Electoral gender quotas systems and their implementation in Europe

y women in terms of number of seats won was more distinct in 2007 (when it increased by 50 percent) than in 2002 (+12 per cent). Nevertheless, it remains modest when compared with theprogress made in 1997 (before the law on parity) (+84 per cent). That leap forward was essentiallydue to the Socialist Party, which won the elections: in 1996 it had voted in a quota of 30 per cent ofcandidates in legislative elections.Table 9. Percentages of female candidates and women elected to the National Assembly,by parliamentary party, 1997–2007Parliamentary parties Female candidates Women elected1997 2002 2007 1997 2002 2007Communist Party (PC) 26.8 44.0 48.2 11.1 19.0 20.0Socialist Party (PS) 27.8 36.3 46.5 17.6 16.3 25.9Greens 27.7 50.4 50.2 9.0 33.0 25.0Rally for the Republic (RPR) in 1997 7.7 20.6 26.6 3.6 10.4 14.3(Union for a Popular Movement(UMP) in 2002 and 2007)Union for French Democracy (UDF) 8.9 18.9 27.9 6.4 6.8 0in 1997 and 2002Union for French Democracy-Modemin 2007 (UDF-Modem) (democraticmovement)New Center* (or European Social - - 36.9 - 0Liberal Party)Total of the parties 23.0 38.9 41.6 10.9 12.3 18.5* Party comprising the former deputies of UDF-Modem who reached electoral agreements with the UMP,thus splitting from the UDF, the party of François Bayrou.Source: Observatoire de la parité entre les femmes et les hommes, Ministry of the Interior.4.2. Opposition from the political parties and deficiencies of the lawFor elections by the list system, the parties had no freedom of choice 24 : parity of the candidacieswas mandatory. For the legislative elections, however, they often adopted strategies of bypassingthe law. In 2007, as in 2002, it was the small parties, not represented in the National Assembly, thatrespected the parity of the candidacies the most. The parliamentary parties (except the Greens)have been the most neglectful of the parity of the candidacies. There are two reasons for this. Thefirst reason is political. The larger parties, especially those to the right, have outgoing deputies toreplace (in 2007, the UMP had more than 360 outgoing deputies), which makes it difficult to openthe candidacies to women. The second reason is financial: being financially well endowed, they areable to pay the fines. In 2002, the annual penalty for not respecting the parity principle increasedfor the large parties: it was more than 4 million euros for the UMP, 1.3 million euros for theSocialist Party, 582,000 euros for the Union for French Democracy, and 119,000 euros for theCommunist Party.From the legislative elections of 2002 to those of 2007, the parties, particularly those to the left, hadto show more respect for parity, under pressure from activists. Even so, as in 2002, eachparliamentary party presented on its lists far more women than were actually elected (see table 9). In2007, 26.6 per cent of the UMP candidates were women but only 14.3 per cent of those actuallyelected were women, and for the Socialist Party the corresponding figures were 46.5 per cent and25.9 per cent. Is this elimination of women to be explained by their performing less well? Or was itbecause the parties assigned them to electoral districts where the party was least likely to win?24 In the Senate elections, those standing down developed a strategy for getting round the law by putting themselves on another list.Rather than being beaten in third place on the official list, they preferred to be placed first on another list, and the parties did notdisavow this strategy.56