- HOME
- Library
- Issues
- Regions
- Arab States
- Asia and the Pacific
- Afganistan
- Armenia
- Australia
- Azerbaijan
- Bangladesh
- Bhutan
- Brunei Darussalam
- Cambodia
- China
- Cyprus
- Democratic People's Republic of Korea
- Fiji
- Georgia
- India
- Indonesia
- Israel
- Japan
- Kazakhstan
- Kiribati
- Kyrgyzstan
- Lao People's Democratic Republic
- Malaysia
- Maldives
- Marshall Islands
- Micronesia (Federated States of)
- Mongolia
- Myanmar
- Nauru
- Nepal
- New Zealand
- Pakistan
- Palau
- Papua New Guinea
- Philippines
- Republic of Korea
- Samoa
- Singapore
- Solomon Islands
- Tajikistan
- Thailand
- Timor Leste
- Tonga
- Turkey
- Turkmenistan
- Tuvalu
- Uzbekistan
- Vanuatu
- Viet Nam
- Europe
- Albania
- Andorra
- Austria
- Belarus
- Belgium
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Bulgaria
- Croatia
- Czech Republic
- Denmark
- Estonia
- Finland
- France
- Germany
- Greece
- Hungary
- Iceland
- Italy
- Latvia
- Liechtenstein
- Lithuania
- Luxembourg
- Malta
- Monaco
- Montenegro
- Netherlands
- Norway
- Poland
- Portugal
- Republic of Moldova
- Romania
- Russian Federation
- San Marino
- Serbia
- Slovakia
- Slovenia
- Spain
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
- Ukraine
- United Kingdom
- Sub-Saharan Africa
- Angola
- Benin
- Botswana
- Burkina Faso
- Burundi
- Cameroon
- Cape Verde
- Central African Republic
- Chad
- Comoros
- Congo (Republic of the)
- Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Djibouti
- Eritrea
- Ethiopia
- Gabon
- Gambia
- Ghana
- Guinea
- Guinea-Bissau
- Kenya
- Lesotho
- Liberia
- Madagascar
- Malawi
- Mali
- Mauritania
- Mauritius
- Mozambique
- Namibia
- Niger
- Nigeria
- Rwanda
- Sao Tome and Principe
- Senegal
- Seychelles
- Sierra Leone
- Somalia
- South Africa
- Sudan
- Swaziland
- Togo
- Uganda
- United Republic of Tanzania
- Zambia
- Zimbabwe
- The Americas
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Argentina
- Bahamas
- Barbados
- Belize
- Bolivia
- Brazil
- Canada
- Chile
- Colombia
- Costa Rica
- Cuba
- Dominica
- Dominican Republic
- Ecuador
- El Salvador
- Grenada
- Guatemala
- Guyana
- Haiti
- Honduras
- Jamaica
- Mexico
- Nicaragua
- Panama
- Paraguay
- Peru
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Saint Lucia
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- Suriname
- Trinidad and Tobago
- United States
- Uruguay
- Venezuela
- Resource Type
- Discuss
- Ask the Experts
- News
- About
- myknowpolitics
Expert Opinion: Strategies and Legislation Adopted in Africa that Call for the 30% Quota
Quotas are an instrument against exclusion/under-representation of women or other marginalised groups in decision making and other spheres of life. They are helpful to compensate for barriers that hinder women to access the male dominated decision making sphere by facilitating the achievement of a “critical minority” of at least 30% instead of only a few token women. In African countries, quotas are articulated in constitutions, national legislation or by political parties in their own policy documents.
At the continental level, the principle on women’s participation and representation is enshrined in the founding legal instrument of the African Union and also in the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of African Women (2003), the Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa (2004) and the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (2007).
From the experience of the past few years, it is clear that without quotas countries in Africa and indeed the rest of the world will not achieve the target of a “critical minority” of at least 30percent participation and representation of women in positions of power and decision making at all levels. The “critical minority” of at least thirty percent (30%) is commonly considered necessary for women to have a significant impact in positions of power and decision making as conduits for democratic governance.
There are various possible combinations of quotas and electoral systems to accelerate women’s entry into positions of power and decision making. While affirmative action or special measures such as quotas may remain a controversial issue, the results of the Rwandan elections in 2003 and 2008, serve as a good example of the impact of affirmative action measures. Special measures may not be sufficient by themselves and the general public can benefit from sensitization campaigns organized by the government, political parties and NGOs to promote the participation and representation of women.
With respect to at least 30% women’s political participation and representation in positions of power and decision making, African countries with quotas, legislated or constitutional quotas and voluntary party quotas have fared well in terms of legislative seats held by women compared to countries without quotas. For instance Angola 36percent, Burundi 30.5percent, Mozambique 36percent, Uganda 30.7percent, Namibia 30percent, South Africa 32percent, Tanzania 40percent. In the September 2008 elections in Rwanda, a landmark was reached when women were elected to 44 of the 80 seats in parliament, the highest percentage of women elected to parliament in the world, increasing from 48,8percent from the 2003 elections to 56percent. Generally, there has been greater reliance on legislated or constitutional quotas rather than reliance on political party compliance or initiative. This is due to the fact that where parties have quotas they do not always abide by them.
The effectiveness of quotas is also influenced by the type of electoral system used in each country and more importantly the intra-party democracy processes. African countries with the single member constituency system (FPTP) and no quotas or special measures have the lowest representation of women. The representation of women is weakest in these countries, for example Botswana, Malawi, Mauritius, Zambia, Zimbabwe, regardless of whether they have a democratic leaning tradition or not.
Rumbidzai A Kandawasvika-Nhundu
Senior Programme Officer(Democracy and Gender)
International IDEA
Tags:






