Electoral gender quotas systems and their implementation in Europe

Advocates for quotas for women lobbied inside the PSOE by using arguments such as that womenwere discriminated against, and that this was the main reason why they were not represented to agreater degree. Opponents claimed that the reason was a question of there not being sufficient andcompetent women for these positions, that is, there was a shortage of women with thequalifications and ambition needed to reach decision-making positions. The argument raised wasthat mandatory quotas for women would not solve the problem of the under-representation ofwomen at this level (Threlfall 2001: 4). Even so, the PSOE feminists believed and were optimisticthat the left-wing parties, because of their general commitment to equality, would therefore bemore favourably disposed to quotas for women (Bustelo 1979: 14, quoted in Valiente 2005: 179).The debate was also influenced by the fact that the Socialist International recommended memberparties to adopt measures to increase the number of women in political decision-making positions(Threlfall 2001: 5). At the PSOE federal congress in 1988 a 25 per cent quota for party positionsand electoral lists was passed. During the years that followed, the proportion of female PSOE MPsincreased gradually, from 7.1 per cent in 1986 to 17.1 per cent in 1989 (Verge 2006a).The second debate concerned the approval of a 40 per cent quota for women in the PSOE andtook place between 1992 and 1997. After the European Summit of Women in Power in Athens in1992, the PSOE feminists took the concept of ‘parity democracy’ back home and started to use it inthe national debate. As a result, they brought pressure to bear for the quota for women to beincreased from 25 to 40 per cent. As a consequence, the PSOE federal congress in 1997 discussedand approved an increase of the internal and electoral party quota for women to 40 per cent(Partido Socialista Obrero Español 1997: 207). The percentage of female PSOE deputies increasedfrom 17.6 per cent in 1993 to 27.7 per cent in the 1996 election, and then to 36.8 per cent in 2000.However, the percentage of female PSOE senators fell, from 23 per cent to 17 per cent, between1996 and 2000, although it rose again to 27 per cent in 2004 (Instituto de la Mujer 1997a: 98–99;2002; 2004).In the spring of 1996, when the conservative People’s Party came to power, the topic of politicalrepresentation took on very low priority in the Women’s Institute since the PP decided to replacethe director with a civil servant who had no ties with the feminist movement and no experience ofthe policy area of women’s rights (Mujeres 22/5 (1996)). Conservative politicians were openlyopposed to quotas for women and presented arguments against quotas. However, they could neverinterfere in the debate within the PSOE, and consequently the strength of the counter-movementcan be considered as moderate (Valiente 2005: 183).However, in the 1990s a Spanish parity movement started and developed, and many well-knownfeminist groups and associations joined, such as the Federation of Progressive Women (Federaciónde Mujeres Progresistas) and the Dolores Ibárruri Foundation (Fundación Dolores Ibárruri),among others. The approval of an increase in the quota for women within the PSOE coincidedwith the goals of the branch within the feminist movement working with parity issues.The third debate started in August 1998 when the PSOE announced that it would submit a bill toreform the 1985 General Electoral Act (Ley Orgánica 5/1985, de 19 de junio, del RégimenElectoral General), the modification consisting of a requirement on all political parties that theymake up their electoral lists with no more than 60 per cent names of the same sex. The governingconservative party, the PP, opposed the proposal, but the left-wing United Left (Izquierda Unida,IU) supported the idea (El País, 31 August 1998, in Valiente 2005: 187).The arguments for mandatory quotas focused on concepts such as democracy and justice: in anauthentic democracy, women, who constitute half of the population, should be represented in fairproportions. Some advocates also argued that gender parity in legislative bodies would givedifferent and more positive policy outcomes. The counter-arguments pointed out the need for a‘fair’ and ‘neutral’ process in which the ‘best’ people could be elected, while others claimed that94