·Î±×ÀÎ

Legislated gender quotas or voluntary party quotas?
2008. 02. 13
Legislated gender quotas or voluntary party quotas?

As a researcher of electoral gender quotas, I am often asked, which type of gender quotas will increase women¡¯s political representation the best: Legal gender quotas or voluntary party quotas?

Our research on electoral gender quotas around the world has shown that there is no general answer to this important question. There are many different types of gender quotas, and it is crucial to study how they function in different political systems, as we have done in .

A quota system that does not match the electoral system in place may remain purely symbolic and will leave all quota advocates very frustrated.

These are the important questions: First, who has the power to introduce gender quotas? Second, which system, legal or voluntary, gives the best result for women¡¯s political empowerment on a short term basis and in the long run?

Gender quotas introduced by law or constitutional amendment, which is the preferred quota type in Latin America and in many other countries, has the advantage of applying to all political parties in a country. Legal quotas also allows for legal sanctions for non-compliance - most effectively, we know now, if the Electoral Commission has the authority (and uses it!) to reject lists without a sufficient number or percentage of women.

In contrast, voluntary party quotas imply that one or more political parties in a country on their own initiative introduce gender quotas in their own statutes. Only sanctions available are pressure from the central party organization and from public exposure, if a local nominating body does not comply with the party rules on quota. Constant pressure from women¡¯s organizations and caucuses are needed to implement gender quotas.

Some see legal gender quotas as coming from above, leaving potential women candidates unprepared. However, seen from the point of view of local party organizations, also voluntary party quotas may come ¡®from above¡¯. However, in both cases quotas are usually result of strong pressure from women¡¯s organizations and other forces sympathetic to the claim of gender balance in politics. This mobilization as well as the whole debate on why women are under-representation, is very important for the outcome of the introduction of quotas. Pressure from the international community is important, too, but local organizations should be part of this process in order to create a long time result in terms of the empowerment of women.

The essence of electoral gender quotas is to force political parties and other nominating bodies to seriously start recruiting also women candidates for election.

Contrary to what many quota advocates believe, legislated gender quotas for election were never introduced in the Scandinavian countries. The high number of women in the Swedish and the Norwegian parliaments (38 and 47%) was reached through a long historical process of pressure within the political parties, from the 1980s and 90s adding voluntary party quotas.

ANC in South Africa is another example of successful voluntary party quotas. In Bosnia voluntary party quotas was replaced by legal quotas because of lack of results. So there is no general conclusion on what is best.

However, in countries that already have instituted legal quotas on account of for instance ethnicity or religion, like Lebanon, Jordan or India, legal gender quotas are probably the best. Also in semi-democratic countries and in countries without political parties, advocates should go for gender quotas through legislation or decree. But as the cases of Belgium and the many Latin American countries with legal quotas show, legal gender quotas may work well in democratic countries.

By Drude Dahlerup, professor of political science, Stockholm University

¿©¼ºÇÒ´çÁ¦, ¹ýÁ¦È­ÇÒ °ÍÀΰ¡? ÀÚÀ²È­ÇÒ °ÍÀΰ¡?

