Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-54vk6 Total loading time: 0.331 Render date: 2022-08-12T19:22:40.285Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Gender Equality Reforms on an Uneven Playing Field: Candidate Selection and Quota Implementation in Electoral Authoritarian Tanzania

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2016

Abstract

This article investigates the dynamics that gender quota reforms create within and between government and opposition parties in electoral authoritarian dominant-party states. A dominant-party state regularly holds relatively competitive elections, but the political playing field is skewed in favour of the government party. We investigate the circumstances under which gender quotas’ goal of furthering political gender equality within political parties can be reconciled with parties’ electoral concerns. We address these issues by analysing the implementation of reserved seats by the three largest parties in the dominant-party state of Tanzania. The empirical analysis suggests that the uneven playing field leaves an imprint on the specific priorities parties make when implementing candidate selection reforms. Because of large resource gaps between parties, the ruling party, Chama Cha Mapinduzi – (CCM), is able to reconcile gender equality concerns with power-maximizing partisan strategies to a greater extent than the opposition parties.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Elin Bjarnegård is Associate Professor in the Department of Government at Uppsala University. Contact email: elin.bjarnegard@statsvet.uu.se.

Pär Zetterberg is Associate Professor in the Department of Government at Uppsala University. Contact email: par.zetterberg@statsvet.uu.se.

References

Baldez, L. (2007), ‘Primaries vs. Quotas: Gender and Candidate Nominations in Mexico, 2003’, Latin American Politics and Society, 49(3): 6996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergqvist, C., Bjarnegård, E. and Zetterberg, P. (2015), ‘When Class Trumps Sex: The Social Democratic Intra-Party Struggle over Extending Parental Leave Quotas in Sweden’, Social Politics, published early online, August, doi: 10.1093/sp/jxv017.Google Scholar
Bjarnegård, E. (2013), Gender, Informal Institutions and Political Recruitment: Explaining Male Dominance in Parliamentary Representation (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjarnegård, E. and Zetterberg, P. (2011), ‘Removing Quotas, Maintaining Representation: Overcoming Gender Inequalities in Political Party Recruitment’, Representation, 47(2): 187199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjarnegård, E. and Zetterberg, P. (2016), ‘Political Parties and Gender Quota Implementation: The Role of Bureaucratized Candidate Selection Procedures’, Comparative Politics, 48(3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, C. and Tavits, M. (2011), ‘Informal Influences in Selecting Female Political Candidates’, Political Research Quarterly, 64(2): 460471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlerup, D. (2007), ‘Electoral Gender Quotas: Between Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Result’, Representation, 43(2): 7392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, L. (2002), ‘Thinking About Hybrid Regimes’, Journal of Democracy, 13(2): 2135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driscoll, A. and Krook, M.L. (2009), ‘Can There Be a Feminist Rational Choice Institutionalism?’, Politics and Gender, 5(2): 238246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallon, K.M., Swiss, L. and Viterna, J. (2012), ‘Resolving the Democracy Paradox: Democratization and Women’s Legislative Representation in Developing Nations, 1975 to 2009’, American Sociological Review, 77(3): 380408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fjelde, H. (2010), ‘Generals, Dictators, and Kings: Authoritarian Regimes and Civil Conflict, 1973–2004’, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 27(3): 195218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandhi, J. and Przeworski, A. (2006), ‘Cooperation, Cooptation and Rebellion under Dictatorships’, Economics and Politics, 18(1): 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, K.F. (2008), ‘Dominant Party Strategy and Democratization’, American Journal of Political Science, 52(1): 1631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, R.Y. and Rahat, G. (2010), Democracy within Parties. Candidate Selection Methods and Their Political Consequences (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, J. (2001), ‘Political Liberalization in Africa after Ten Years’, Comparative Politics, 33(3): 357375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinojosa, M. (2012), Selecting Women, Electing Women: Political Representation and Candidate Selection in Latin America (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).Google Scholar
Hoffman, B. and Robinson, L. (2009), ‘Tanzania’s Missing Opposition’, Journal of Democracy, 20(4): 123136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPU (2011), ‘United Republic of Tanzania, Bunge (National Assembly), Elections in 2010’, Inter-Parliamentary Union PARLINE Database on National Parliaments, www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/arc/2337_10.htm.Google Scholar
Kenny, M. (2013), Gender and Political Recruitment: Theorizing Institutional Change (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killian, B. (1996), ‘A Policy of Parliamentary “Special Seats” for Women in Tanzania: Its Effectiveness’, Ufahamu: A Journal of African Studies, 24(2–3): 2131.Google Scholar
Krook, M.L. (2007), ‘Candidate Gender Quotas: A Framework for Analysis’, European Journal of Political Science, 46(3): 367394.Google Scholar
Krook, M.L. (2009), Quotas for Women in Politics: Gender and Candidate Selection Reform Worldwide (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, S. and Way, L.A. (2010), Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K. (2010), Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Morse, Y.L. (2014), ‘Party Matters: The Institutional Origins of Competitive Hegemony in Tanzania’, Democratization, 21(4): 655677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, R. (2007), ‘How Parties Evaluate Compulsory Quotas: A Study of the Implementation of the “Parity” Law in France’, Parliamentary Affairs, 60(4): 568584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, R. (2010), Parties, Gender Quotas and Candidate Selection in France (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quota Project (2015), ‘Global Database of Quotas for Women’, Quota Project, International IDEA and Stockholm University, www.quotaproject.org.Google Scholar
Reiser, M. (2014), ‘The Universe of Group Representation in Germany: Analysing Formal and Informal Party Rules and Quotas in the Process of Candidate Selection’, International Political Science Review, 35(1): 5566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schedler, A. (2002), ‘The Menu of Manipulation’, Journal of Democracy, 13(2): 3650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schedler, A. (2006), Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers).Google Scholar
Tripp, A. and Kang, A. (2008), ‘The Global Impact of Quotas: On the Fast Track to Increased Female Legislative Representation’, Comparative Political Studies, 41(3): 338361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandeleene, A. (2014), ‘Gender Quotas and “Women-Friendly” Candidate Selection: Evidence from Belgium’, Representation, 50(3): 337349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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): 6779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, M.Y. (2008), ‘Special Seats for Women in the National Legislature: The Case of Tanzania’, Africa Today, 55(1): 6186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, M.Y. (2013), ‘Special Seats for Women in Parliament and Democratization: The Case of Tanzania’, Women’s Study International Forum, 41: 143149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Gender Equality Reforms on an Uneven Playing Field: Candidate Selection and Quota Implementation in Electoral Authoritarian Tanzania
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Gender Equality Reforms on an Uneven Playing Field: Candidate Selection and Quota Implementation in Electoral Authoritarian Tanzania
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Gender Equality Reforms on an Uneven Playing Field: Candidate Selection and Quota Implementation in Electoral Authoritarian Tanzania
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *