DOI: 10.4324/9780429263859-12 101
Gendering the study of political parties is highly consequential for how scholars theorise, examine
empirically and reach conclusions about the central questions of this political science subfield.
Such a major re-evaluation has challenged much of the conventional wisdom and opened
up new avenues of research that have furthered the understanding of the actors to whom modern
democracies accord linkage, representative and governing functions. Despite the numerous
contributions made by feminist political scientists in this field since the 1990s, party politics
scholars have been rather slow in engaging with gender in their theoretical and analytical constructs.
Gender-blindness has left them unprepared to adequately account for the gender gaps
observed in intra-party activities or to investigate the gendered dynamics underlying organisational
arrangements or candidate selection processes and the resulting gender-biased descriptive
(presence) and substantive (policy) representation outcomes.
The chapter reviews these critical omissions and provides a state of the art of the wide range
of topics that have been examined through a gender lens, pinpointing how feminist research
has advanced our understanding of political parties. In doing so, the remaining sections discuss
the following questions: How are gender power relations wielded within political parties? How
does gender shape intra-party democracy? Why is candidate selection still strongly gendered
despite increasing numbers of women among party members, officials and elected representatives?
How can political parties be re-gendered? The final section concludes and pinpoints the
gaps to be filled with further research.
Political parties as gendered organisations
Building on new institutionalism, feminist analyses have made important advances to our understanding
of party organisations. In particular, they have shown that the procedures and culture
in which party decision-making takes place are far from gender-neutral. Where parties were
founded by men and historically populated by men, gender has become an organising principle
that distributes advantage and disadvantage on a daily basis (see Figure 9.1). As Lovenduski
(2005, 56) states, ‘if parliament is the warehouse of traditional masculinity, . . . political parties
are its major distributors’. To understand how power is wielded in gendered ways within political
parties – often intertwining with class, race, age, sexuality or ableness – scholars have paid
attention to the inscription of gender in the formal (written) rules, such as party constitutions
9
POLITICAL PARTIES
AND GENDER
Tània Verge
Tània Verge
102
or by-laws, including candidate selection proceedings, and the informal (non-written) rules,
such as norms, practices, conventions and rituals (Bjarnegård and Kenny 2016). Research has
shown that some of the ‘rules of the game’ are ‘gendered’, because they shape different roles,
actions or opportunities for women and men, while others are ‘apparently gender-neutral’
but, nonetheless, produce ‘gendered effects’ due to their interaction with wider social norms
(Lowndes 2020, 545).
Political parties do not operate in a vacuum but are embedded in a specific social context and
in the broader political system (Norris and Lovenduski 1995). Gender relations in society play a
systematic role in shaping political parties, including the unequal distribution of resources (time,
money or political capital) stemming from the sexual division of waged and household labour
and deep-seated ideas about what it means to be – and behave – like a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’.
Parties’ rules, structures and processes are infused by these patterns of inequality and gender
socialisation, shaping the experiences of individual and collective actors (Childs 2008, xix). In
this vein, as Kenny and Verge (2016, 357) posit, ‘gender makes parties’, as it is routinely enacted
within the organisation, for example, through prevailing types of ideal party member, leader
or candidate that are biased towards stereotypically male traits – for example, high levels of
competitiveness, forceful assertiveness or adversarial styles of debate (Lovenduski 2005, 53) – or
participation modes that reflect the needs of individuals with fewer caring responsibilities – for
example, continuation of discussions after party meetings end in informal arenas such as bars
and restaurants (Bjarnegård 2013; Verge 2015).
The ways in which gender relations are entrenched in political parties can be illustrated by
men’s overrepresentation in decision-making bodies (Kittilson 2006), the establishment of gender-appropriate
roles – for example, women members commonly perform routine, housekeeping
and administrative functions within parties (Bashevkin 1993; Verge and de la Fuente 2014) –
or the fact that the global #MeToo campaign has also pointed the finger at political parties and
parliaments (Krook 2018). As a result, ‘parties make gender’ (Kenny and Verge 2016, 359) on
a daily basis through the institutionalisation of male-centred norms and practices that discriminate
against women in either overt or subtler ways. From this perspective, parties can thus be
described as ‘institutionally sexist’ organisations (Lovenduski 2005, 52–54). As will be discussed
throughout the chapter, within political parties, women members, leaders and candidates face
segregation, exclusion and gendered hierarchies; their perspectives are substantially neglected
in party policy; and organisational arrangements are strongly biased towards certain kinds of
masculinity. Furthermore, reforms in formal rules, such as the introduction of gender quotas,
tend to be undermined by the ‘stickiness’of gendered informal rules, which enables party actors
to redeploy ‘old ways of doing things’ (cf. Bjarnegård and Kenny 2016, 387). Finally, since
‘rules inside and outside the political domain interact and co-evolve’ (Lowndes 2020, 555), the
dynamics of inclusion and exclusion played out in parties reinforce unequal social gender relations.
