Paper prepared for Panel: The representation of women in legislative arenas IPSA World Congress 2016, Poznan, Poland

The gender-sensitive parliament: recognising the gendered nature of parliaments Yvonne Galligan (Queen s University Belfast) Petra Meier (University of Antwerp) Paper prepared for Panel: The representation of women in legislative arenas IPSA World Congress 2016, Poznan, Poland Contacts: y.galligan@qub.ac.uk; petra.meier@uantwerpen.be Work in progress please do not quote without permission of the authors Abstract Parliaments have an important role to play in redressing gender imbalances and facilitating parity of participation of women and men, in descriptive, substantive and symbolic forms. This role comes amongst others about through a scrutiny of parliamentary norms, rules, conventions, processes, practices, and behaviours. The fundamental premise is that parliaments are gendered institutions, that these norms, rules, conventions, processes, practices, and behaviours within parliaments have a gendered nature. The idea that institutions are gendered implies that they are not gender neutral, but produce and reproduce the gender order prevailing in society, in the advantage of men and at the detriment of women (Mackay 2011; Mackay and Meier 2003). This paper reflects on how parliaments produce and reproduce the existing gender order and discusses the concept of a gender-sensitive parliament. Key words Parliaments, gendered institutions, gender equality, representation, gender-sensitive 1

Introduction Achieving gender equality remains a goal of many supra- and international organisations such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) or the European Union, along with many states. As efforts such as legislating for candidate gender quotas, awareness raising, and competence development have been made, the institutional awareness of gender representation has grown. First, gender representation is encouraged to strive towards the critical mass of 30%, which refers to the idea that women or other groups of newcomers in a given context need to be present in sufficient numbers so as to be able to have an impact within that context (Dahlerup 2006). Furthermore, awareness has shifted the focus from satisfying numbers to the relevance of the acts initiated by individuals within the legislative arena (Childs and Krook 2009). Today, it is expected that both the critical mass and the critical actors aspects will be fulfilled to ensure the promotion of women s interests and views in legislative contexts. Yet despite these expectations, the average representation of women in Member States parliaments 1 remains only at 22.7% (www.ipu.org, data 01/07/2016). And while we can speak of the substantive representation of women s needs and interests in many cases, we remain far from the achievement gender equality (EIGE 2015; UNDP 2015). In studying the promotion of gender equality in political representation and decision-making, the question of the gender sensitivity of parliaments increasingly emerges. Attention is turning to parliaments themselves to see what is happening in the parliamentary setting that is inhibiting women s equal participation with men. This is an important development. While considerable effort has been expended in increasing women s representation in parliament in many states, the most recent questions being asked are about the nature of the parliament as an institution in which gender informs the norms, rules, conventions, processes, practices, and behaviours that surround political decision-making. Accordingly, more attention is shifting towards the gender-sensitivity of parliaments, with the fundamental premise that parliaments are gendered institutions. The idea that institutions are gendered implies that institutions, in the broad sense of the term, are not gender neutral. They often produce and reproduce the gender order prevailing in society, to the advantage of men and the detriment of women (Mackay 2011; Mackay and Meier 2003). Politically speaking, the issue of gender-sensitive parliaments was brought to the table by the IPU in 2004, when it called for the strengthening of the role of parliaments in advancing gender equality. In 1 The literature on this topic tends to speak of parliaments, referring to both parliamentary system type parliaments and presidential system type congresses (Kreppel 2014). For the sake of facility we will stick to the term parliament, using it as a proxy for legislatures, thus addressing both parliament and congress type legislatures. 2

2006 it established a database of parliaments with this mandate. Nonetheless, there still is little research on this topic (though there are exceptions, as discussed in the next section). This paper wants to contribute to unpacking the problem of gender inequality at the level of representation within political arenas, through the application of the concept of representation in a broader sense, including the descriptive, substantive and symbolic representation found in the parliamentary institution itself. Targeting the institution of parliament through the lens of gender aims to identify what factors are inhibiting women s equal participation with men at several levels of political settings. More precisely, the aim is to understand how parliament as an institution with its norms, rules, conventions, processes, practices, and behaviours that surround political decision-making influence the presence of women in political decision-making, the extent to which they feel at ease within this setting and their capacity to carry out their parliamentary duties just as men can do. The theme of parliaments as gendered institutions focuses on bringing to light the gendered norms, rules, conventions, processes, practices, and behaviours that govern the working of parliaments (Holli 2012; Mackay 2008). This paper has a two-fold purpose. In the first instance it has a social aim. The authors subscribe to the understanding of feminist political science that scientific research should foster gender equality, or, more general, social equality. Understanding the different dimensions of the gendered nature of parliaments and their causes is an important prerequisite so as to allow for the design of tools guiding us towards (more) gender sensitive parliaments. The second aim of the paper is theoretical in that it hopes to contribute to the conceptual understanding of gender sensitivity, especially in relation to gender equality, or, more narrowly, to a gender sensitive parliament. Over the last number of years a growing body of indexes and indicators have been constructed to measure levels of gender equality (or the lack thereof) across a range of social, economic and political fields. While such tools are important in helping to locate the state of the art on matters of gender inequality and its evolution, they are as such not helpful in understanding why gender inequality tends to persist. Thus, the core intent of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of gender inequality within parliaments and how the latter contributes to the former. In the next section we briefly discuss the existing literature on the gender sensitivity (or lack thereof) of parliaments. The following sections discuss the conceptual understanding of the gendered character and the gender-sensitivity of parliaments, and the relation thereof to gender equality. A 3