¿©¼º ÇÒ´çÁ¦ ¿¬±¸ÀÚÀÎ ³»°Ô »ç¶÷µéÀº ¿©¼ºÇÒ´çÁ¦°¡ ¹ýÁ¦È­µÇ´Â °ÍÀÌ ÁÁÀºÁö, °¢ ´çÀÇ ÀÚÀ²¿¡ ¸Ã±â´Â °ÍÀÌ ÃÖ¼±ÀÇ ¹æ¹ýÀÎÁö ¹¯°ï ÇÑ´Ù.
Àü ¼¼°èÀÇ ¿©¼ºÇÒ´çÁ¦¸¦ ¿¬±¸ÇØ º» °á°ú ÀÌ Áú¹®¿¡ Á¤´äÀº ¾ø´Ù. Dahlerup (ed.): Women, Quotas and Politics (Routledge 2006)ÀÇ ¿¬±¸°á°ú¿Í °°ÀÌ, ¼¼»ó¿¡´Â ¿©·¯ Á¾·ùÀÇ ¿©¼ºÇÒ´çÁ¦°¡ Á¸ÀçÇϸç, ±×µéÀÌ °¢±â ´Ù¸¥ Á¤Ä¡½Ã½ºÅÛ ¾È¿¡¼­ ¾î¶»°Ô ÀÛ¿ëµÇ´ÂÁö ¿¬±¸ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀº ±²ÀåÈ÷ Èûµç ÀÛ¾÷ÀÌ´Ù.
¼±°ÅÁ¦µµ¿Í ¸ÂÁö ¾Ê´Â ÇÒ´çÁ¦´Â °á±¹ »ó¡¼ºÀ» ¶î »ÓÀ̸ç, ÇÒ´çÁ¦ ¿ËÈ£ÀÚµéÀ» ÁÂÀý°¨¿¡ ºü¶ß¸°´Ù.
¿©±â¼­ ¿ì¸®´Â Áß¿äÇÑ ¹®Á¦µé¿¡ ¸Â´Ú¶ß¸®°Ô µÈ´Ù. ù°, ´©°¡ ÇÒ´çÁ¦¸¦ µµÀÔÇÒ ÈûÀ» °¡Áö´Â°¡? µÑ°, ´Ü±âÀûÀ¸·Î³ª Àå±âÀûÀ¸·Î ¿©¼ºÀÇ Á¤Ä¡Àû ¿ª·®À» ´Ã¸®±â À§Çؼ­ ÇÒ´çÁ¦ÀÇ ¹ýÁ¦È­°¡ ÀûÀýÇÑ°¡, ¾Æ´Ï¸é ÀÚÀ²¼ºÀ» ºÎ¿©ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ÁÁÀº°¡?
¶óƾ ¾Æ¸Þ¸®Ä«¸¦ ºñ·ÔÇÑ ´Ù¸¥ ¸¹Àº ±¹°¡µéÀÇ °æ¿ì, ¹ýÀ̳ª Çå¹ý °³Á¤À» ÅëÇØ µµÀÔµÈ ¿©¼ºÇÒ´çÁ¦°¡ ¸ðµç Á¤´ç¿¡ ÀÌÀÍÀ» ÁÖ°í ÀÖ´Ù. ¹ýÁ¦È­µÈ ÇÒ´çÁ¦´Â ¹ýÀû Á¦Àç·ÂÀ» °¡Áö´Âµ¥, ÀÌ´Â ¸¸¾à ¿©¼ºÈ帰¡ ÀÏÁ¤ ¼ö³ª ºñÀ²¿¡ ¸ø ¹ÌÄ¡¸é ¼±°Å°ü¸®À§¿øȸ°¡ È常®½ºÆ® ÀÚü¸¦ °ÅºÎÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» Á¤µµ´Ù.
¹Ý¸é, ÇÑ °³ ÀÌ»óÀÇ Á¤´ç¿¡¼­ ÀڽŵéÀÇ ´ç±Ô¿¡ ÇÒ´çÁ¦¸¦ Àû¿ëÇÏ´Â °æ¿ì°¡ ÀÖ´Ù. ÀÌ´Â ÇÒ´çÁ¦¸¦ ÀÚÀ²¿¡ ¸Ã±ä ½Ã½ºÅÛÀ¸·Î, ¸¸¾à Áö¿ª¿¡¼­ ÇÒ´çÁ¦¸¦ µû¸£Áö ¾ÊÀ» °æ¿ì ¹ýÀû Á¦Àç´Â ¾øÀ¸³ª Áß¾Ó´çÀ̳ª ¿©·ÐÀÇ Á¦À縦 ¹Þ°Ô µÈ´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ Áö¿ªÀÇ ¿©¼º´Üü¿Í ÀÌÀÍ´ÜüµéÀÇ Áö¼ÓÀûÀÎ ¾Ð·ÂÀ» ¹ÞÀ» ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.