For example, at the symbolic level, the scarcity of women party chairs (Wauters and Pilet
2015) elicits and reinforces the idea that men are better suited to lead.
Figure 9.1  Interplay between gender and party
Source: Adapted from Kenny and Verge (2016).
Social gender
relations
Parties make
gender
Gender makes
parties
Gender relations
in parties
Political parties and gender
103
Intra-party democracy
Can political parties be judged internally democratic if they continue to discriminate against
women (Childs 2013a, 93) and fail to adequately represent descriptively (presence) and substantively
(policy) the largest social constituency? To answer this question, feminist political scientists
have shown that a gender lens must be applied to key issues of intra-party democracy (IPD),
such as legal regulations of political parties, party membership, group representation, leadership
selection and policy development.
Legal regulations
With the exception of electoral quotas, which have gradually diffused across the globe,1
very
few countries, most prominently from Latin America, have included measures to further gender
equality within political parties in national constitutions or party laws (Childs 2013b). Given the
linkage, representative and governing functions political parties perform in democratic regimes,
such a widespread lack of statutory mandates is, at the very least, paradoxical. The few existing
statutory measures can be listed in just a paragraph.
In Costa Rica, party registration is dependent upon commitment to gender equality in the
party constitution, and in a few countries, legislated gender quotas also apply to the composition
of parties’ decision-making bodies – Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Panama,
Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.2
A specific share of parties’ public funding must be allocated
to women’s capacity-building and to promoting their political participation in Brazil, Costa
Rica, Mexico and Panama, and at least ten per cent of the state-subsidised media time for
party propaganda must promote women’s political participation in Brazil (Roza, Llanos and
Garzón de la Roza 2011, 22–23). Parties must adopt an internal gender action plan in Slovenia,
Croatia and Serbia (Verge 2020a, 238), and only in Bolivia must parties have internal
anti-harassment policies.
Party membership
Insufficient social representativeness of the rank-and-file may not only taint parties’social legitimacy
but also hamper the diversity of the pool of candidates for public and party office. Furthermore,
it may have an impact on policy, as women members are generally more progressive,
both on gender and on other issues, than their male peers (Childs and Webb 2012, 176; Devroe
et al. 2019, 98). Besides being older, more likely to belong to the ethnic majority group and
typically having a higher social status than voters, the composition of the party membership
is still skewed towards men, particularly in extreme-right parties (Gauja and van Haute 2015,
195), mirroring gendered patterns of voting behaviour (see also Chapter 27). For example,
in 2017, in the UK (Audickas, Dempsey and Loft 2017, 19), women made up almost half of
Labour (47 per cent) and Green (46 per cent) members but just about a quarter of the Conservative
Party’s (29 per cent) and UKIP’s (25 per cent).
Studies show that women members are less active than men in speaking at local party meetings,
applying for a function or mandate or participating in candidate selection procedures
(Cross 2019, 21; Devroe et al. 2019, 95). Several mechanisms linking the gendered functioning
of parties to women’s lower intra-party participation have been identified. Women members
and leaders face continuous ‘super-surveillance’ and receive less recognition for their work
(Lovenduski 2005, 148). Simultaneously, gendered rituals, such as repetitive interventions by
men and disregard for women’ contributions, often turn party meetings into uncomfortable
Tània Verge
104
spaces for the latter. Moreover, the prevailing tendency to hold meetings in family-unfriendly
hours and male venues (e.g. pubs or clubs) reflects how the uses of time and place help men
keep power and pose a double bind for women. Devoting evenings to party work can violate
social gender norms about caring or family responsibilities and may result in women finding
their capacity to accumulate influence and build networks curtailed (Verge and de la Fuente
2014, 72–76).
Group representation
Party women’s organisations initially developed as auxiliary groups aimed at supporting parties’
everyday activities, mobilising women voters and recruiting new female members. Contemporarily,
despite adopting different forms (e.g. including party sub-organisations or sections,
specific party secretariats, networks of female elected representatives, or collateral – external
– organisations), most of these organisations seek to promote solidarity among party women,
help them build political skills and provide a site for claim-making on behalf of women aimed
at gendering party by-laws and policy agendas (Kittilson 2011, 70; Roza, Llanos and Garzón
de la Roza 2011, 19–26).
Both party age and ideology explain why some parties have women’s organisations. Traditional
parties (social democratic and conservative/Christian democratic) are more likely to have
these organisations than newer parties (Childs and Kittilson 2016, 604), while they are more
commonly found in green parties than in radical left parties (Keith and Verge 2018, 401). Their
political weight varies across parties with regard to crucial aspects: descriptive representation
rights in decision-making bodies; the degree of integration into party policy-making processes;
party bodies or persons to whom they are accountable; and material support (funding, personnel,
etc.) accorded by the party (Childs and Kittilson 2016, 606).