final section looks into the putting into operation of a gender-sensitive parliament. The paper concludes with reflections on the state of play in the study of parliaments as gendered institutions. 2 The lack of gender equality in parliament For long, analytical interest in representation focused on how to bring women into the political system so as to increase their descriptive representation and ultimately to achieve gender equality in politics. Descriptive representation addresses the extent to which a parliament mirrors the composition of society, and thus also comprises women among the MPs. The vast majority of such studies have focused on electoral and party politics. Many arguments have been put forward as to why the presence of women would be of importance. These include arguments of democracy and justice, but also of the contribution women would make to politics in bringing in different perspectives and approaches, which would also allow for a better representation of women citizens, their interests and needs (Phillips 1995). This brings us to the concept of substantive representation. Substantive representation does not focus on who the political representatives are, but on what they do. It nonetheless is a logical outcome of descriptive representation. Substantive representation addresses the added value of women in political decision-making beyond their mere presence, looking at the extent to which women make a difference when it comes to taking into account women s interests and needs. The underlying question is to what extent the increase of women in political decision-making enhances the consideration of women s needs and interests in parliamentary work (Celis et al. 2008). The focus is on what women MPs and their male colleagues deliver. In that respect substantive representation focuses both on process and outcomes, on what work is conducted in parliaments by representatives and others, and on what it leads to (Childs and Lovenduski 2013). This actually brings us back to the concept of the critical mass or critical acts, whereby the underlying idea is that women should enter politics so as to allow for a qualitative shift in parliamentary outcomes. Such a shift or transformative change would mean that politics would be more responsive to women, their interests and needs. Substantive representation, and actually also descriptive representation, thus question the potential gender bias inherent in processes of political representation and decisionmaking when women are not included. What the literature on substantive representation does not address, however, is the question of the institutional setting within which MPs, male and female, operate. The question is what impact this 2 This paper draws from unpublished research commissioned by EIGE (ÖSB Consulting 2015) and which we are now developing further. 4

institutional setting has on the functioning of MPs. When modern parliaments came into being, the overwhelming majority of MPs were men. Women entered the parliamentary arena later and thus stepped into a profoundly male environment. The question is what impact this long-time allmaleness of parliaments has on women MPs and on the perception of their position and work (Franceschet 2010; Puwar 2004). The literature on symbolic representation comes closer to addressing this issue. It expands the scope of what political representation is about. Symbolic representation is understood in two different ways (Lombardo and Meier 2014). A first understanding treats symbolic representation in much the same way as substantive representation, namely as a dimension of political representation which is derived from descriptive representation. Similar to the question of what descriptive representation contributes to substantive representation, this conceptualization of symbolic representation assesses the effects at a more symbolic level of an enhanced numerical presence of women. This view of symbolic representation seeks to understand how the presence of women in political decision-making alters the beliefs of the public both men and women about politics in general and, more particularly about the nature of politics as a male domain (Franceschet, Krook and Piscopo 2012). It looks at the question of how women s presence affects trust in and the perceived legitimacy of political institutions, of the overall political system, and of democracy in general. The underlying idea is that a more balanced representation of women and men increases trust in political systems and their institutions. This can be the case for two reasons. One is that gender equality in political representation is seen as an indicator of the correct functioning of political institutions, since no gender is discriminated against. A second reason is related to cases in the aftermath of political turmoil. Bringing women into post-conflict decision-making contexts is supposed to help increase trust in and the legitimacy of the political system and the political decisions taken (Hudson et al. 2012). Furthermore, the presence of women in parliament is also supposed to shape other women s political attitudes and behaviour, to make them become politically more involved, and to make them feel politically more efficacious (Gilardio 2014; Wolbrecht and Campbell 2007). As Burrell s widely-cited observation (1998: 151) puts it: Women in public office stand as symbols for other women, both enhancing their identification with the system and their ability to have influence within it. This subjective sense of being involved and heard for women, in general, alone makes the election of women to public office important because, for many years, they were excluded from power. Turning to parliaments themselves to see what is happening in the parliamentary setting that is inhibiting women s equal participation with men is an important development. 5

