women in politics. Quotas may be considered a permanent or a temporary measure.
Various arguments have been set forth for and against quotas as a means to increase the political presence of women. Some of the arguments include:
- Quotas are against the principle of equal opportunity for all, since women are given preference over men.
- Quotas are undemocratic, because voters should be able to decide who is elected.
- Quotas are undemocratic, because party members should be able to decide who is selected to represent the party on party lists
- Quotas imply that politicians are elected because of their gender, not because of their qualifications and that more qualified candidates are pushed aside.
- Many women do not want to get elected just because they are women.
- Introducing quotas creates significant conflicts within the party organization.
- Quotas for women do not discriminate, but compensate for actual barriers that prevent women from their fair share of the political seats.
- Quotas imply that there are several women together in a committee or assembly, thus minimizing the stress often experienced by the token women.
- Women have the right as citizens to equal representation.
- Women's experiences are needed in political life.
- Election is about representation, not educational qualifications.
- Women are just as qualified as men, but women's qualifications are downgraded and minimized in a male-dominated political system.
- It is in fact the political parties that control the nominations, not primarily the voters who decide who gets elected, therefore quotas are not violations of voters' rights.
- Introducing quotas may cause conflicts, but may be only temporarily.
There are clear links between the political system, the electoral system and the preferred quota type. For instance, in Latin America the most preferred type is legal candidate quotas, while reserved seats are the most used gender quota type in the Arab region, in South Asia and partly in Africa. Voluntary party quotas are the preferred type in the Western world, including the Nordic countries. These are also used in Africa, see Dahlerup ed. (2006), Women, Quotas and Politics. London: Routledge, table 14.1, p.294.
Only countries that have electoral gender quotas are included in this database. Neither the United States nor New Zealand applies quotas.
How come some countries decided to legislate on gender quotas? How did women manage to get this reform through in countries where women traditionally have no power?
The introduction of quotas has been promoted by several factors. There has been pressure both from below (from local women's organizations) and from above (from the international community such as the UN). In the Balkans, this strategy is referred to as the sandwich strategy. Also, in a globalized world, the image of a country is important. A high representation of women in politics has come to be seen as a sign of democracy in a country. However, in order for the reforms to succeed, it is important that the quota systems rest on the grass root mobilization of women and the active participation of women's organizations. We do not know what will happen in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq where the local support is limited. For further reading, see for instance Dahlerup ed. (2006), Women, Quotas and Politics. London: Routledge.
It is difficult to give an exact figure, since it is changing continuously. However, as of 2006, around 40 countries have introduced gender quotas in elections to national parliaments, either by means of constitutional amendment or by changing the electoral laws (legal quotas). In more than 50 countries major political parties have voluntarily set out quota provisions in their own statues (party quotas). See ‘Types of quotas’.
Gender quotas have been introduced in quite a number of countries around the world, countries of various political and socio-economical backgrounds. The idea of introducing quotas has usually travelled between countries in the same region. In Latin American, for example, Argentina was the forerunner with its introduction of legal candidate quotas in 1991. Since then this type of quotas has spread all over the Latin-American region. In Africa, South Africa has inspired other countries in the region to adopt voluntary party quotas, while Uganda has led concerning reserved seats. In South Asia gender quotas at the local level have been introduced in recent years in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, even if these three countries do not openly refer to experience made by their neighbours.
Quotas work differently under different electoral systems. Quotas are most easily introduced in proportional representation (PR) systems. However, quotas have also been implemented in some majority systems as the web site demonstrates. But even in PR-systems, some political parties in some constituencies may have difficulties in implementing quotas because the quota may be viewed as interference in the usual prerogatives of the local party organization to select their own candidates.
Even if constitutional amendments and new electoral laws providing gender quotas may seem more commanding, it is not at all evident that these methods are more efficient than political party quotas in increasing the number of women in parliament. It all depends on the actual rules and the possible sanctions for non-compliance, as well as on the general opportunities that exit for quotas within a country.
This website differentiates between two types of quotas:
- Legal quotas: Quotas which are mandated in a country's constitution or by law, usually in the electoral law. Legal quotas regulate the proceedings of all political parties in a country and may also prescribe sanctions in case of non-compliance.
