INTERSECTIONALITY, QUOTAS AND MINORITY WOMEN’S
POLITICAL REPRESENTATION WORLDWIDE
MELANIE M. HUGHES
University of Pittsburgh
SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE APPENDICES A–C
and
DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR GROUP SELECTION AND CODING
APPENDIX A. COUNTRIES, GROUPS, AND ON YEARS1
Afghanistan (2005)
Pashtun
Tajiks
Turkmen
Uzbeks
Albania (2005)
Albanians
Aimaq
Arabs
Baloch
Hazara Shi'a
Hazara Sunni
Ismaili
Kuchis
Non-Hazara Shi'a
Nuristani
Pashai
Greeks
Vlach
Macedonians
Roma
Argentina (2005)
Whites
Indigenous
Armenia (2003)
Armenians
Yazidis
Australia (2004)
Whites
Asians
Indigenous
Former
Yugoslavs
Turks
Austria (2002)
Austrians
Bahrain (2002)
Sunnis
Shi'as
Bangladesh (2005)
Muslims
Chittagong
Hill Tribes
Belgium (2003)
Flemings
Walloons
Benin (2003)
Fon
Brazil (2006)
Whites/
Mulattos
Bulgaria (2005)
Bulgarians
Burundi (2005)
Hutus
Canada (2006)
Majority
Canadians
Christians
Hindus
Other European
Pakistanis
Poles
Portuguese
Québécois
Sikhs
Ukrainians
West Asians
Cape Verde (2006)
Creoles/
Europeans
Africans
West African
Immigrants
Chile (2005)
Whites / White-Amerindians
Indigenous
Colombia (2006)
Whites / Mestizos / Mulattos/
Black-Amerindians
Blacks
Amerindians
Comoros (2004)
Sunni Muslims
Christians
Costa Rica (2006)
Whites /
Black (Garifuna/
Mestizo
Antillean Black)
Croatia (2003)
Croats
Czechs /
Slovaks
Hungarians
Italians
Serbs
Algerians
Moroccans
Italians
Bariba
Goun / Nago /
Yoruba
Somba / Dendi /
Other Small
Groups
Cyprus (2006)
Greek
Orthodox
Roma
Czech Republic (2002)
Czechs
Moravians
Roma
Bosnia-Herzegovina (2003)
Bosniaks
Croats
Serbs
Botswana (2004)
Tswana
Non-Muslims
Canada 2006, cont'd
Greeks
Indians
Indigenous
Ismaili
Italians
Japanese
Jews
Latin Americans
Non-Tswana
Basarwa
Afro-Brazilians
Ecuador (2006)
Mestizos /
Whites
Armenians
Roma
Turks
Pomaks
Tutsis
Twas
Arabs
Blacks
Chinese
Denmark (2005)
Danish
Other
Western
Non-Serb Former
Yugoslavs
Other National
Minorities
Other Christians Turkish Muslims
Slovaks
Inuits
Faroese
Former Slavs
Pakistani
Other Muslims
Turks
Blacks
Highland
Indigenous
Lowland
Indigenous
El Salvador (2006)
Mestizos/
Indigenous
Whites
Estonia (2003)
Estonians
Former
Yugoslavs
Germans
Russians
Ukrainians
Belarussians
(cont‟d on next page)
2
Ethiopia (2003)
Amhara
Tigreans
Fiji (2006)
Indigenous
Melanesians
Finland (2003)
Finnish
France (2002)
French
Afars
Oromo
Somalis
Other Small
Groups
Chinese /
Europeans
Indo-Fijian
Rotuma
Jewish
Karelian
Moroccan
Swedish
Jews
Muslims
NonRoma
Metropolitan
Ethnic Minorities
FYR, Macedonia (2006)
Macedonians
Albanians
Bosniaks
Roma
Georgia (2004)
Georgians
Germany (2005)
Germans
Greece (2004)
Greeks
Armenians
Azeris
Abkhazians
Adzhars
Former
Yugoslavs
Indians
Jews
Other
Europeans
Persians
Turks / Kurds
Muslims
Guatemala (2003)
Mestizos / Europeans
Honduras (2005)
Mestizos
/ Whites
India (2004)
Hindus
Garifuna /
Black Caribs
Anglo-Indians
Assamese
Kashmiri
Muslims
Ireland (2002)
Celtic/English
Israel (2003)
Israeli Jews
Italy (2006)
Italians
Turks
Serbs
Vlach
Arab Muslims
Druze
South
Tyrolians
Immigrants
Roma
Indigenous
Indigenous
