The Senedd hit the headlines back in 2003 when it became the first legislature in the world to reach 50:50 gender parity between men and women. It was a proud moment for our country and showed Wales leading the way in ensuring democratic institutions truly represent the people that they serve. However, now that legacy is under threat. Just over a year out from the next elections, the Senedd could once again make the news on its gender balance – but for all the wrong reasons. That is, unless political parties step up.

Earlier this week the Welsh Government published long awaited guidance around diversity, which includes a range of measures from gender quotas, diversity plans and the collection and publication of diversity data. Those of us with a long memory may recall some of this was part of a bill to introduce statutory gender quotas. That Bill was dropped in September, and in its place we now have this guidance.

The key difference here is that last year’s bill would have made gender quotas mandatory, while this new guidance leaves it up to political parties to decide whether or not to adopt these measures – meaning that some may choose to ignore them altogether. The risk here is that many will choose to do the latter.

The Senedd’s positive record on gender parity has historically been the result of parties voluntarily utilising measures like all women shortlists, zipping and the twinning of constituencies. All of which are strategies that basically ensure there’s a good number of female candidates in places where they are more likely to win seats. That is what led to the record breaking numbers we saw in 2003. But dig below the surface and the reality is that only a couple of parties have used measures like this, and by chance they have done well at Senedd elections, essentially inflating the success of voluntary positive action. 

The risk now is that few parties will introduce the measures recommended in the guidance, and with polls showing a real split in voter intention it is likely the next Senedd will be made up of more parties. As a result, if these polls bear fruit then this fragmentation could lead to a Welsh Parliament that is less representative of women than ever before. 

In addition to the measures on gender balance, the guidance also includes recommended provisions to improve broader diversity in the Senedd. Suggesting parties measure and publish data around the diversity of their candidates, and take diversity and inclusion seriously through a specific strategy. This is absolutely where parties can do better, particularly around ethnicity and the representation of disabled people. Currently, 5% of MSs come from an ethnic minority background, slightly lower than the Wales average, and there is no data around those who identify as disabled whatsoever. 

The reality is that grasping the nettle on measures like quotas, better data, and tackling the culture within parties to offer support to a more diverse range of candidates will benefit us all. Apart from 2003 in Wales, women have been underrepresented in every other previous parliament across the UK. We know that having diverse and equal representation leads to better decision making. Wales is a diverse country and studies show that political institutions with gender parity can be viewed as more legitimate, with their decisions seen to be fairer. In short, those sitting in the Senedd Siambr (debating chamber) should truly reflect the broad life experiences and perspectives of all people in Wales.

With this guidance published, the responsibility is now squarely on political parties to step up and ensure Wales doesn’t squander its world-leading legacy when it comes to gender balance in its parliament. They must take on this responsibility, commit to introducing these measures to ensure that equal representation is a basic requirement of our democracy rather than just another missed opportunity.

This article was first published in Nation.Cymru

Show your commitment to change by joining the Electoral Reform Society, and supporting the work of ERS Cymru

Join the ERS today

Men still dominate political decision-making in the United Kingdom. Women hold just one or two seats on prestigious select committees in the House of Commons, like Defence, Foreign Affairs, and Justice. No women sit on the Domestic and Economic Affairs cabinet committee. And 95% of all local councils have majority-men membership.

Yet voters do care about women’s leadership in elected office. My research shows that when women are absent from political decision-making, voters view governments as less legitimate.

New research on voters’ views of government decisions

Amanda Clayton (University of California, Berkeley), Diana O’Brien (Washington University in St. Louis), and I study citizens’ attitudes about political representation.

We find that citizens strongly prefer that political decision-making bodies have gender parity, meaning that they have equal numbers of men and women. Even when governments require gender quotas for women candidates, citizens still prefer to see gender parity amongst officeholders.

We conducted experiments using public opinion surveys. In these survey experiments, different respondents saw different news articles, but then everyone answered the same set of questions. This allows us to compare how the different articles shaped participants’ responses.

In our first study, the article was a fictional news story about an 8-member legislative committee making a policy decision. We used graphic design software to make our news story look real: it had a headline, photos of the committee’s members, and a narrative.

In one version, the committee was all men and we used only male photos. In another version, the committee had gender balance, and we used photos of four men and four women. Otherwise, the story was the same.

After respondents saw either the all-male version or the gender-balanced version, we asked them questions about the committee’s decision-making process. Did they think the committee’s procedures were fair? Did they think the committee’s composition was fair? And, did they think the committee could be trusted? These questions all measure ‘democratic legitimacy’—the extent to which citizens accept political decisions and are willing to follow them.

People trust decisions made by gender-balanced committees

We found that respondents who saw the gender-balanced committee rated that group as more fair and more trustworthy when compared to respondents who saw the all-male committee. People also expressed much more willingness to accept the gender-balanced committee’s decision.