Party leadership selection
As Childs (2013a, 93) highlights, women ‘have not gained power relative to where power lies’.
Since the 1960s, only 11 per cent of the national party leaders selected in Europe, North America
and Oceania have been women (Wauters and Pilet 2015, 82). The largest, more electorally
competitive parties, from both left and right, are less likely to select women to this position than
smaller parties, including radical right parties (O’Brien 2015, 1030). Several gendered dynamics
and political opportunities underpin the politics of party leadership selection. Women leaders
are more frequently selected in contexts of poor party popularity, when the post is least attractive
(Bashevkin 2010, 79). They are rarely acclaimed in party contests (O’Neill and Stewart
2009, 747), serve for shorter periods than their male peers and are more likely to step down
when their party experiences unfavourable electoral results (O’Brien 2015, 1033).
Vertical segregation also shapes parties’ national executive committees (NECs). The share
of women NEC members rose from an average of 15 per cent in 1975 to about 30 per cent
in 1997 (Kittilson 2006, 42). No further increases have occurred thereafter. Higher proportions
of women in this body are found in left parties, especially when gender quotas are used,
when the party structure is centralised, and when party women’s organisations exist (Kittilson
2006, 46). Local party committees are particularly masculinised, with several scholars
pinpointing that ‘male power monopolies’ are typically built at this level (Hinojosa 2012, 61;
see also Bjarnegård and Kenny 2016). For example, in Canada, in 2016, eight-in-ten local
party presidents were male (Cross 2019, 21). Moreover, the distribution of mandates in both
the NEC and local party committees follows a gendered horizontal segregation. Women are
Political parties and gender
105
more likely to be assigned to education and social welfare positions within party secretariats,
extending their traditional roles as caregivers to party politics, while men occupy positions
with greater influence, such as those related to electoral campaigns and organisational matters
(Roza, Llanos and Garzón de la Roza 2011, 30; Verge and de la Fuente 2014, 72). In a similar
vein, gender marking informs the distribution of leadership positions, roles and domain areas
in both parliamentary party groups and parliamentary committees (Heath, Schwindt-Bayer
and Taylor-Robinson 2005; Smrek 2020).
Policy development
Women’s agency within parties (women’s organisations, share of women in NECs and parliamentary
party groups) has been found to instil the adoption of policy agendas that put more
emphasis on social justice and gender equality issues such as equal pay, parental leave or childcare
policies (Childs 2008; Kittilson 2011). It should also be noted that, while policies for women
reflect parties’ own ideological stances, the need to attract more women voters or to modernise
parties (Lovenduski and Norris 1993; Childs and Webb 2012) also significantly shapes their
focus and position on women’s issues (see also Chapter 27). By and large, though, there is a
critical omission in the literature on how IPD interacts with gender in policy development
processes.
One may argue that consultative and direct participation forms may be more advantageous
for advancing women’s and gender equality claims. Some parties, predominantly from the left,
require policy development procedures, including the drafting of electoral manifestoes and legislative
or governmental initiatives, to address gender equality concerns (Childs 2013b, 404). To
further this aim, formal and informal coordination mechanisms have been established between
party women’s organisations and the various party committees or secretariats, through either
periodical meetings or specific task forces that might eventually include external gender experts
(Verge 2020a, 244). By contrast, membership-wide plebiscites seem unlikely to further women’s
claims, even in parties that define themselves as feminist. For example, when the Spanish
left-populist party Podemos (We Can) held its constitutive assembly in 2014, only three out of
the almost 100 resolutions submitted by members to define the party’s core pledges dealt with
gender equality issues.3
Candidate selection and representation outcomes
The study of the relationship between candidate gender, recruitment and selection process
within parties and representation outcomes owes much to the seminal work of Norris and
Lovenduski (1995). Their analytical framework builds on three sets of factors: (1) the supply
of available candidates seeking nomination for public office, shaped by their motivation (drive,
ambition, interest) and resources (time, money and experience); (2) the demand of party gatekeepers
who ultimately select the candidates, especially in strong parliamentary democracies;
and (3) the party context (ideology, inclusiveness of the selectorate, degree of centralisation
and formalisation of selection processes) and the broader political system (political culture,
electoral system, party system). While there has been substantial discussion in the literature
on whether gendered outcomes in the vertical ladder of recruitment are due to supply- or
demand-side factors, the original framework already pinpointed the underlying interaction
between both factors.