Jamaica (2002)
Majority
Jamaicans
Rastafarians
Japan (2005)
Japanese
Burakmin
Ryukyuan
Jordan (2003)
Jordanian
Muslims
Bedouins
Christians
Circassians
Palestinians
Kuwait (2003)
Sunnis
Shi'as
Kyrgyz Republic (2005)
Kyrgyz
Non-Kyrgyz
Latvia (2006)
Latvians
Lebanon (2005)
Sunnis
Maronite
Christians
Lithuania (2004)
Lithuanians
Malaysia (2004)
Malays
Mauritius (2005)
Indo-Mauritian
Mongolia (2004)
Mongols
Jews
Poles
Russians
Belarussians
Lithuanians
Alawites
Armenian
Druze
Greek Catholics
Greek Orthodox
Other Christian
Protestants
Shi'as
Belarusians
Jews
Poles
Russians
Chinese
East Indians
Indigenous
Palestinians
Ukrainians
Creoles
FrancoSino-Mauritians
Mauritian
Kazakhs
Montenegro (2006)
Other Muslims
Montenegrins
Albanians
Scheduled Castes
/ Serbs
Croats
Scheduled Tribes
Sikhs
Netherlands
Dutch
Antillen
Moroccans
Surinamese
Turks
Non-Muslim
Palestinians
New Zealand
Caucasians
Asians
Maori
Jews
Sardinians
Nicaragua
Valdostani
Whites /
Amerindian
Mestizo
Tuva
Muslims /
Bosniaks
Indonesians
Other Muslims
Other Western
Pacific Islander
Blacks
(cont‟d on next page)
3
Norway
Norwegians
Panama
Mestizos /
Whites
Paraguay
Mestizos /
Whites
Peru
Mestizos /
Whites
Muslims
Other
Immigrants
Indigenous
Chinese
West Indians
Asians
Indigenous
West Indians /
Blacks
Afro-Peruvians
Indigenous
Highland
Indigenous
Lowland
Belarussians
Portugal (2005)
Portuguese
Brazilians
Hunarians
Roma
Russian Federation (1999)
Russians
Armenians
Avars
Balkarets
Bashkirs
Belarusians
Buryat
Chechens
Chuvash
Circassians
Darginets
Georgians
Germans
Ingush
Japanese
Jews
Karelians
Serbia
Serbs
Singapore (2001)
Chinese
Other Small
Minorities
Khakha
Komi
Koreans
Kumyks
Kurds
Lakets
Latvians
Lezgins
Mordvinians
Ossetians
Tatars
Tats
Tuvinians
Ukrainians
Yakuts
Bosniaks
Albanians
Croats
Romany
Hungarians
Yugoslavs
Indians
Eurasians
Malays
Hungarians
Roma
Ukrainians
Hungarians
Italians
Bosniaks
Croats
Serbs
Solomon Islands (2001)
Melanesians
Non-Melanesians
Sri Lanka (2004)
Sinhalese
Germans
Republic of Korea (2004)
Koreans
Romania (2004)
Romanians
Slovenia (2004)
Slovenians
Sweden (2006)
Swedes
Philippines (2004)
Christians
Muslims
Poland (2005)
Poles
Slovakia (2006)
Slovaks
Sri Lankan Moors
Tamils
Assyrians
Bosnians
Chileans
Estonians
Finns
Germans
Ghanaians
Greeks
Jews
Palestinians
Romanians
Turks
Switzerland (2003)
Swiss-German- Italian-Speakers Former
Speakers
Jurassians
Yugoslavs
Other FrenchTurks
Speakers
Turkey (2007)
Turks
Kurds/Zaza
United Kingdom (2005)
English Whites Blacks / AfroCaribbeans
European
Immigrants
Indians
United States (2004)
Non-Hispanic
Asians
Whites
Blacks
Uruguay (2004)
Whites
/ Mestizos
Irish Catholics
Pakistani
/ Bangladeshi
Scots
Welsh
Hispanics
Blacks
Venezuela (2005)
Mestizos /
Europeans
Arabs
Indigenous
Yemen (2003)
Arab Muslims
Akhdam
1
Arabs
Caucasians
Blacks
Groups in the first column for each country are majority groups; all others are minority groups.
Those appearing in italics display a selection of significantly-sized minority groups (at least 1% of
the population) that are not represented in parliament (and thus not included in the analyses).