Recently, the literature on symbolic representation again put the emphasis on its initial understanding as defined by Pitkin (1972), namely on the way in which symbols represent someone or something, in our case women and men. This second understanding of symbolic representation conceptualizes it as a dimension of political representation in itself, not simply as an indicator for potential consequences of an increased numerical presence of women (Lombardo and Meier 2014). Feminist scholars show how nations or states and their major institutions use, produce, and reproduce images of women and men, and how men and women tend to symbolise different aspects of the state or nation (Puwar 2004). Studies discuss how the modern state tends to be constructed as a masculine institution (Nagel 1998). The issue is therefore not only one of using men and women to symbolise nations or states and their institutions, but also one of defining the social position of men and women and the power hierarchy between them within society. The entire construction and legitimisation of the nation and state also serves to construct, maintain, and legitimate the gender order (McClintock 1995). Lombardo and Meier (2014) recently approached symbolic representation discursively. They argue that not only statutes, paintings and other objects can symbolically represent women and men and gender relations, but also discourse. Discourse also produces and reproduces the social relation between women and men, thereby also contributing to the existing gender order (Ilie 2012). The symbolic association of women and men with specific characteristics and roles brings us back to the gendered nature of parliaments. It has political consequences for women and men, mostly to the advantage of men. As Pateman writes, the political lion skin has a large mane and belonged to a male lion, it is a costume for men. When women finally win the right to don the lion skin it is exceedingly ill-fitting and therefore unbecoming (Pateman 1995: 6; quoted in Puwar 2004: 77). Puwar calls women entering the political sphere space invaders. They enter a space which has initially not considered their presence. Numerous were the parliamentary buildings in which women s washrooms had to be added, since the architects of these buildings had not thought that one day they would need to design for women. Other symbols that accentuate the turning of parliamentary buildings into male spaces are the paintings on the walls, mainly showing statesmen, and the names of rooms and hallways. The everyday life of parliaments also cherishes and reproduces maleness in other aspects. There is a new wave of reflection on the customary traditions, practices and behaviours found in parliaments (Rai 2010). This has led to legislative assemblies being seen by some representatives as gendered institutions (Crawford and Pini 2011; Hawkeswork 2003; Lovenduski 2005). Research has shown how women MPs as well as MPs from other minorities adapt their language, style of clothing, body language and voice, so as to fit the dominant mode of operation and norms surrounding it. Women 6

think twice of how to dress for parliamentary work, or try to lower their voice so as to be taken more seriously by their male peers (Celis and Wauters 2010). Much of the practices and rituals take men and their way of being as the norm. The gendered character of parliament In this respect symbolic representation underlines that parliaments are profoundly gendered institutions, a genderedness that goes far beyond the fact that women are under-represented in numbers. A focus on symbolic representation reveals that parliaments also impact upon MPs capacity to act substantively, and thus on the substantive representation of women. Revealing this helps to shift the focus from women MPs to the institution, but what is to be understood by a gendered institution? The fundamental premise in this is that the norms, rules, conventions, processes, practices, and behaviours within parliaments have a gendered nature. The idea that institutions are gendered implies that they are not gender neutral. Gendered is used in many ways but generally tends to describe a state. An institution or policy can be gendered in that it contains a bias to the advantage of men. This is the way gendered tends to be used by feminist actors criticising existing institutions or policies. When gendered is used by feminist actors as something that needs to be achieved, then the underlying idea is to redress an existing gender bias so as to make institutions or policies allow for more gender balance. It does thus not mean degendered, where gender is not considered relevant (Glazer-Raymo 2010 or Jalusic 2009 in Bacchi forthcoming). In general, the literature underlining the gendered nature of parliaments tends to refer to the way in which norms, rules, conventions, processes, practices, and behaviours within parliaments are gendered in that they contain a male and not simply a generic but a particular male bias, and thereby produce and reproduce the gender order prevailing in society, to the advantage of men and the detriment of women (Mackay 2011; Mackay and Meier 2003). In that parliaments contribute to what Bacchi (forthcoming) would call an active shaping of the categories of man and woman through gendering practices. According to her this implies the constituting of men and women in a relation of inequality, but, pointing to Staudt (2008) she underlines that it can also involve the changing of power relation between men and women. The recognition of the gendered nature of parliaments resonates with the fact that institutions do matter and have an impact on the options actors dispose of. Parliaments are institutions that provide for a specific working environment for MPs, both women and men MPs. Feminist theorists have long argued that the cultural dominance of men has effectively led to women s exclusion from democratic structures (Phillips 1991). When they are included, they are expected to conform to male norms and modes of behaviour. Examples of women being measured against a male yardstick and of 7