- Voluntary party quotas: Quotas which are voluntarily decided by one or more political parties in a country. In such cases some political parties may have quotas, while other parties reject them.
Different types of quotas target different levels in the nomination process. Quotas usually target one of three levels in the nomination process:
- the pool of potential candidates (aspirants)
- the candidates that stand for election (candidates)
- the elected (MPs or equivalent)
The women's short lists in the UK are an example of a type of quota system targeting the first level. At this level, the aim of quotas is to enlarge the pool of aspirants willing to pursue a political career. These quotas are thus decided upon by the political parties themselves. Thus, women's short lists could be seen as an example of voluntary party quotas, where political parties adopt a quotas for the number of women it will send forward as party nominees to contest the election.
Candidate quotas for party lists are an example of a type of quota system targeting the second level. Candidate quotas apply to the nomination of candidates, eg. where a political party must ensure that 30 percent of the candidates it nominates for election are women. These may be mandated either by the parties themselves (party quotas) or by the constitution or law (legal quotas). The crucial issue is whether there are any rules concerning the rank order on the list of the party. A requirement of say 40 percent may not result in any women elected, if all women candidates are placed at the bottom of the list. Thus, candidate quotas can be seen as an example of either legal quotas or voluntary party quotas, pending on where they are mandated.
Reserved seats are an example of a quota system targeting the third level. At this level, the aim of quotas is to guarantee that a certain number or percentage of seats in parliament is set aside to women. Women are guaranteed to have these seats. These quotas are usually mandated by the constitution and/or law, and can thus be seen as an example of legal quotas.
For further reading, see “About Quotas”.
Quotas in politics involve setting up a percentage or number for the representation of a certain group, here women, most often in the form of a minimum percentage, for instance 20, 30 or 40 percent. Quotas are used as a measure to increase the representation of historically excluded or under-represented groups in politics.
Quota regulations may target women or may be gender neutral, e.g. ‘no more than 60% of either sex'.
International IDEA uses the following three email addresses:
a) firstname.lastname@example.org--Use this address for general communication related to procurement and tender questions; and for clarification and information questions related to a specific tender. Note it should not be used to submit a Tender proposal.
b) email@example.com--Use this address for the submission of tender proposals (Technical and Financial).
c) firstname.lastname@example.org--Use this address to lodge a complaint in relation to a specific tender.
No unless it is specifically stated in the RfP , International IDEA accepts bids from suppliers and service providers all over the world.
Currently there is no limit. Each submission is evaluated separately in accordance with the evaluation criteria outlined in the RfP.
Currently International does not operate such a system. Vendors are either selected through a competitive or direct-sourced process depending on cost thresholds.
In general, International IDEA requires a successful bidder to use the appropriate contract template of International IDEA. However in some circumstances the contract template of the supplier/service provider may be used where it is more appropriate. In all cases the general conditions of this contract cannot be less onerous than those of International IDEA.
Yes. International IDEA publishes the detail of contracts awarded through a tender process on its website. This is normally done on a quarterly basis.
International IDEA notifies all bidders (successful and unsuccessful) by letter sent electronically.
In general International IDEA aims to complete the tender process between 12-16 weeks. However in some cases the process may take longer due to unforeseen circumstances or when the tender process spans a holiday period.
International IDEA will only send an acknowledgement of receipt if specifically requested by the sender of a submission.
Proposals should be submitted in accordance with the procedure outlined in the RfP and Tender Notice. Proposals which are not in compliance with the submission procedures will be eliminated. International IDEA for the most part only accepts electronic submissions to the following email address: email@example.com
Responses to requests for clarification or information are sent to the requestor(s) and also published in the tender announcement section on the website.
Detailed information on a particular tender is to be found in the solicitation documents published in relation to the tender e.g. the Request for Proposals (RfP) and Terms of Reference (ToR). A request for clarification and information may also be sent to contact in accordance with the procedure outlined in the RfP.
International IDEA always publishes Tender Notices on its website. Depending on the nature of the procurement it may also advertise in the following forums: Devex, Devnet and Eurobrussels websites; local press; and any other relevant trade websites or press medium.
No, International IDEA is a separate organisation that has been granted UN observer status.
No, International IDEA is a separate organisation that has been granted UN observer status.