4
APPENDIX B. CODING MAJORITY AND MINORITY GROUPS
This appendix lists global, regional, and supplemental country-specific sources used to identify majority
and minority groups (Part I) and details the specific procedures used to code majority and minority groups
(Part II).
I.
DATA SOURCES
Global
Central Intelligence Agency. 2005-2007. The World Factbook.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/.
Gall, Timothy L., and Jeneen M. Hobby, Editors. 2007. Worldmark Encyclopedia of
Nations, 12th Edition. [occasional source]
Minorities at Risk Project. 2009. “Minorities at Risk Dataset.” College Park, MD: Center
for International Development and Conflict Management.
http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/.
Minority Rights Group International 2008. World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous
Peoples. http://www.minorityrights.org/directory.
U.S. Department of State. 2001 2008. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/.
U.S. Department of State. 2001-2008. Report on International Religious Freedom.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/.
U.S. Library of Congress. Country Studies. Federal Research Division. Library of
Congress. [occasional source]
Regional
Kumaraswamy, P.R. 2003. Problems of Studying Minorities in the Middle East.
Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations 2 (2): 244–64.
Open Society Institute. 2009. Muslims in Europe: A Report on 11 EU Cities. Open
Society Institute EU Monitoring and Advocacy Program.
Afghanistan
Afghan Network. 2007. “Ethnic Groups of Afghanistan.” http://www.afghannetwork.net/Ethnic-Groups/.
Asia Foundation. 2006. Afghanistan in 2006: A Survey of the Afghan People.
http://www.asiafoundation.org/pdf/AG-survey06.pdf.
Newell, Richard S. 1989. “Post-Soviet Afghanistan: The Position of the Minorities.”
Asian Survey 29 (11): 1090–1108.
Albania
Albanian Helsinki Committee. 1999. “Albanian Helsinki Committee: Report on Minority
Question in Albania in Relation to the European Convention.”
Albanian Institute of Statistics (Instaat). 2003. “Quarterly Statistics Bulletin, No. 3.”
Lastarria-Cornhiel, Susana and Rachel Wheeler. 1998. “Gender, Ethnicity, and Landed
Property in Albania.” Working Paper No. 18. Land Tenure Center. University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
Belgium
Open Society Institute. 2007. Muslims in the EU Cities Report: Belgium. Open Society
Institute EU Monitoring and Advocacy Program.
Benin
Judex, M..and Thamm, H.-P, Editors. 2008. IMPETUS Atlas Benin. Research Results
2000-2007, 3rd Edition. Department of Geography, University of Bonn, Germany.
Wantchekon, Leonard. 2003. Clientelism and Voting Behavior: Evidence from a Field
Experiment in Benin. World Politics 55 (3): 399–422.
5
Botswana
Bangura, Yusuf. 2004. “Ethnicity, Inequality and the Public Sector: A Comparative
Study.” UN Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD).
IRIN. 2006. “Minority Ethnic Groups Feel New Bill Still Discriminates.” IRIN News.
August 8, 2006.
Solway, Jacqueline S. 2002. “Navigating the „Neutral‟ State: „Minority‟ Rights in
Botswana.” Journal of Southern African Studies 28 (4): 711–29.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 2002. “Concluding Observations of the
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Botswana.”
CERD/C/61/CO/2.
Brazil
Augusto dos Santos, Sales. 2006. “Who is Black in Brazil? A Timely or a False Question
in Brazilian Race Relations in the Era of Affirmative Action?” Latin American
Perspectives 33 (4): 30–48.
Lesser, Jeffrey. 1999. Negotiating National Identity: Immigrants, Minorities, and the
Struggle for Ethnicity in Brazil. Duke University Press.
Bulgaria
Spirova, Maria. 2004. “Electoral Rules and the Political Representation of Ethnic
Minorities: Evidence from Bulgaria and Romania. Paper Prepared for Presentation
at the 2004 Annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Nationalities,
Columbia University, New York.
Cape Verde
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 2003. “Concluding Observations of the
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Cape Verde.”
CERD/C/63/CO/3.
Colombia
Rappaport, Joanne. 2005. Intercultural Utopias: Public Intellectuals, Cultural
Experimentation, and Ethnic Dialogue in Colombia. Durham, NC.: Duke
University Press.