being criticised, ignored, ostracised, and ridiculed - or, conversely, of being applauded depending on how well or poorly they conform to the expectations of the dominant masculine culture, are a familiar phenomenon in political life. This can be reinforced through the extent to which such institutions reproduce a gender hierarchy with men in dominant positions and women in subordinated ones, or both men and women in particular branches. The gendered nature of institutions can also reach further. The norms, values and practices in institutions can be gendered, emphasizing a particular type of behaviour or attitudes associated more with one sex than the other, generally to the detriment of women. Institutions can also be gendered in the way in which they are physically configured, with, for example, furniture tailored to the physical size and capacities of one sex rather than the other, or decorations symbolizing one sex to a larger extent or in a different way than the other. The literature underlines the fact that the gendered character of parliaments can constitute an important threshold for an equal representation of men and women in political decision-making. Parliaments are institutions where gender orders can be observed, and which are reproduced by this institution in further productions of its internal way of proceeding, but also legislation. Within the parliament, the problems of gender inequality are reflected through unequal opportunities of the actors, who upon entering into the political arena face the problems of work-space inequality due to a male dominant work culture. But, the parliament is simultaneously the level at which the production and reproduction of gender inequality can be reassessed and revised, by providing solutions to changing the production of gender-biased ways of proceeding, including legislation. It is a place where a gender order is produced and reproduced, but can also be changed. This is what the literature tends to call a gender-sensitive parliament. The concept of a gender-sensitive parliament There is a wide agreement among feminist theorists on the need for certain institutional mechanisms to overcome misrecognition and the subordination of women s voices associated with it (Young 1990; Fraser 1997, 2000, 2013). Gender-sensitive parliaments are meant to play an important role in redressing gender imbalances and facilitating parity of participation of women and men, in descriptive, substantive and symbolic forms. For example, by aiming to discuss and reflect upon the units of parliaments, the focus is to attempt to break out of the gender order that parliamentary institutions produce and reproduce. By setting forth the idea of a gender-sensitive parliament the representation within, and relation to, the parliament will be redressed so to actively deconstruct and abolish misrecognition of women within the institutional backdrop. Moreover, the purpose of targeting a gender-sensitive parliament is to discuss and reflect upon parliamentary units 8

that orient towards equal opportunities, representation, and legislation. For instance, when examining a women s caucus, the aim is to not only linger at the level of description, but to reflect upon its influence, agendas, and outcome. Lastly, if parliaments come up with new rules and legislations that would change the gender order and gendered rules and norms and practices/processes, the parliamentary productions will be discussed and reflected. The aim is to see whether gender and gendered practices can develop in different ways, in more balanced ways. What, then, is a gender-sensitive parliament? How can it be defined and conceptualised? There are a number of definitions to be found in the literature, though the one that appears to be gaining most currency is that of the IPU (2012: 8):...a parliament that responds to the needs and interests of both men and women in its structures, operations, methods and in its work. Gender-sensitive parliaments remove the barriers to women s full participation and offer a positive example, or model, to society at large. The IPU (2012: 12) goes on to identify the attributes of a gender-sensitive parliament as one that: a) Promotes and achieves equality in numbers of women and men across all of its bodies and internal structures. b) Develops a gender equality policy framework suited to its own national parliamentary context. c) Mainstreams gender equality throughout its work. d) Fosters an internal culture that respects women s rights, promotes gender equality and responds to the needs and realities of MPs women and men to balance work and family responsibilities. e) Acknowledges and builds on the contribution made by its men members who pursue and advocate for gender equality. f) Encourages political parties to take a proactive role in the promotion and achievement of gender equality. g) Equips its parliamentary staff with the capacity and resources to promote gender equality; actively encourages the recruitment and retention of women to senior positions; and ensures that gender equality is mainstreamed throughout the work of the parliamentary administration. To this definition, Wängnerud (2015) adds at the generic level three related spheres that a gendersensitive parliament targets as areas of action: a) the implementation of equal opportunities for women and men to influence internal parliamentary working procedures; 9

b) provision of generous space on the parliamentary agenda for women s interests and concerns; and c) the outcome of parliamentary debate is the production of gender-sensitive legislation. The opposite of these gender-sensitive characteristics, Wängnerud notes, is when a parliament is fully patriarchal and women MPs are systematically discriminated against; there is no space for the raising and discussion of women s interests and concerns; and the parliament reproduces genderbased power structures. Current practitioner-based analyses of gender-sensitive parliaments address the three characteristics identified by Wängnerud, and treat them as areas for action (NWCI 2014). Both aforementioned definitions of gender-sensitive parliaments share many aspects, although they are not completely congruent. While Wängnerud s typology covers the internal organisation and functioning of parliament, as well as the outcome produced by parliamentary legislative work, the definition of the IPU explicitly focuses on the descriptive representation of women. This includes both their access to parliament as well as their distribution across bodies within the institution: the input side of political representation. In short, Wängnerud s typology focuses on the black box of parliamentary politics and what comes out of it, whereas the IPU framework looks at what goes into the black box in terms of the number of women MPs and their position within the institution. Wängnerud s schema focuses more explicitly on what will or should be the outcome, and thus benefit, of a gender-sensitive parliament, namely the production of gender-sensitive legislation. The IPU alludes to it in focusing on the means it suggests gender-sensitive parliaments put in place, such as procedures of gender mainstreaming, but it is not as explicit as Wängnerud on these matters. The gender-sensitivity of parliament, then, according to Wängnerud and to a lesser extent the IPU - has a dual dimension. On the one hand it contains an inward oriented focus on the functioning of parliament itself, on the position women have within the institution, and on the working conditions and practices they face. On the other hand a gender-sensitive parliament contains an outward oriented focus, on the work parliament produces in steering society and thereby contributing to gender equality more broadly. It needs to be borne in mind that these components can overlap in intent and practice. As an analytical framework, and typology, it captures the main predicted strands of policy measures and legislative developments, as well as including gender-sensitive actions, all of which ideally can be linked to beneficial outcomes. Thus, the three components of gender-sensitivity displayed by parliaments according to Wängnerud are not separate and distinct elements as they might at first appear. Gender sensitive means the change which aims to overcome imbalanced or biased gender order. It also means to not presume that abstract equality allows for equality. Rather, that would mean 10

gender blindness. The underlying reasoning is analogous to that on parity democracy, where the idea is to put issue of equality forefront instead of trying to have a so called neutral definition, because that is often gender blind in the end (Mossuz-Lavau 1998). Equality, including gender equality, is considered to be a fundamental component of democracy. In classical democratic theory, the principle of political equality dictates that participants in decision-making must be included on equal terms that is, all have equal rights and effective opportunities to express their interests and concerns freely and equally. However, the assumption that this democratic principle can be realised through formal rights of participation and representation is increasingly contested (Ilie 2012, Steiner et al 2004, McDougal 1998, Shaw 2000), or rebutted (Bright 2012). An interesting exploration of this phenomenon is provided in Enloe s recent work, where she sets out to investigate what she calls the gendered politics of seriousness. To be taken seriously, according to her definition, means to be listened to, to be carefully responded to, to have one s ideas and actions thoughtfully weighed. It means that what one does or thinks matters that is, significant consequences flow from it (Enloe 2013: 5). In our patriarchal societies, women fail to be recognised when, for example, in a televised debate on a topical issue, the majority of experts asked to provide an opinion are men, and they are equally failed to be recognised when, while invited to join in the conversation, their views are ignored, discredited or deformed. According to Fraser, acts of misrecognition (of women) result in social subordination in the sense of being prevented from participating as peers in social life. Accordingly, redressing misrecognition requires changing social institutions or, more specifically, changing the interaction-regulating values that impede parity of participation at all relevant institutional sites. In other words, this politics aims at de-institutionalizing patterns of cultural value that impede parity of participation and to replace them with patterns that foster it (Fraser 2000: 115). Examples of gender-sensitive actions in parliaments This section further elaborates on the dimensions of a gender-sensitive parliament. Also, a number of parliaments have developed devices so as to address problems of gender inequality. This examples will illustrate the different dimensions of a gender-sensitive parliament while at the same time allowing for a brief assessment of the extent to which current parliaments are gender-sensitive. Equal opportunities to influence internal parliamentary working procedures The basic though not sufficient feature of a gender-sensitive parliament is the equal presence of women and men across its different bodies, from the plenary, through committees and top political positions, to the administration and other technical staff. This is a basic condition for men and women to utilise equal opportunities to influence internal parliamentary working procedures. In this 11

context, MPs should not be the only focus. Parliamentary staff needs to be considered, too. An equal or balanced presence of both sexes across a parliament reflects the gender-sensitivity of the institution itself, both the access to it and the options for promotion into higher ranks. For MPs, obviously the main road to parliament is election, the less frequent one is nomination. Parties are important partners in these matters, since it is mostly they which recruit and select candidates to run for office (or nominate to fill inter-term vacancies). A classic solution to improving women s access to parliament is gender quotas for parliamentary candidates, another one, though less frequently promoted in Europe, are reserved seats for the underrepresented sex. Belgium, Ireland, Spain, France, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia impose gender quotas for national elections by law, some of which go back to the first half of the 1990s. Some of them contain placement mandates. Some of the gender quotas rules are combined with financial sanctions and incentives for the parties, such as in the case of Ireland, France and Portugal, others with the rejection of lists of candidates not in compliance with the legal provision, such as in Belgium. Other EU Member States, such as Germany or Sweden, do not impose gender quotas by law but some of their political parties apply their own gender quotas and target figures so as to enhance the number of women candidates. Other classic recipes to improve women s access to parliament focus more strongly on public opinion, for example awareness-raising campaigns on the importance of women s descriptive representation, the promotion of women parliamentarians as role models through media and parliament s communication tools. In addition, there is a focus on developing women s political skills and ambitions, such as training and mentorship programmes for women candidates. The 50-50 campaign for the 2014 elections of the European Parliament is an example of such measures. In addition, the electoral system itself can be assessed on its degree of gender-sensitivity, including the rules on electoral expenses and on the financial support for candidates. Electoral systems are known for not being gender neutral (Tremblay 2008). Proportional electoral systems are known to be more gender-sensitive than majoritarian ones, especially if proportional electoral systems are characterized by large electoral districts and if electoral competition does not involve a large number of political parties (known as high district magnitude and party magnitude). Next to such basic features of the electoral system itself, more detailed rules on campaigning and support to electoral candidates may come into play. Do candidates receive financial and other support, do all candidates receive the same amount of financial and other support or does the top candidate on the list receive for instance more financial support than other candidates? Are limits set to the expenses candidates can make for their campaign, as women traditionally have lower financial means at their disposal 12