Concerning the first interaction illustrated in Figure 9.2, parties’ (and parliaments’) disregard
for reconciliation policies in their inner workings means that having children undermines
Tània Verge
106
women’s opportunities – but not men’s – to be active party members and elected representatives
in both parliamentary (Campbell and Childs 2014) and executive office (Verge and Astudillo
2019). The prevailing ‘male politician norm’, manifested in family unfriendly organisational
arrangements, reinforces the chronic deficit of time availability imposed upon women by the
unequal distribution of household labour in wider society. Furthermore, party gatekeepers
often build upon social assumptions to assess married women candidates, especially when having
young children, as being less politically engaged (Norris and Lovenduski 1995, 116).
As for the second interaction, the supply-side argument that women have less political ambition
than men, which predominantly came from American politics (see Fox and Lawless 2010),
has been challenged by several studies. The unequal playing field within parties determines
candidate emergence. In the face of direct and indirect discrimination by party gatekeepers
(Lovenduski 2005), many women aspirants rationally ‘opt out of candidacy’(Piscopo and Kenny
2020, 4). Incentivising more women to run or providing leadership training to ‘fix’ women’s
(alleged) lower ambition, confidence or skills are, thus, ineffective strategies insofar as ‘gatekeepers
are more likely to directly recruit and promote people like themselves’ (Cheng and Tavits
2011, 461). Indeed, men are seen ‘as insiders and as ideal [more likeable and trustworthy] candidates’
and women are regarded as ‘outsiders’ (Bjarnegård and Kenny 2016, 385) and even as a
‘liability’, although empirical evidence finds no systematic voter bias against women candidates
(Lawless and Pearson 2008). It has been argued that these gendered psychological aspects stem
from the expressive component of ‘male homosocial capital’ (Bjarnegård 2013), which leads
male selectors to apply not just higher standards but also double standards. When displaying
typically male traits like strong assertiveness or adversarial styles of debate, women candidates
Figure 9.2  The vertical ladder of recruitment and the supply and demand model
Source: Adapted from Lovenduski and Norris (1993), Norris and Lovenduski (1995) and Verge (2015).
Time arrangements
of party
activities and
meetings
Male-biased
norms and
gendered
practices
Male homosocial
capital
and informal
networking
Demand factors
Supply factors
Time availability
(domestic
and care res-
ponsibilities)
Ambition,
drive and self-
confidence
Political
capital and
networks
MPs
Candidates
Aspirants
Eligibles
Party context
Political system
Political parties and gender
107
still fail to pass the screening and, more crucially, they may be informally sanctioned for such a
breach of feminine character (Kenny 2013).
Concerning the last interaction shown in Figure 9.2, women aspirants are not just less likely
to be sponsored by influential outside groups such as trade unions (Norris and Lovenduski 1995,
153), but party gatekeepers’ preference for ‘localness’ is also far from objective. Participation
in local business associations or trade unions, more common among men, is more appreciated
by party selectors than community activism, more frequent among women, which reveals a
narrow, male-biased consideration of what constitutes political experience (Kenny 2013). Furthermore,
women candidates are less likely to be well connected to party networks or political
mentors (Crowder-Meyer 2013). However, in both parliamentary or executive office selection
processes, holding party office is more valued in men candidates, showcasing how women party
officers ‘remain outsiders on the inside’ (Verge and Claveria 2018, 545). Male homosocial capital
thus carries an instrumental dimension, too – that of providing crucial access to informal ‘old
boy networks’ that play a crucial role in selection processes (Bjarnegård 2013).
When it comes to party-context factors, centralised selection processes yield higher levels
of women candidates, as the party leadership can coordinate party levels to produce more
gender-balanced tickets and is held more directly accountable by voters and members for results
on women’s representation (Kittilson 2006, 46; Hazan and Rahat 2010, 114). More exclusive
selection methods also allow the crafting of ‘package deals’ that distribute a variety of positions
(Wauters and Pilet 2015, 78). By contrast, more inclusive selectorates (e.g. one-member-onevote
systems like primaries) heavily rely on name recognition, financial resources or media
coverage, all of these resources that tend to benefit more experienced male candidates (Piscopo
and Kenny 2020, 6; see also Bashevkin 2010). Women candidates also face ‘more crowded
primaries’ and they ‘endure greater challenges’ (Lawless and Pearson 2008, 77–78). Furthermore,
while less explicit, detailed or standardised candidate selection criteria and procedures
may open the door to greater discretion and bias, rules that are formalised in party documents
are not necessarily gender neutral – nor neutral to race/ethnicity (Bjarnegård and Zetterberg
2019). Ideology is also a relevant party-related factor. Left ideology, particularly new left ideology,
strongly correlates with both women’s presence (and influence) within the organisation
and parliamentary party groups and the adoption of voluntary gender quotas (Kittilson 2006).