Ecuador
Pacari, Nina. 2002. “The Political Participation of Indigenous Women in the Ecuadorian
Congress: Unfinished Business.” Women in Parliament. Stockholm: International
IDEA.
Estonia
Tammaru, Tiit and Hill Kulu. 2003. The Ethnic Minorities of Estonia: Changing Size,
Location, and Composition.” Eurasian Geography and Economics 44 (2): 105–20.
Viikberg, Jüri. 1998. “Ethnic Minorities in Estonia: Past and Present.” Paper prepared for
presentation at the conference Multicultural Estonia, Helsinki, December 26.
Fiji
Norton, Robert. 2000. “Reconciling Ethnicity and Nation: Contending Discourses in Fiji's
Constitutional Reform.” The Contemporary Pacific 12 (1): 83–122.
Premdas, Ralph. 2004. “The Dynamics of Ethnic Minority Domination in Fiji. In
Rethinking Ethnicity: Majority Groups and Dominant Minorities, eds. Eric
Kaufmann. London: Routledge, 221–41.
Germany
Federal Republic of Germany. 1999. “First Report.” Report submitted by Germany
pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection
of National Minorities. ACFC/SR (99) 17.
Georgia
Matveeva, Anna. 2002. “The South Caucasus: Nationalism, Conflict and Minorities.”
Minority Rights Group International. http://www.minorityrights.org/
Italy
Minority Dailies Association. 2005. “Minorities in Italy.” http://www.midas-press.org
Japan
Mcneill, David. “The Diene Report on Discrimination and Racism in Japan.” ZMag.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
6
Kyrgyzstan
Freedom House. 2003. “Country Report: Kyrgyzstan.” Nations in Transit.
http://freedomhouse.org/
International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights. 2005. Human Rights in the OSCE
Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America.
Malaysia
Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2007. “Malaysia Country Brief.”
http://www.dfat.gov.au/
Mauritius
Mathur, Raj. 1997. “Parliamentary Representation of Minority Communities: The
Mauritian Experience.” Africa Today 44 (1): 61–82.
Montenegro
Associated Press. 2006. “Montenegro Accuses 18 Ethnic Albanians, Including 5 U.S.
Citizens.” December 7, 2006.
Norway
World of Information Country Report. 2002. “Norway: Politics.” Quest Economics
Database. Comment and Analysis: 10. April 24, 2002. LexisNexis (accessed
January 2, 2006).
Poland
Advocates for Human Rights. 2006. “National and Ethnic Minorities.” Stop Violence
Against Women. http://www.stopvaw.org/Ethnic_Minorities9.html.
Romania
Spirova, Maria. 2004. “Electoral Rules and the Political Representation of Ethnic
Minorities: Evidence from Bulgaria and Romania. Paper Prepared for Presentation
at the 2004 Annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Nationalities,
Columbia University, New York.
Russia
Advocates for Human Rights. 2005. “Ethnic Minorities.” Stop Violence Against Women.
http://www.stopvaw.org/Ethnic_Minorities11.html.
Glinski, Dmitri. 2002. “Russia and Its Muslims: The Politics of Identity at the
International-Domestic Frontier.” East European Constitutional Review
Winter/Spring: 71–83.
Miller, Justin. 2002. “Ethnic and Religious Minorities and Their Search for Justice: The
Case of Chechnya.” In Civil Society and the Search for Justice in Russia, eds.
Christopher Marsh and Nikolas K. Gvosdev. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 139–
56.
Sri Lanka
International Centre for Ethnic Studies. “Principal Ethnic Groups: Sri Lanka.”
http://www.ices.lk/sl_database/ethnic_groups.shtml
Uruguay
Cabella, Wanda and Rafael Porzecanski. 2007. “The Growth of Ethnic Minorities in
Uruguay: Ethnic Renewal or Measurement Problems?” Quebec Inter-University
Centre for Social Statistics.
Venezuela
Sreeharsha, Vinod. 2006. “Is there a „Black Vote‟ in Venezuela?” Slate Magazine.
December 1, 2006.
Yemen
UN Human Rights Commission. 2006. “Issues Concluding Observations on Reports of
Estonia, Yemen, South Africa, Oman, Mongolia, Denmark, Norway and Ukraine.”
