The question of instating legislative gender quotas is a contentious point in the ever evolving feminist landscape. Do they ultimately work to dismantle the structures of the patriarchy, or merely operate within them? I think there is a case to be made that legislative gender quotas in governments are a necessary step in progressing toward true gender equality, under the supplement of additional feminist efforts. When implemented in isolation, gender quotas potentially exist as a means of superficial feminist progress, and even have harmful repercussions. This superficial potential necessitates that gender quotas are instated, and are coupled with additional reform processes that bolster the true purpose of dismantling the patriarchy. 

Gender is inherently codified into the function of institutions. In the function and outcomes of actors on both domestic and international levels, gender is a critical lens of analysis. According to Vivian Lowndes, there are four avenues of analysis in gendered institutions: rules about gender, rules that have gendered effects, gendered actors who work with rules, and gendered policy outcomes (Lowndes, 3). These variables cultivate the structure of gendered institutions as we understand them today. 

Rules about gender can manifest as norms, or as codified laws. The nature of these rules confines people to gendered roles and responsibilities (4). The notion that warfare and politics should be dominated by men, whereas education is a domain for women is an example of such. Rules that instead have gendered effects are not necessarily focused on gender, but the impact of such will be informed by it. Rules of this nature, similar to rules about gender, can be de jure or de facto. The implications of these rules are primarily defined by how they interact with the social context within which they are implemented. For example, where the division of labor intersects with traditionally recognized gender roles, or where the traits of a good leader coincide with what is typically regarded as masculine (5). Gendered actors working with rules implicate both formal and informal laws as byproducts of how the actors exist in a gendered institution. The values embodied by the human agents enacting law and policy inevitably shape them. An example of this is the “masculine advantage”, wherein men are over-represented in certain fields and the subsequent impact of this distribution (6). Gendered outcomes of action refer to outcomes that heavily lean towards favoring a group of people. This is harder to define in practice, given that outcomes that are distinctly and intersectionally beneficial for women are ambiguous. However, this concept is especially applicable in the practice of electing women to office, and the impact of such. Institutional policies, the human agents who enact them, and their outcomes cannot be divorced from gendered influence. Within this framework, how laws (both formal and informal) and institutions impact women are fourfold. This model identifies the extent to which gender is a relevant lens through which political reform should be viewed. 

Over time, these patterns become systemic rather than anecdotal. The distribution of who is in possession of power, and who is unable to access it also becomes systemic dynamics. The ways that institutions shape behavior are predictable. However, there are other factors to contend with. For instance, women as a population are not monolithic. Race, class, religion, etc all intersect with gender to different degrees under patriarchal structure. In turn, there is no singular solution that can be prescribed. Accounting for the needs of one group of women may exclude or perpetuate the oppression of another, thus introducing the dilemma at hand.

Meeting this dynamic set of needs that spans classes, races, and religions requires action that embodies the act of institutionalization, and deinstitutionalization (9). Institutionalization entails how laws (both de jure and de facto) are adopted, and the qualities that reinforce other laws of the same nature. This understanding of exactly how institutions shape gendered laws is critical to reforming them. Deinstitutionalization is a parallel practice that seeks to identify where laws are less likely to fall in favor, or how they “slip” (9). This is an equally significant component of dismantling the male-centric structure. Implementing either process in isolation is unlikely to be successful in practice. These two processes are mechanisms with which different types of power distribution can be accessed. 

Lowndes cites three conventions of institutional rule: obligatory rules, regulatory rules, and persuasive rules (11). Regulatory rules encompass laws that are formally codified. They explain the official requirements of behavior and the punitive consequences of such. Obligatory rules are demonstrated through conduct and observation. These closely resemble the conceptualization of norms, in that they induce reactionary consequences that determine their approval. Persuasive rules, instead outline the context of particular behaviors. They seek to explain and craft a narrative within which these laws are persuasive. 

Social and institutional change is most effective when practices of institutionalization and deinstitutionalization are leveraged against the latter two categories of rules. This is more likely to shift the power dynamics in favor of women when the social narrative aligns with the change endorsed. Many prior courses of action have been unsuccessful for this reason. True institutional change that will benefit women as a whole, rather than a select privileged group, requires several moving parts and processes. Instating an electoral quota is one of them or a means by which these concepts can be bridged. The electoral quota embodies the principles of institutionalization and deinstitutionalization in their most fundamental states. Electing a certain proportion of women in office provides space to design a productive and inclusive framework, as well as offering the practical means with which that can be implemented. In doing so, the pre-existing gendered framework, and the narratives it perpetuates, begin to be dismantled.  

Embodying institutionalization and deinstitutionalization, by instating a quota for women in office, against obligatory and persuasive rules, in turn, grants them access to the domain of regulatory rules. This strategic access does not evade the temporal component of systemic change but uses it to the advantage of feminist progress. 

I acknowledge there are limitations to this perspective. As stated earlier, women are not a monolith, and no such “one size fits all” solution is appropriate or realistic. However, it’s important to reiterate that instating an electoral quota for women in office is not the ultimate benchmark of equality. I think adopting this perspective dispels the majority of the arguments against such a quota. For example, the idea that instating a quota could stir animosity towards women. This is not a legitimate argument when applied in context. The argument essentially poses a byproduct of the system of oppression that is already in place to counter a means of feminist reform. The argument is circular, given that the animosity towards women in question is produced by the very circumstances feminist efforts seek to dismantle. 

I think a case could be made about the nature of the democracy such a quota advocates for. In theory, any citizen has the opportunity to be elected into office. The implication is that the officials elected are representative of the will of the people, and what they stand for. However, this doesn’t fully account for the deep systemic impacts of sexism and misogyny. Women running for office are still vulnerable to the gendered effects of rules (as referenced earlier). The political space is still one dominated by men, primarily because of the persisting gendered ideas and outcomes created by the system we are seeking to dismantle. Furthermore, women face other gendered barriers that are “invisible” to men, such as limited maternity leave and access to childcare. Would a democracy run entirely by men not raise the same concern? That possibility doesn’t appear to threaten the patriarchy. Simply put, the claim that a quota on women elected into office is somehow antithetical to real democracy only subverts focus from the real concern. 

Ideally, the burden of dismantling the patriarchy would not rest on the shoulders of the women already oppressed by the system. However, the current system necessitates that the burden of enacting social change rests on the shoulders of the marginalized group. This very issue is part of the larger whole to be overhauled. Feminism, and how this social movement is actualized will not always be palatable to men. In the absence of support from the oppressor, social reform shouldn’t be halted. There are courses of reform that will inherently be divisive or controversial, especially when the status quo has been stagnant for so long. However, this burden is impossible to shift by remaining complacent to such. As referenced earlier, appealing to persuasive rules through women elected into office is a strategic means of changing the narrative. The distribution of emotional labor is another byproduct of the system.

When bolstered in context with simultaneous efforts to dismantle the patriarchal system, instating an electoral quota on women elected to office is a course of action that every country should require. It cannot be emphasized enough that implementing this quota, by itself, is a superficial extension of feminist progress. The idea of the quota must be coupled with efforts to remove invisible barriers women face in the workforce (affordable childcare options, substantial paid maternity leave, etc). Additionally, efforts that target the oppression of various intersectional populations of women are also necessitated. For example, policies creating better economic security, reformed immigration, and improving gender-based violence are all integral to the success of dismantling the patriarchy.

Implementing an electoral quota for women elected into office is ultimately a necessary step in dismantling the patriarchy, and true reform. This legislative representation must be accompanied by processes of reform that enact intersectional change on a systemic level. However, it remains a critical step towards future equality that should be implemented globally. True equality cannot be guaranteed in the absence of codifying principles of feminism’s endgame.

Works Cited

Lowndes, Vivien. “How Are Political Institutions Gendered?” Political Studies, vol. 68, no. 3, 29 Aug. 2019, p. 003232171986766, https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719867667.