Even more, the gender-balanced committee wasn’t just favoured by women and voters on the left—the two groups usually most associated with supporting women in office. Men and conservatives also preferred the gender-balanced group to the all-male group.

In a second study, we examined whether preferences for the gender-balanced committee changed if people were told that women had obtained gender parity thanks to a rule that insisted on equality – a quota.

This time, our fictional news story featured a local council making a policy decision. In addition to the versions where the council could be all-male or gender-balanced, we added a third version, in which the gender-balanced council was ‘quota elected’. Participants read one of three possible descriptions of the council:

1. The council is composed of all men
2. The council is composed of four men and four women
3. The council is composed of four women and four women, following a new rule that requires parties to run equal numbers of female and male candidates.

The original study was performed in the United States, but our follow-up experiment was performed in 8 countries—including the United Kingdom.

Our results build on the first study. Looking at council’s decision-making procedures, respondents viewed the gender-balanced council as the most fair and the all-male council as the least fair. They viewed the quota-elected gender-balanced council as slightly less fair relative to the ‘regular’ gender-balanced council—but still as much fairer than the all-male council.

Said another way, participants did not overly penalize the quota-elected council for attaining gender parity through a mandate. And they viewed a council with gender parity obtained via a quota as far more legitimate than a council composed entirely of men.

When women are represented in elected office, even with quotas in place, the institutions are seen as more fair, more trustworthy, and ultimately more democratic.

Citizens like the result of quotas

Our results counter critics who claim that gender quotas would diminish the quality of political representation. We find the opposite: citizens like quotas’ results, because women’s presence indicates that governments are working for everyone.

These results follow other studies showing that gender quotas enhance, rather than diminish, democratic outcomes. For example, when gender quotas lead to more women in office, women citizens express more trust in government and more satisfaction with democracy. Women citizens may be especially aware that, when more women are in office, policy becomes more responsive to their needs.

Right now, the Welsh Parliament / Senedd is undertaking an electoral reform, with gender parity rules likely to be introduced. From my research, I can say that the evidence linking women’s presence to improvements in democratic legitimacy is clear.

Find out more about women in government

In January 2023, the global proportion of women parliamentarians just was 26.5%, indicating that there’s a way to go before we have equal numbers of men and women in parliament around the world.

While quotas can make a big difference, they aren’t the only factor that can help women get their rightful place in Parliament.

In 2022, 47 countries re-elected either their upper or lower house. In countries with a quota system for women, 30.9% of the total number elected were women; in comparison, in countries with no quotas, only 21.2% of MPs elected were women. Quotas make a real difference to women’s representation in parliament, but so does the electoral system.

In 2022, countries with either proportional representation (PR) or mixed electoral systems collectively elected 29% women to their parliaments, whereas countries with majority or plurality systems like First Past the Post only elected 22.4% women to their parliaments. The electoral system used also influences the likelihood of applying gender quotas.

Of those countries holding elections in 2022, nearly three-quarters (73%) of countries with PR or mixed electoral systems had either a voluntary or legislated gender quota in place, whereas in majority or plurality systems nearly three-quarters of countries (73%) did not have any type of quota in place.

As the below chart shows, countries which use Proportional Representation consistently elected more women in 2022 in comparison to countries with a plurality/majority system and that positive effect was amplified through the application of gender quotas.

Why proportional representation helps women get elected

Matland and Studlar argue that “the greater number of parties in proportional representation systems provides an increased probability that one party will decide actively to promote women candidates” When one party starts standing female candidates, others tend to follow.

Proportional voting systems rely on larger constituencies that elect more than one MP. These ‘Multi-Member Districts’ allow parties to field numerous candidates within the same constituency. There is a greater opportunity to field more diverse candidates alongside the incumbent.

In contrast, in First Past the Post the focus is on one candidate, which minimises the opportunity to consider the balance across candidates. Moreover, it may be necessary to remove an incumbent or go against central party interest to put forward a woman candidate. Matland and Studlar argue that parties may “ignore the external challenge” in to avoid “creating internal strife and antagonizing powerful intraparty interest”.

Due to the design of the ballot, it is also easier to implement quotas on PR ballot paper. For example, in systems which use party lists it is relatively easy to interlock the list candidates to ensure a balanced list is presented. In First Past the Post, balance between men and women must be done at the macro-level between constituencies rather than it being able to be adopted from within each constituency list.

Voting systems which use PR are more successful in electing women whether they include gender quotas or not. However, PR alone will not sufficiently increase the speed in which we achieve gender parity. It is evident that gender quotas and a PR system working in tandem are the most conducive mechanism to increase gender parity.

We’ll be exploring how different countries around the world use quotas and proportional representation to increase the speed of achieving gender parity in a new report coming out later this year.

Would you like to support our work?

Join the Electoral Reform Society today