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
7
II. DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR GROUP SELECTION AND CODING
I attempted to collect data on all majority and minority groups in 122 independent democratic and
semi-democratic countries with at least a half a million population in 2005. Across countries, I created
majority and minority categories along boundaries of race, ethnicity, place of birth, indigenous identity,
religion, and/or language. I used the sources listed above to identify which divisions are most salient in each
country and coded mutually exclusive categories associated with these divisions. In cases with substantial
overlap between ethnic and religious minority identities, e.g., Turkish and Muslims, only a single category
was chosen, informed by background sources and data availability.
In some countries, deciding the appropriate level of group aggregation was quite difficult, especially
in cases where research exposes significant within-group differences. In the United States, for example, I
could analyze Hispanic legislators as a single group or analyze Puerto Rican-, Cuban-, Mexican-, and
Portuguese-Americans as separate groups. I again drew on country-specific sources (see above) to assist in
making these decisions. In the U.S. case, most sources focus on Hispanics or Latinos/as as a single group, so
I analyze all Hispanics together. Notably, because data sources often rely on census data or other
government statistics, differences in group aggregation may reflect country-specific differences in
boundary-making and/or data collection techniques. However, I drew heavily on human rights reports and
country-specific research to ensure that groups not formally recognized by governments as minorities are
still included in the analyses. I also performed auxiliary analyses aggregating groups in different ways. None
of the quota findings are sensitive to changes in group aggregation.
Generally, groups that are numerically the largest racial, ethnic, religious, or linguistic group are
coded as the majority, and numerically smaller groups are coded as minorities. In some cases, however,
groups in the numerical majority are socially, economically, or politically disadvantaged and are thus coded
as minority groups (e.g., Shi‟a Muslims in Lebanon). Conversely, groups numerically in the minority may
be socially, economically, or politically dominant and are coded as majority groups (e.g., Maronite
Christians in Lebanon). For particularly heterogeneous societies with no numerically dominant groups (e.g.,
Afghanistan), country-specific sources and outside expertise (see fn 8 in the text) were especially useful in
helping determine which groups were dominant and thus coded as majorities; all others were coded as
minorities.
One set of groups often difficult to classify as majority or minority are European (or Western)
immigrants. Because of colonial relations, sizeable groups of Europeans now reside in many former
8
colonies. Historically, Europeans may have been dominant or advantaged. Yet, in many countries
decolonization has brought indigenous populations to power. European immigrants also make up a sizeable
part of the population of many Western countries. While small, these groups are often not marginalized or
disadvantaged in ways traditionally associated with minority status. Still, I followed coding procedures for
European immigrants similar to other groups. If sources identified non-native Europeans as a recognized
group (e.g., Swedish-speakers in Finland, Europeans in Cape-Verde), they are coded as minorities unless
sources indicate they are socially, economically, or politically dominant. Auxiliary analyses including a
control variable identifying European minority groups does not substantively alter results.
Once groups were initially selected, I collected data on group representation in national legislatures
by sex between December 2005 and December 2007, although legislators analyzed were elected as early as
1999 (see fn 7 in the text). I focused only on single or lower houses of national legislatures. For seats
representing overseas constituencies, members without full voting rights are excluded (for example, in the
United States, delegates representing Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.), but those with full voting rights appear in the
data (for example, Inuit and Faroese legislators in Denmark, and representatives of overseas departments
and collectives in France).
Whenever possible, I collected legislator data at the individual level so that I could aggregate data to
represent the majority and minority groups crafted through the above steps. For three countries (Botswana,
Kyrgyzstan, Solomon Islands), however, I was only able to obtain data in the aggregate (i.e., Tswana vs. all
non-Tswana, Kyrgyz vs. non-Kyrgyz, and Melanesian vs. non-Melanesian, respectively). Because I was still
able to code legislator sex for these groups, I include them in the analyses presented here. Auxiliary analyses
show that results are robust to the exclusion of these three countries.
To reconcile selected majority and minority groups with population and legislator data, I created
“other” or “remainder” categories. These categories typically aggregate groups that: 1) were particularly
small in size, making up less than 1% of the population; 2) were not identified as significant minorities in
the country in any data sources; and 3) were not politically mobilized at the national level. Individuals that
cross minority racial or religious categories (e.g., biracial or multi-racial persons) are also included in the
remainder.