than men do (Leyenaar 2004). All of these factors can be analysed so as to assess the degree of gender-sensitivity of the electoral system. Less frequent are rules to improve the number of women in top positions within parliaments, such as the speaker, the bureau, or the chairing of parliamentary committees. The IPU (2012) suggests a number of interesting measures so as to promote women in these decision-making positions. Amongst these suggestions are the adoption of measures, eventually of positive action, to ensure that women have an equal share of positions of parliamentary leadership; dual positions of leadership be occupied by a man and a woman; the rotation of such positions between men and women. Although these measures are less frequently found in practice, the intent is often referred to, such as in the European Parliament Resolution on Women in political decision-making quality and equality (2012), suggesting, amongst others, the setting of a target of 50% for office functions in national parliaments and the European Parliament. Furthermore, the Resolution suggests that Member States should propose two candidates for the office of European Commissioner, a man and a woman; and the composition of the Commission should reflect parity. A number of parliaments, such as that of Germany, The Netherlands and Finland, have already taken initiatives to increase the number of women in top positions. The Finnish parliament aims for an equal distribution of women and men across all positions within parliament, including management positions, or at least 40% of each sex. The German parliament strives for equality between women and men in every position. And the Dutch parliament launched a charter entitled Talent to the Top Charter, in which it commits to assessing the initial situation, and to set objectives and a strategy for gender equality. As a first step, a 35% target figure was set for women in top management and a 40% one for women in sub-top management. In the United Kingdom, parliament launched the Gender Workplace Equality Network, targeting the removal of the glass ceiling for women. Other suggestions by the IPU (2009) focus on building leadership capacity of women, providing them with training focusing on striving for and giving leadership. The presence of women across all decision-making bodies does not only involve an even spread of members of both sexes over decision-making positions. It also entails an even division of work between women and men across all subjects. Connolly s (2013) study of the Irish parliament found that women and men MPs are not proportionally spread over the different parliamentary committees, even when the low representation of women legislators was taken into consideration. The Irish parliament reflects a high degree of gender stereotyping when it comes to chairing parliamentary committees, with women chairing committees in charge of policy fields traditionally associated with women s roles and tasks, the committees dealing with soft policy topics. She furthermore underlines that the degree of gender stereotyping has deepened over the decades 13

since the late 1970s. Achieving gender equality in numbers across all bodies and internal structures, therefore, also implies men chairing such committees and women chairing those typically dominated by men. Most of the above mentioned tools can also be adapted to promote and achieve an equality in numbers of women and men on staff positions, including those measures targeted at improving the access of women to top staff positions. The Swedish parliament administration has an equality and diversity plan focusing on parliament s administrative personnel. It sets goals and defines measures to be taken so as to improve the equality of men and women parliamentary staff. Elements tackled in the equality and diversity plan look into, for instance, equal opportunities for professional development, the pursuit of a gender balance in all units and occupations and at all levels, salary policies allowing only for factual pay differentials between men and women. And analogous to a gender assessment of the electoral system, the human resource policies of the institution can also be screened for the extent to which they contain a gender bias. A final point of attention for equal opportunities for women and men in a gender-sensitive parliament is the need to allow for a combination of a mandate as MP or a job within parliament with a private life. A parliamentary culture recognizing the importance of reconciling work and private life is actually an important aspect of the promotion of gender equality, as it is directly related to the norms, rules and practices defining the parliamentary working culture. The reconciliation of work and family life is not an exclusive prerogative for women, but given the prevailing role patterns, women face this issue in practice to a larger extent than men do. A working culture not considering the need to combine work in parliament with tasks and roles outside of it may hamper their participation. Fostering an internal parliamentary culture that promotes gender equality may therefore need to consider measures to accommodate certain aspects of private life. Such measures can be maternity and paternity leave, and parental leave if different from the former, accompanied by measures to accommodate the absence of MPs during committee meetings and plenary sessions due to imperative family and other care reasons. A possibility consists in substitutes taking over the work, or for short time absences, proxy voting. The Australian parliament has provision for a system of proxy voting for and only for breast-feeding MPs. In Europe, Portugal has a rule allowing for temporary substitution without loss of income on important grounds, including maternity and paternity leave. In Estonia, MPs can request a suspension of their mandate for raising a child under three. Other measures consist in adapting the parliamentary calendar to that of the school year, and organising the frequency of sitting days and the timing of meeting hours so as not to interfere too 14