Among political-system factors, electoral systems and legislated gender quotas are of paramount
importance. Women are elected in higher numbers in proportional representation (PR)
systems than in plurality systems, since larger district magnitude allows parties to nominate
women without deposing male incumbents (McAllister and Studlar 2002). This notwithstanding,
each electoral system accords political parties different opportunities to display strategic
discrimination, even when legislated or voluntary gender quotas are applied. Under plurality
systems, women candidates often run in districts where their parties stand no chance of winning
the seat (Murray 2010), while under PR systems, men get the lion’s share of top positions
in party lists. Legislated gender quotas with placement mandates are more effective at partially
containing this discrimination in closed-list systems than in preferential ordered-list systems
(Luhiste 2015, 110) or in plurality systems.
Statutory gender quotas are nested in parties’ candidate selection processes. They are complementary
to party rules when voluntary quotas are already in place, with some parties even
competing to overcome the statutory requirements to continue championing women’s representation
in their party system (Meier 2004). Conversely, they require significant accommodation
in parties that reject positive discrimination (Verge and Espírito-Santo 2016, 433). Applying a
minimal interpretation of statutory quotas is the most common form of resistance deployed by
parties, although in some countries parties have even resorted to more blatant forms such as
Tània Verge
108
entering male candidate names under female names or forcing elected women MPs to resign
and be substituted by a male alternate (for a review of these practices, see Krook 2016).
Similar gendered patterns are observed for the selection of candidates for executive office.
Women candidates frequently run as ‘sacrificial lambs’in gubernatorial races wherein an incumbent
from the opposing party seeks re-election (Stambough and O’Regan 2007, 356), they
benefit less than their male peers from the political resources they possess, such as seniority in
party or public office, particularly when having children, and are less likely to be reselected
when carrying a vote loss, even when being the incumbent (Verge and Astudillo 2019, 736).
Overall, both formal and informal ‘rules of the game’ that shape political recruitment and
candidate selection processes are fundamentally gendered, despite being cast as objective and
meritocratic (Kenny and Verge 2016). Male dominance in party executive bodies and recruitment
panels sustains preferential treatment towards men candidates in selection processes,
engineering their over-representation in public office. As several studies have shown, more
gender-balanced selection committees (Niven 1998; Cheng and Tavits 2011) and recruitment
from broader networks of groups and occupations rather than insular party networks (CrowderMeyer
2013) produce more gender-balanced outcomes. Simultaneously, being the public face of
the party secures men’s positional power within the organisation (Childs and Murray 2014, 81).
Re-gendering political parties
No party efforts to promote gender equality ‘have occurred without an intervention by women
making claims’ about power redistribution and policy (Lovenduski 1993, 14). Intra-party gender
equality strategies are threefold (Lovenduski 1993, 8). First, rhetorical measures include
declarations contained in party rules and procedures, party manifestos, parliamentary resolutions
or public statements by party leaders aimed at supporting and promoting equal gender participation.
For instance, some parties have incorporated feminism in their party constitution in an
effort to make it integral to their identity and have included parity democracy or the reconciliation
between political activities and family life as organisational principles (Verge 2020a, 244).
Such provisions accord women ‘statutory legitimacy’ when negotiating their demands within
their party (Roza, Llanos and Garzón de la Roza 2011, 20).
Second, positive action strategies consist of the training of women aspirants or candidates,
the establishment of women’s organisations, or the celebration of party women’s conventions
(Childs 2013b, 405–406). While these measures have been adopted across party families, the
third type of strategy, namely the adoption of voluntary gender quotas for the composition
of decision-making party bodies and/or electoral tickets, is much more common – albeit nor
exclusive – among left parties. This explains why, in the absence of legislated quotas, voluntary
quotas can still produce gender-balanced representation, as most Scandinavian parties
show (Freidenvall 2013). Yet it should be mentioned that the participation of party women’s
organisations in the committees that draft candidate tickets or supervise list-building processes
and strong commitment of party leaders are pivotal to ensuring an effective implementation of
gender quotas (Verge and Espírito-Santo 2016, 434).
A fourth strategy based on gender mainstreaming has been more recently adopted by some
left-wing political parties. More specifically, this includes the adoption of internal gender action
plans that seek to incorporate a gender equality perspective throughout all party processes, targeting
both men and women. In the domain of descriptive representation, actions may encompass,
for instance, giving visibility to women public and party officers in election rallies or press
conferences and promoting women’s (men’s) presence in traditionally masculinised (feminised)
Political parties and gender
109
portfolios. Concerning policy-making, actions include training party members and public officers
on gender equality or gathering sex-disaggregated data in all areas of party work. Regarding
organisational arrangements, these plans contemplate actions such as providing childcare and
playrooms during party meetings and conferences (Verge 2020a).