“Remainder” groups are generally excluded from the analyses. The advantage of carefully selecting
groups across countries is that analyzing the political representation of these groups speaks to
majority/minority dynamics. Including muddled categories undermines this effort. Once remainder
categories are removed, 431 groups remain. Excluding remainder categories ultimately affects 4 countries
9
where individuals from remainder categories were elected: Belgium, Canada, Ethiopia, and the United
States. In the United States, for example, two congressmen are coded into the remainder category: one
Dutch immigrant and one half-Lebanese Protestant. In Canada, one MP was born in the United Kingdom
and has a Jewish Syrian-born mother and a Greek Cypriot father. Auxiliary analyses including remainder
categories in the analysis (when individuals in remainder categories gained representation) do not affect
substantive conclusions.
Although remainder groups were excluded, no groups were excluded solely due to size (see fn 6 in
the text). That is, small groups that are politically mobilized or for other reasons are identified in country
sources are included. However, many small groups are not ultimately analyzed because I exclude groups
that fail to win seats in the legislature, and many such groups are small. From a methodological perspective,
including these cases would result in dependent variables that would be highly skewed. Yet, as discussed in
the text, analyzing only the 328 groups represented in the legislature is also theoretically advantageous
because it focuses the analyses on factors that help or hinder minority women in places where minorities can
feasibly gain representation.
In sum:

I attempted to collect data for 122 independent democratic and semi-democratic countries with at
least a half a million population in 2005.

I ultimately collected data across 512 categories (including majority, minority, and “remainder”
groups) across 81 countries.

431 of those groups were identified as majority or minority groups (not “remainder” groups).

328 groups of the 431 are represented in a national legislature between 1999 and 2007. These
groups are analyzed in the models presented in Table 3.

Of the 328 represented groups, 241 in 68 countries are minorities. The models presented in Table 4
are limited to only these groups.
Finally, despite my best efforts to carefully code majority and minority groups, it is possible (and
perhaps likely) that another researcher may have come to different conclusions regarding which groups
should be included, and which groups are the majorities and minorities. Acknowledging potential
disagreements like these, I performed a wide range of auxiliary analyses that include and exclude various
groups and aggregate data in various ways. Yet, future research should also revisit the research questions
analyzed here.
10
APPENDIX C. GENDER AND MINORITY QUOTAS BY COUNTRY
Gender Quotas
Country
Type
% S eats
Minority Quotas
Effective
Benefitting Groups
Type(s)
% S eats
Tandem Quotas
Afghanistan
Seats
26%
Y
Kuchis
Bosnia & Herz.
Candidates
30%
Y
Serbs; Bosniaks; Croats
Burundi
Candidates
30%
Y
Twa; Tutsis
Jordan
Seats
4%
Seats
100%
Seats & Special Rules
42%
Seats
6%
N
Christians; Circassians; Bedouins
Seats
20%
Candidates
0%1
N
18 Ethnic M inority Groups
Seats
6%
Crotia
Party
40%
9%
Hungarians; Italians; Serbs;
Chech/Slovaks; Yugoslavian; Other
Seats
5%
Cyprus
Party
30%
2%
Christians; Turks
Seats
5% / 33%2
Ethiopia
Party
30%
16%
23 Small Nationality Groups
Seats
4%
Fiji
Party
20%
6%
Indians; Rotuma; Other M inorities
Seats
32%
India
Party
15%
4%
Anglo-Indians; Scheduled Castes;
Scheduled Tribes
Seats
22%
Slovenia
Party
28%-40%4
7%
Hungarians; Italians
Seats
2%
Colombia5
n/a
n/a
n/a
Afro-Colombians; Indigenous
Seats
2%
Lebanon
n/a
n/a
n/a
8 M inority Religious Groups
M auritius
n/a
n/a
n/a
Chinese; Creole; M uslim
M ontenegro
n/a
n/a
n/a
New Zealand
n/a
n/a
n/a
Singapore
n/a
n/a
n/a
M alay; Indian or Other
n/a
n/a
n/a
Indigenous
Argentina
Candidates
30%
Y
Armenia
Candidates
5%
Romania
Mixed Quotas
3
Minority Quotas
5
Venezuela
Seats
48%
Special Rules
11%
Albanians
Seats
6%
M aori
Seats
6%
Candidates
18%6
Seats
2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
N
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
National Gender Quotas
Bangladesh
Belgium
Seats
13%
Y
n/a
Candidates
33%
Y
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Brazil
Candidates
25%
Y
n/a
Costa Rica
Candidates
40%
Y
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Ecuador
Candidates
30%
Y
n/a