International IDEA’s original 14 founding member states were: Australia, Barbados, Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, India, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden. Today, it has 29 members. For more insight about International IDEA’s history and the relevance of its work, read The Birth of an Idea by Bengt Säve-Söderbergh, the first Secretary-General of International IDEA.
International IDEA is financed through contributions from Member States and through complimentary funds obtained from a variety of other sources like for example, European Commission, Inter-American Development Bank, United Nations Development Programme, Ireland, University for Peace, United Nations Foundation, and the International Development Research Centre.
International IDEA is much smaller and has a mandate limited to democracy and electoral assistance. Because of its well defined mandate and its small size, and as expressed by Patrick Molutsi, executive secretary of the Tertiary Education Council (of Botswana and director of programs of International IDEA from 2000 to 2003 "IDEA cannot drive the agenda but can facilitate a dialogue process between the drivers of democracy--civil societies, research institutions, the custodians – parliamentarians, political parties, independent media and the promoters such as the interregional, regional organizations, IGOs and NGOs".
We work with UN agencies or organizations on several aspects of our work such as the Administration and Cost of Elections (ACE) Project in which the United Nations Development Programme is a partner.
International IDEA considers that democracy is a process which is never complete – long established democracies need to adapt their political systems to changing circumstances and new challenges, for example to enhance participation and accountability. International IDEA focuses on the problems faced by newer or emerging democracies, where problems of overcoming deep -ooted conflict are especially daunting or where there are particular needs to access comparative information and build capacity in public institutions. However, International IDEA’s work is often of relevance to all kinds of democracies, for example on the uses of quotas to enhance women’s political participation or the applications of direct democracy or the ways of achieving transparency in political party finance. International IDEA’s well-known methodology on Democracy Assessment was tested on various countries including Bangladesh and Italy, Malawi and New Zealand.
Much of International IDEA’s activity is not focused on an individual country. It works very often with experts from a range of countries and institutions, drawing on comparative experience and analysis to distill insights and guidelines as well as useful case studies and reference materials, which are made available at no cost on International IDEA’s website to political reformers and interested audiences across the globe. International IDEA works in cooperation with international and regional organisations, which can share their experience and act as good multipliers. When resources are available, International IDEA also makes strategic interventions at national level in countries which seek International IDEA’s particular expertise to assist the democratic reform process.
International IDEA has engaged in long-term activity in Burkina Faso, Georgia, Guatemala, Indonesia, Nepal, Nigeria and Peru. It has made shorter interventions in a wide range of countries, in non-members such as Bolivia or Bosnia, Bangladesh or Belarus, but also in International IDEA member countries such as Botswana and Sweden, India and Australia.
International IDEA has 29 member countries or Member States, which include large and small, older and newer democracies, sharing in the general objectives of International IDEA. Usually represented by ministries of Foreign Affairs or of Development, Member States make up the Council of International IDEA, the highest decision making body that directs the organisation’s policies and decides on membership. Though they do not directly approve the programme of work or the budget, members are frequently closely involved in the implementation of activities, especially through cooperation with public bodies such as election management commissions, with politicians and political parties, with NGOs and think tanks.
International IDEA is concerned about the process of building democracies as well the design and effective functioning of political systems and institutions. Establishing a new constitution, for example, especially after a conflict, requires an open debate to allow different views to be heard and accommodated in order to provide the best foundations for the future. As regards elections, International IDEA aims at ways of enhancing voter confidence and participation, which may involve modifying electoral system design, strengthening the independence and professionalism of election management, improving the oversight of campaign financing etc. Political parties are also a focus of International IDEA’s attention since they have a crucial role to play in the functioning of democracies, yet frequently do not measure up to public expectations.
International IDEA does not seek a single definition of democracy. Models of democracy can vary substantially. Rather than assuming a given set of democratic institutions, International IDEA tends to see democracy as a process involving political equality and popular control as basic characteristics as explained in State of Democracy. Preconditions for democracy include basic human security, rule of law and respect for basic human rights such as freedom of expression and assembly.
International IDEA is concerned about making democracy sustainable, which implies, that all groups in society feel they can make their voices heard, that democratic institutions can effectively channel and mediate conflicting interests, and develop and deliver policies which protect the freedoms and livelihoods of their citizens.