Regrettably, the adoption of anti-harassment policies and other types of gender-based violence
perpetrated by party employees, members or public officers (IPU 2016) is a pending task
for most party organisations and parliaments, despite having been repeatedly urged to do so by
the United Nations, the Organisation of the American States, the Council of Europe and the
European Parliament. Moreover, gender has been reinscribed perniciously in some of these
policies, as party whips have been entrusted to find internal solutions and inquiries have been
run by committees that lack gender expertise, resulting in victim-blaming. More generally, the
informal rules that enable sexist and sexual misconduct to occur, such as the gendered segregation
of offices and masculinised adversarial styles of doing politics, have been left intact (Collier
and Raney 2018; Verge 2020b).
Conclusions and avenues for further research
As has been reviewed in this chapter, a gender lens enhances the understanding of how political
parties work and helps explain why, despite an increasing feminisation of party bodies and
candidate tickets, the deep-seated sources of male power within these organisations have not yet
been subverted. Male dominance in political parties goes beyond the skewed composition of
the rank-and-file, decision-making bodies or candidate tickets. While left parties are more likely
to adopt measures to guarantee gender-balanced outcomes in terms of descriptive representation
and more gender-friendly policies regarding substantive representation, all party organisations
are stratified by gender and productive of power inequalities. Gender-neutral organisations
simply do not exist, so participation modes or selection processes cannot be neutral to gender
either.
As we seek to deepen the knowledge of the operation of gender within political parties,
several gaps remain to be filled and research biases need to be addressed. First, both comparative
and single-case studies could expand their regional coverage beyond Western countries.
Such an expansion would allow testing the generalisability of existing analytical frameworks and
identifying how political parties’ gendered ‘rules of the game’ are played out in socio-political
structures like sectarianism (Geha 2019) and caste (Jensenius 2016) or how they operate under
electoral authoritarian systems (Bjarnegård and Zetterberg 2016).
Second, building on Norris and Lovenduski’s (1995) seminal work, studies should pay more
attention to how the intersection of gender with other sources of inequality (e.g. race/ethnicity,
class, sexuality, age, ableness) produce specific forms of (dis)empowerment and (under)privilege
within parties. For example, party selectorates have been found to be more prejudiced against
lesbian than gay candidates (Juvonen 2020). Similarly, parties frequently apply a ‘double quota’
that renders ethnic minority women candidates as ‘the “diversity label” of the party’, while the
positional power of incumbent senior white men remains intact (Celis, Erzeel and Mügge 2015,
768).
Third, scholars could look more deeply into the ways male homosociality determines access
to and survival in party office and how this particular type of capital is (re)produced, including
an exploration of whether it is already cultivated in youth party organisations. Simultaneously,
while men’s informal networking has been vastly documented, works on women’s informal
networking within and across political parties are scarce (Piscopo 2016), requiring further
Tània Verge
110
examination of how the gender composition of networks shapes participation modes and the
aims networks pursue.
Last but not least, while studies on the adoption of gender equality strategies provide valuable
insights on dynamics of continuity and change within parties, new insights on intra-party
democracy can also be gained with analyses of why and when women’s parties emerge, how
they organise and how they relate to social movements (Evans 2016; Evans and Kenny 2019),
such as the feminist movement.
Notes
1		 See the online Gender Quotas Database created by International IDEA, the Inter-Parliamentary Union
and the Stockholm University. Available from: www.idea.int/data-tools/data/gender-quotas (Accessed
5 October 2021).
2		 Only Costa Rica and Honduras impose sanctions for non-compliance with quota regulations in the
composition of parties’ executives.
3		 Podemos’ members cast 38,000 votes, with the three gender equality resolutions ranking in 16th, 40th
and 48th place. Available at: https://podemosbetera.es/resoluciones/(Accessed 5 October 2021).
References
Audickas, L., Dempsey, D. and Loft, P. (2017) Membership of UK political parties. Briefing Paper No.
SN05125, 9 August 2019. House of Commons Library. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05125/
(Accessed 15 October 2020)
Bashevkin, S. (1993) Toeing the lines. Women and party politics in English Canada. Toronto: Oxford University
Press.
Bashevkin, S. (2010) ‘When do outsiders break in? Institutional circumstances of party leadership victories
by women in Canada’, Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 48(1), p72–90.
Bjarnegård, E. (2013) Gender, informal institutions and political recruitment. Explaining male dominance in parliamentary
representation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bjarnegård, E. and Kenny, M. (2016) ‘Comparing candidate selection: A feminist institutionalist approach’,
Government and Opposition, 51(3), p370–392.
Bjarnegård, E. and Zetterberg, P. (2016) ‘Gender equality reforms on an uneven playing field: Candidate
selection and quota implementation in electoral authoritarian Tanzania’, Government and Opposition,
51(3), p464–486.
Bjarnegård, E. and Zetterberg, P. (2019) ‘Political parties, formal selection criteria, and gendered parliamentary
representation’, Party Politics, 25(3), p325–335.
Campbell, R. and Childs, S. (2014) ‘Parents in parliament: ‘Where’s mum?’’, Political Quarterly, 85(4),
p487–492.
Celis, K., Erzeel, S. and Mügge, L. (2015) ‘Intersectional puzzles: Understanding inclusion and equality in
political recruitment’, Politics & Gender, 11(4), p765–770.
Cheng, C. and Tavits, M. (2011) ‘Informal influences in selecting female political candidates’, Political
Research Quarterly, 64(2), p460–471.
Childs, S. (2008) Women and British party politics. London: Routledge.
Childs, S. (2013a) ‘Intraparty democracy: A gendered critique and a feminist agenda’, in Cross, W. and
Katz, R. (eds.) The challenges of intra-party democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 81–99.
Childs, S. (2013b) ‘In the absence of electoral sex quotas: Regulating political parties for women’s representation’,
Representation, 49(4): p401–423.
Childs, S. and Kittilson, M.C. (2016) ‘Feminizing political parties: Women’s party member organizations
within European parliamentary parties’, Party Politics, 22(5), p598–608.
Childs, S. and Murray, R. (2014) ‘Feminising political parties’, in Campbell, R. and Childs, S. (eds.) Deeds
and words: Gendering politics after Joni Lovenduski. Colchester: ECPR Press, pp. 73–90.
Childs, S. and Webb, P (2012) Sex, gender and the conservative party. From iron lady to kitten heels. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Collier, C.N. and Raney, T. (2018) ‘Canada’s member-to-member code of conduct on sexual harassment
in the House of Commons: Progress or regress?’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 51(4), p795–815.
Political parties and gender
111
Cross, W.P. (2019) ‘Descriptive representation in local party associations and its implications for representation
in parliament: Findings from the Canadian case’, in Heidar, K. and Wauters, B. (eds.) Do parties still
represent? An analysis of the representativeness of political parties in western democracies. New York: Routledge,
pp. 15–30.
Crowder-Meyer, M. (2013) ‘Gendered recruitment without trying: How local party recruiters affect
women’s representation’, Politics & Gender, 9(4), p390–413.
Devroe, R., De Vet, B., Van de Voorde, N. and Wauters, B. (2019) ‘Belgium: Parties as distorting mirrors –
descriptive and substantive representativeness in Flemish parties under scrutiny’, in Heidar, K. and
Wauters, B. (eds.) Do parties still represent? An analysis of the representativeness of political parties in western
democracies. New York: Routledge, pp. 86–104.
Evans, E. (2016) ‘Feminist allies and strategic partners: Exploring the relationship between the women’s
movement and political parties’, Party Politics, 22(5), p631–640.
Evans, E. and Kenny, M. (2019) ‘The women’s equality party: Emergence, organisation and challenges’,
Political Studies, 67(4), p855–871.
Freidenvall, L. (2013) ‘Sweden: Step by step – women’s inroads into parliamentary politics’, in Dahlerup,
D. and Leyennar, M. (eds.) Breaking male dominance in old democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 94–123.
Fox, R. and Lawless, J.L. (2010) ‘If only they’d ask: Gender, recruitment, and political ambition’, The
Journal of Politics, 72(2), p310–326.
Gauja, A. and van Haute, E. (2015) ‘Conclusion: Members and activists of political parties in comparative
perspective’, in van Haute, E. and Gauja, A. (eds.) Party members and activists, New York: Routledge,
pp. 186–201.
Geha, C. (2019) ‘The myth of women’s political empowerment within Lebanon’s sectarian power-sharing
system’, Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 40(4), p498–521.
Hazan, R.Y. and Rahat, G. (2010) Democracy within parties: Candidate selection methods and their political consequences.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heath, R.M., Schwindt-Bayer, L.A. and Taylor-Robinson, M.M. (2005) ‘Women on the sidelines: Women’s
representation on committees in Latin American legislatures’, American Journal of Political Science,
p49(2), p420–436.
Hinojosa, M. (2012) Selecting women, electing women. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
IPU (2016) Sexism, harassment and violence against women parliamentarians. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary
Union.
Jensenius, F.R. (2016) ‘Competing inequalities? On the intersection of gender and ethnicity in candidate
nominations in Indian elections’, Government and Opposition, 51(3), p440–463.
Juvonen, T. (2020) ‘Out lesbian and gay politicians in a multiparty system’, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of
Politics. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/
acrefore-9780190228637-e-1182 (Accessed 8 October 2021)
Keith, D. and Verge, T. (2018) ‘Nonmainstream left parties and women’s representation in Western
Europe’, Party Politics, 4(4), p397–409.
Kenny, M. (2013) Gender and political recruitment: Theorizing institutional change. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Kenny, M. and Verge, T. (2016) ‘Opening up the black box: Gender and candidate selection in a new era’,
Government and Opposition, 51(3), p351–369.
Kittilson, M.C. (2006) Challenging parties, changing parliaments: Women and elected office in contemporary Western
Europe. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
Kittilson, M.C. (2011) ‘Women, parties and platforms in post-industrial democracies’, Party Politics, 17(1),
p66–92.
Krook, M.L. (2016) ‘Contesting gender quotas: Dynamics of resistance’, Politics, Groups, and Identities, 4(2),
p268–283.
Krook, M.L. (2018) ‘Westminster too: On sexual harassment in British politics’, Political Quarterly, 89(1),
p65–72.
Lawless, J.L. and Pearson, K. (2008) ‘The primary reason for women’s underrepresentation? Reevaluating
the conventional wisdom’, Journal of Politics, 70(1), p67–82.
Lovenduski, J. (1993) ‘Introduction: The dynamics of gender and party’, in Lovenduski, J. and Norris, P.
(eds.) Gender and party politics. London: Sage, pp. 1–15.
Lovenduski, J. (2005) Feminizing politics. Cambridge: Polity.
Lovenduski, J. and Norris, P. (eds.) (1993) Gender and party politics. London: Sage.
Tània Verge
112
Lowndes, V. (2020) ‘How are political institutions gendered’, Political Studies, 68(3), p543–564.
Luhiste, M. (2015) ‘Party gatekeepers’ support for viable female candidacy in PR-list systems’, Politics &
Gender, 11(1), p89–116.
McAllister, I. and Studlar, D.T. (2002), ‘Electoral systems and women’s representation: A long-term perspective’,
Representation, 39(1), p3–14.
Meier, P. (2004) ‘The mutual contagion effect of legal and party quotas: A Belgian perspective’, Party
Politics, 10(5), p583–600.
Murray, R. (2010) Parties, gender quotas and candidate selection in France. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Niven, D. (1998) ‘Party elites and women candidates: The shape of bias’, Women and Politics, 19(2), p57–80.
Norris, P. and Lovenduski, J. (1995) Political recruitment: Gender, race and class in the British Parliament. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
O’Brien, D.Z. (2015) ‘Rising to the top: Gender, political performance, and party leadership in parliamentary
democracies’, American Journal of Political Science, 59(4), p1022–1039.
O’Neill, B. and Stewart, D.K. (2009) ‘Gender and political party leadership in Canada’, Party Politics, 15(6),
p737–757.
Piscopo, J.M. (2016) ‘When informality advantages women: Quota networks, electoral rules and candidate
selection in Mexico’, Government and Opposition, 51(3), p487–512.
Piscopo, J.M. and Kenny, M. (2020) ‘Rethinking the ambition gap: Gender and candidate emergence in
comparative perspective’, European Journal of Politics and Gender, 3(1), p3–10.
Roza, V., Llanos, B. and Garzón de la Roza, G. (2011) Gender and political parties: Far from parity. Stockholm:
International IDEA and Inter-American Development Bank.
Smrek, M. (2020) ‘When is access to political capital gendered? Lessons from the Czech Parliament’, Parliamentary
Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsaa051.
Stambough, S.J. and O’Regan, V.R. (2007) ‘Republican lambs and the Democratic pipeline: Partisan
differences in the nomination of female gubernatorial candidates’, Politics & Gender, 3(3), p349–368.
Verge, T. (2015) ‘The gender regime of political parties: Feedback effects between supply and demand’,
Politics & Gender, 11(4), p754–759.
Verge, T. (2020a) ‘Political party gender action plans: Pushing gender change forward beyond quotas’,
Party Politics, 26(2), p238–248.
Verge, T. (2020b) ‘Too few, too little: Parliaments’ response to sexism and sexual harassment conducts’,
Parliamentary Affairs, 75(1), p94–112.
Verge, T. and Astudillo, J. (2019) ‘The gender politics of executive candidate selection and reselection’,
European Journal of Political Research, 58(2), p720–740.
Verge, T. and Claveria, S. (2018) ‘Gendered political resources: The case of party office’, Party Politics,
24(5), p536–548.
Verge, T. and de la Fuente, M. (2014) ‘Playing with different cards: Party politics, gender quotas and
women’s empowerment, International Political Science Review, 35(1), p67–79.
Verge, T. and Espírito-Santo, A. (2016) ‘Interactions between party and legislative quotas: Candidate
selection and quota compliance in Portugal and Spain’, Government and Opposition, 51(3), p416–439.
Wauters, B. and Pilet, J.B. (2015) ‘Electing women as party leaders’, in Cross, W.P. and Pilet, J.B. (eds.) The
politics of party leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 73–89.