France
Candidates
50%
Y
n/a
n/a
n/a
FYR M acedonia
Candidates
30%
Y
n/a
n/a
n/a
Honduras
Candidates
30%
N
n/a
n/a
n/a
Panama
Candidates
30%
N
n/a
n/a
n/a
Paraguay
Candidates
20%
Y
n/a
n/a
n/a
Peru
Candidates
25%
Y
n/a
n/a
n/a
Philippines
Candidates
0%
1
N
n/a
n/a
n/a
Republic of Korea
Candidates
34%
N
n/a
n/a
n/a
Y
7
n/a
n/a
Serbia
Candidates
30%
n/a
11
(cont‟d on next page)
Gender Quotas
Country
Type
% S eats
Gender Quotas
Effective
Party Gender Quotas
Country
Type
% S eats
Effective
Party Gender Quotas
8
Albania
Party
30%
2%
Italy
Party
34-50%
4-19%
Australia
Party
40%
15%
Lithuania
Party
33%
5%
Austria
Party
33-50%
27%
Netherlands
Party
50%
11-13%
Botswana
Party
30%
7%
Nicaragua
Party
30%
14%
Canada
Party
25-50%
13%
Norway
Party
40%
26%
Chile
Party
20-40%
15%
Poland
Party
30%
12%
Czech Republic
Party
25%
9%
Portugal
Party
33%
17%
El Salvador
Party
35%
14%
Slovakia
Party
50%
8%
Germany
Party
33-50%
28%
Sweden
Party
40-50%
35%
Greece
Party
40%
16%
Switzerland
Party
40%
10%
Ireland
Party
25-40%
6%
United Kingdom
Party
5-40%
7%
Party
.
.
Israel
Party
3-30%
7%
Uruguay
10
9
Coding Notes : For Quota Types, "Seats"=seats reserved in the legislature; "Candidates"=restrictions are placed on the share of
female or minority candidates fielded by political parties;"Party"=voluntarily policies adopted by political parties to regulate
candidate gender; and "Special Rules"=special electoral rules to ensure minority representation. Special rules include co-opting of
additional seats to ensure balance (Burundi), and selecting "best losers" to enhance minority representation (M auritius). For
national quotas, "Effective"=national gender policies with a threshold of 10% or more and, for candidate quotas, include listorder requirements and/or sanctions for non-compliance. For party quotas, "Effective"=the actual share of seats affected by the
quota, calculated as the product of each party's quota threshold and the seats won by that party. Under M inority Quotas, "%
Seats"=percentage of seats in the legislature regulated by the quota.
1
Romania and the Philippines require political parties to include women, but no specific threshold is identified.
2
In Cyprus, 24 seats are set aside for the Turkish Cypriot community that remain unfilled. The first estimates of "Seats
Affected" includes only 3 reserved seats for religious minorities; the second estimate includes the 24 unfilled seats.
3
In Ethiopia, various opposition parties are known to have adopted quotas but the specific parties are unknown. The effective
quota percentage only reflects the quota of the ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Front (EPRDF).
4
The 40% quota used by Slovenia's Social Democratic Party in 2004 is a "target," rather than a hard quota.
5
Colombia and Venezuela adopted national gender quotas that were overturned. Two Venezuelan political parties adopted gender
quotas prior to the 2005 elections, but neither won any seats in the national legislature.
6
The minority quota in Singapore operates through multimember districts called GM Cs. In each GM C parties must put forward
a slate of candidates including at least one minority member. In one GM C, two M alays minorities were elected--one man and
one woman. Because I am unable determine which of the two individuals were placed on the list to satisfy the quota, I offer
both possible figures for women's share of quota seats.
7
Poland and Serbia both relax 5% electoral thresholds for political parties representing national minorities. However, minorities
are not guaranteed seats. In Poland, the number of Germans winning seats in parliament through this method has steadily
declined from 4 representatives in the early 1990s to only 1 representative in 2007. Similarly, in Denmark, the German M inority
Party can participate in general elections without presenting signatures, but has not done so since 1971.
8
Two Italian parties with gender quotas won seats as part of alliances with other parties not known to use gender quotas. The
range of percentages for the effective quota reflects the difference between the quota being applied to none or all of alliance seats.
9
The Green Party in the Netherlands is known to use a gender quota but the percentage is unknown. Without accounting for this
quota, the effective % is 11%. Assuming a 50% quota, the effective quota is 13%.
10
The Socialist Party of Uruguay uses a gender quota but the threshold is dependent upon the percentage of women members of
the Party in each jurisdiction. Targets used for the 2004 election, if any, are unknown.
12