much with private life. The spread of meetings across the entire week and decisive late evening meetings are generally considered to be practices to be avoided. Although there are practical matters to be resolved, such as the timetable preferences of MPs from distant constituencies, these measures would benefit not only MPs but also the administrative and technical staff who support the work of parliament. Developing day care facilities, for longer or shorter periods, are another useful measure. Some parliaments offer day care services for children, such as in Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden, and children can be left both for short or longer periods. While not free of charge (though subsidized which reduces the cost for parents) it is a helpful measure in assisting MPs and parliamentary staff to reconcile work and family responsibilities. In Germany, day care facilities are only available for parliamentary staff, not for MPs, unless there is space available. The German parliament also provides a parents-children room, meant for staff members with sick children who cannot attend day-care. Staff members can bring their children to the office and work in the parent-children room. Space for women s interests and concerns on the parliamentary agenda Creating space for women s interests and concerns on the parliamentary agenda requires not only knowledge on these matters, but also a sensitivity towards such matters and a recognition of their political importance and societal relevance. Of all dimensions, this is probably the most crucial inward oriented one of a gender-sensitive parliament. It builds directly on the idea that parliament has traditionally been a male institution, designed by and for men. Fostering an internal culture that promotes gender equality relates to the rules, practices, norms, and values within parliament that women and men who operate within that institution face, and which might make them feel at ease or not and be able to function efficiently and effectively or not. Fostering an internal culture that promotes gender equality might then, furthermore, also contribute to parliament developing more gender-sensitive legislation and policy. But the first target here is the modus operandi of parliament itself. The main aim consists in promoting a working environment and culture respecting and in favour of gender equality. To that end, it is necessary to evaluate the actual working culture, so as to assess an eventual gender bias and improve gender-sensitivity, with the aim of both sexes feeling at ease within the institution. The IPU (2008) developed an interesting tool which can serve these means, called a self-assessment toolkit for parliaments. The first aim of the toolkit consists in assessing how a parliament performs against the criteria for democratic parliaments. It looks into the degree of representativeness, the capacity for overseeing the executive, legislative capacity, parliament s accessibility, transparency, and accountability. As these are common features of contemporary democratic parliaments, the assessment of a number of these dimensions can definitely serve the purpose of enhancing gender- 15

sensitivity by adding a gender component to them. In the explanatory note on the self-assessment kit, the promotion of the gender-sensitivity of parliament is indeed put forward as one of the possible aims of such an assessment. The self-assessment kit also examines descriptive representation. Assessing legislative capacity, it helps to analyse the extent to which parliament ensures a gender equality perspective in its work. While not mentioned explicitly, this could easily be extended to questions on gender mainstreaming and gender budgeting. It also questions the extent to which prevailing practices, routines and mores allow both men and women MPs to express themselves. Again, this issue can be extended by assessing forms of address, speech, and interaction, commonly used language, parliamentary rituals, or dress code. It can also be extended to assessing an equal access to resources and facilities, and existing routines of information exchange and decision-making, which may include challenging the existence of old boys clubs. Finally, it can address the dominant culture and the extent to which it is (perceived as being) a male culture. This could include looking into the valuing of participatory versus hierarchic relations, competition and collaboration, openness, vulnerability, and how members of both sexes rate such norms influencing the working culture, which might imply possible prejudice towards women. A Swedish newspaper took a related initiative in 2005, sending a questionnaire to all women MPs on their working experience within parliament. The respondents reported amongst others feelings of invisibility, downplaying and being ridiculed, but also feelings of being excluded from important information they should normally have access to. Sexist attitudes and behaviour are other classics, such as judging women on their appearance to a different degree than men, addressing them in a different and less respectful manner than men, or sexist jokes. As a follow up to this report, guidelines were developed to enhance the gender-sensitivity of parliament, and a number of public events were held on this topic. Possible tools to increase the gender-sensitivity of the internal culture of parliament are codes of conduct, the development of communication policies, anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, applicable to both MPs and staff. While many European parliaments have a code of conduct, many are silent on stipulations to enhance the gender-sensitivity of parliament. Nonetheless, the existence of such codes of conduct should not make it too difficult to amend them so as to increase parliament s gender-sensitive potential. The National Women s Council of Ireland (2014), for example, identified a number of rules intended to promote a culture of respect and which could feature in a code of conduct. These rules target interruptions during debates; name calling; sexist, racist and other inappropriate jokes; inappropriate and/or unwanted touching; behaviour deemed to break equality legislation; anti-bullying stipulations; and guidelines on 16