ÀϺΠ»ç¶÷µéÀº ¹ýÁ¦È­µÈ ÇÒ´çÁ¦´Â À§·ÎºÎÅÍ ½ÃÇàµÇ´Â °ÍÀ̶ó°í º¸Áö¸¸ Áö±¸´çÀÇ ÀÔÀå¿¡¼­ º¼ ¶§, ÇÒ´çÁ¦ÀÇ ÀÚÀ²È­ ¿ª½Ã À§¿¡¼­ ³»·Á¿Â ÁöħÀ̶ó°í »ý°¢ÇÑ´Ù. ÇÏÁö¸¸ µÎ °æ¿ì ¸ðµÎ ¿©¼ºÁ¤Ä¡Âü¿© È®´ë¸¦ ÁÖÀåÇÏ´Â ¿©¼º´ÜüµéÀÌ ¾Ð·ÂÀ» °¡ÇÑ °á°úÀÌ´Ù. ¿©¼ºµéÀÇ ³·Àº ´ëÇ¥¼º¿¡ °üÇÑ ³íÀÇ¿Í °°ÀÌ ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ ¿òÁ÷ÀÓÀº ÇÒ´çÁ¦ µµÀÔ¿¡ ±²ÀåÈ÷ Áß¿äÇÑ ¿ªÇÒÀ» ÇÑ´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ ¿©¼ºÀÇ ¿ª·®°­È­¸¦ À§ÇÑ Àå±âÀûÀÎ ¼º°ú¹°À» ¾ò±â À§Çؼ­´Â Áö¿ª ´ÜüÀÇ È°µ¿ÀÌ ±¹Á¦»çȸÀÇ Áö¿ø¸¸Å­À̳ª Áß¿äÇÏ´Ù.
¿©¼º°øõÇÒ´çÁ¦ÀÇ º»ÁúÀº Á¤´çµéÀÌ ¿©¼ºÈ帵éÀ» ¸¹ÀÌ »Ìµµ·Ï ¿µÇâ·ÂÀ» °¡ÇÏ´Â µ¥ ÀÖ´Ù.
¸¹Àº ÇÒ´çÁ¦ ¿ËÈ£ÀÚµéÀÌ ¹Ï´Â °Í°ú ´Þ¸®, ½ºÄ­µð³ªºñ¾Æ ±¹°¡µé¿¡¼­´Â ÇÒ´çÁ¦°¡ ¹ýÁ¦È­µÈ »ç·Ê°¡ ¾ø´Ù. ´Ù¼öÀÇ ¿©¼ºÀÇ¿øÀ» ¹èÃâÇÑ ½º¿þµ§(38%)°ú ³ë¸£¿þÀÌ(47%)ÀÇ °æ¿ì´Â 1980,90³â¿¡¼­ºÎÅÍ °¢ ´ç¿¡ ÇÒ´çÁ¦ ½ÃÇàÀ» Ã˱¸Çϱâ À§ÇØ ¿À·£ ½Ã°£À» ÅõÀÚÇÑ °á°úÀÌ´Ù.
³²¾ÆÇÁ¸®Ä«ÀÇ ANC(¾ÆÇÁ¸®Ä«¹ÎÁ·È¸ÀÇ)´Â ÀÚÀ²Àû ÇÒ´çÁ¦ ½Ç½ÃÀÇ ¶Ç ´Ù¸¥ ¼º°ø»ç·ÊÀÌ´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ º¸½º´Ï¾Æ´Â ¹ýÁ¦È­µÈ ÇÒ´çÁ¦°¡ ¼º°ú¸¦ ³»Áö ¸øÇØ °á±¹ ÀÚÀ²È­ÇÑ ¹Ù ÀÖ´Ù. °á±¹ ÃÖ¼±ÀÇ ¹æ¹ýÀº »óȲ¿¡ µû¶ó ´Þ¶óÁüÀ» ¾Ë ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.
ÇÏÁö¸¸ ·¹¹Ù³í, ¿ä¸£´ÜÀ̳ª Àεµ¿Í °°ÀÌ ¹ÎÁ·°ú Á¾±³ÀûÀÎ ÀÌÀ¯·Î ÀÌ¹Ì ÇÒ´çÁ¦¸¦ ¹ýÁ¦È­ÇÑ ±¹°¡µé¿¡¼­´Â ¿©¼ºÇÒ´çÁ¦ÀÇ Àǹ«È­°¡ ÃÖ¼±ÀÇ ¹æ¹ýÀ̸ç, ¹Ý(Úâ)¹ÎÁÖÁÖÀDZ¹°¡¿Í Á¤´çÀÌ ¾ø´Â ±¹°¡µéÀÇ °æ¿ìµµ ¿©¼ºÇÒ´çÁ¦ÀÇ ÀÔ¾ÈÀ» ÃßÁøÇØ¾ß ÇÑ´Ù°í º»´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ ¹ýÁ¦È­µÈ ÇÒ´çÁ¦¸¦ ½Ç½ÃÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â º§±â¿¡¿Í ¸¹Àº ¶óƾ¾Æ¸Þ¸®Ä« ±¹°¡µéÀÇ °æ¿ì ¿ª½Ã ÇÒ´çÁ¦ÀÇ ¹ýÁ¦È­°¡ ¹ÎÁÖÁÖÀÇ ±¹°¡¿¡ ÀûÇÕÇÏ´Ù´Â °ÍÀ» ÀÔÁõÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.

Drude Dahlerup, Á¤Ä¡ÇÐ ±³¼ö, ½ºÅåȦ¸§ ´ëÇÐ

¹ø¿ª-Çѱ¹¿©¼ºÁ¤Ä¡¹®È­¿¬±¸¼Ò
2008³â ÃѼ±°ú ¿©¼º¸®´õ½Ê - ±èÇüÁØ ¸íÁö´ë ±³¼ö »õ Á¤ºÎÀÇ ¿©¼ºÁ¤Ã¥