Today only about 16% of the world’s parliamentarians are women; shortage of women will have considerable

consequences for the articulation of women’s interests and the legitimacy of democratic institutions. The under-
representation of women
Let the best man win idea problem- But since the parties normally controls who is nominated and where- by that
I mean either the more or less safe seats, introducing quotas would mean they have less of this free reign over
who is to be nominated to go out and meet the voters.
Yes introducing quotas do not solve all problems for women in politics; however quotas make it possible to
surmount the barriers that prevent that actual accessing of certain opportunities. It is evident that the more
increased women involvement is a pre-requisite for social and economic development. Quotas will enlarge the
pool of aspirants. Before merit becomes the focus, there is the aspect of representation that is to be addressed
before the argument of merit comes in to play. Representation ensures all groups are heard, the representative
parliamentarian that allows their voices to be heard best, based on their merit, are then going to be more
effective.
Quotas uphold the principle that women ought to be represented more proportionally. Being elected as a result
of these quotas is not tantamount to degrading female politicians, when there is an added incentive of being
more in tune with the nature and scale of needs of those females being represented.
Women may be elected just in response to the far left increasing in female population- That is the quota effect,
women become seen as this weapon to help boost a party’s performance, surely that will simply further improve
the representation of females..
You could argue that for men as well, that big numbers are not always associated with success, but we are
talking about starting at a level playing ground, yes, what with being fallible, women, and men for that matter,
when being increasingly elected may not all carry out perfect representation, but we are talking of starting from
a fair, level playing ground.
If women are represented in the legislature, they can help remove some of the structural barriers that
prevent women from being elected
Female legislators are more likely than male legislators to press for legislation that will remove barriers to more
women being elected.
Legislated quotas are not discriminatory but rather compensate for an already existing discrimination
If one believes that there are as many competent potential female candidates in a country as there are competent
potential male candidates, the main reason behind the low representation of women must be structural
discrimination. Quotas are therefore not discriminatory in themselves, but merely compensate for an already
existing discrimination.
Devise COUNTER ARGUMENTS FOR THESE:
Legislated quotas are discriminatory against men
Some say that quotas are discriminatory against the men who would have won the seat if the quota had not been
introduced. The counter-argument is that quotas merely compensate for a structural discrimination, with a quota
introduced there would not be any more women than there would be men, a woman that wins a seat, based on a
quota, and has won that seat out of a duty to represent. Inclusion surely should be a pre-requisite before merit.
This has been an almost century long scenario where a man will nearly always do it better than women, the only
solution for that is to get more women in the door to refute this misguided notion.
Legislated quotas result in a less competent legislature
Some opponents to legislated quotas claim that the women elected through quotas are less competent than their
male counterparts, and that the main reason for the low level of women candidates is that there are fewer
competent potential women candidates. – There is not a level playing dfield so how exactly are you dissecting
where access to resources( e.g. funding etc) starts to have an effect, or where Women are in this case perceived
to have been nominated only because of their gender.- Are you saying men are not? Gender in this case would
actually liberate them, as opposed to the age-old oppressing that it has been connoted with. So many things
happen because of gender.
Women elected through legal quotas are less respected and have no real power
Women elected through quotas may find it more difficult as they are not perceived as being equally competent
as their male counterparts. Women may therefore prefer to be elected without a quota.
Legislated quotas take the freedom of choice away from the voters
Some argue that the basic freedom of choice of voters is taken away from voters if a certain number of seats in
the legislature is reserved for women.
Quotas distort the idea of representation and work against women
Some argue that quotas give the erroneous idea that only women can represent women – while men can
represent both men and women. This would work against women in gaining representation based on the
political ideas they represent rather than on their gender.
Legislated quotas benefit the wrong women
Legislated quotas tend to benefit the wives, daughters, sisters, cousins, etc. of traditional male politicians, rather
than women who have developed constituencies of their own.
Legislated quotas (especially constitutional quotas) are very difficult to pass
Some argue that legal quotas are too difficult to pass and require a very strong majority in the legislature. From
this point of view, legislated quotas would not work as a ground-breaking rule since a majority of both elected
members and political party leadership must be committed to achieving gender equality already. Some argue
that it is easier and just as effective to lobby for voluntary party quotas instead.
Legislated quotas can act as an upper ceiling to women's participation rather than a lower floor
Some argue that legislated quotas place a ceiling on women’s participation rather than a lower floor, and that
this hinders women from achieving real parity.
Legislated quotas (especially reserved seats) make women compete against women rather than struggle
together for more influence
Some argue that reserved seats foster an environment where women compete against each other rather than
working together to achieve more influence in politics.