behaviour inside and outside parliament, including on social media. The aim consists in fostering a work culture free of discrimination, inappropriate behaviour and harassment. Other possible tools are the development of anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, applicable to MPs and other staff, including the establishment of an independent body where complaints can be filed. Also interesting is gender awareness training, eventually for all members of parliament, but especially for those in leading positions, with the aim of developing capacity to detect and overcome a gender bias in setting behaviour and working conditions. The charter released by the Dutch parliament on Talent to the Top contains an interesting suggestion in this respect, namely the training of members of selection committees for top positions within parliament so as to make them aware of unknown gender biases. Finally, the development of media and communication policies can help ensure the use of gender-sensitive language, both in internal and external communication. In Iceland, the office of the parliament explains its gender equality policy in its introduction to new staff members and they are also mentioned in the manual for staff members. Next to working on such a broader framework, MPs and parliamentary staff might need to garner more capacity to develop a gender perspective across the parliamentary work so as to allow for women s issues to be brought to the table and to develop gender-sensitive policies. Importantly, capacity-building should address not only MPs, but parliamentary staff as well, especially where the latter are involved in the preparation of legislative and policy work. Capacity building includes both the offering of the required knowledge on gender issues as well as of the means to mainstream a gender (equality) perspective so as to develop gender-sensitive legislation and policies. The first issue might require training on gender issues and on the capacity to conduct gender based analysis of legal and other policy texts, both for MPs and staff members. Typical forms of gender based analysis are gender impact assessment or gender budgeting. Gender impact assessment was a tool developed so as to assess the potential impact of future policy initiatives (legislation, etc.) and eliminate unexpected gender bias. The underlying idea consists in correcting such a policy initiative so as to ensure that it has no gendered effects or the ones hoped for. It is to be applied in the policy developing phase (Verloo and Roggeband 1996). Gender budgeting also is a tool to apply during policy design. The aim is twofold: to assess the budget on the extent that public money is allocated to projects of interest to men respectively women, and to ensure that a sufficient part of the budget is earmarked for projects benefiting women and/or the promotion of gender equality. The second issue concerns the assignment of resources, such as a unit designed to conduct gender analysis, and the tools to do so (time, resources, tool kits, etc.). Gender-sensitive legislation 17

The development of a gender equality policy framework is in the first instance an outward oriented strategy, intended to develop a broader legal context for the promotion of gender equality within society through legislative and policy work by parliament and government. It is an important starting point for ensuring a gender-sensitive output of the work conducted within parliament. A gender equality policy framework contains a number of elements. One consists in the adoption of a legal foundation for the principle of gender equality and the government s or state s obligation to ensure its achievement. EU Member States have adopted such legal clauses, and the EU itself does so too, in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, which emphasises, among others, values common to the Member States such as equality between men and women. But there scope for further legal commitments in this regard. A second element of a gender equality policy framework is the adoption and implementation of national strategic policies and action plans. These consist of the development of a comprehensive gender equality policy plan that contains strategic objectives, concrete actions, the definition of the necessary means (financial and others) to realise these objectives, indicators to measure progress, and procedures that should allow for adjustment of the policies and actions where necessary. Again, the EU regularly produces such documents, such as the European Pact for Gender Equality (2011-2020) adopted by the European Council in March 2011. Member States too, are proactive in that regard - Spain, adopted an Equality Law in 2007, focusing on the right to employment, to political participation, and to a career in the public sector. The law lays the foundation for mandatory policies such as strategic equal opportunities plans and for gender impact reports on new national legislation and national policy plans. It also paves the way for positive actions in other fields such as the media and corporate governing boards. A third important element of a gender equality policy frame consists in adopting a legal framework for gender mainstreaming and gender budgeting. Both gender mainstreaming and gender budgeting need a broader legal framework that provides for their compulsory character if such tools are to be effective means to foster gender equality. Fourthly, where necessary, particular legislation in fields requiring the promotion of gender equality, such as salary policies, social security, pension rights, or gender-based violence, need to be adopted. The mainstreaming of gender equality throughout the work parliament is the second most important outward oriented strategy in the pursuit of a gender-sensitive legislation. It is the logical follow up of the development of a gender equality policy framework. While the latter provides for the legal framework and basic tools to develop gender-sensitive output, the pursuit of gender equality across legislative and other policy-making work conducted in parliament actually puts this framework into operation. Much has been written on how to put gender mainstreaming into 18