You are sick. You are prescribed a medication. It has no effect. You remain sick. Then you are prescribed the same medication again. Would you take it? This is what traditional politics keeps trying to do to get more women into political positions.
With municipal elections approaching, the concern for female representation in politics is once again gaining prominence. Recently, W.Lab, a collaboration between the Locomotiva and Ideia institutes, released a study highlighting gender disparity in the job market. This week, during a live discussion about women’s participation in politics with the study’s authors, the debate resurfaced around a proposal by former senator Simone Tebet, suggesting a 30% quota for women in party structures. The logic is the same as the quotas required for electoral lists discussed in a previous article.
We’ve seen this movie before. That’s why I ask again: is this the best solution to bring more women into decision-making spaces? This is yet another top-down action attempting to solve an extremely complex problem with what seems like a simple measure. Almost simplistic. It is obvious that we need women in politics. That is not in question. But would another quota, now within party structures, guarantee them decision-making power and influence? I believe this needs to be done in a genuine way, not just as a decorative measure.
The live discussion, the research, and Tebet’s proposal are correct in concluding that politics is conducted within party structures. This precedes any election, especially when forming proportional candidate lists. It’s worth noting the “fish theory” in political science, which likens a party list to a fish, consisting of the head, body, and tail. If a municipal seat requires 20,000 votes, and the party aims to get 100,000 votes, the party assumes it needs to win 5 seats. With this in mind, the party constructs its list, placing the 5 most competitive candidates at the “head of the list” to be favored with resources, TV time, and event space. The body of the fish is made up of candidates who, while receiving a reasonable number of votes, have few resources and merely boost the head of the list. Finally, the tail of the fish consists of those who enter just to fill the quota or meet electoral requirements, receiving almost no resources and getting very few votes. This is where the “pity candidates” come in. Many women fall into this scenario. “Oh, but there are quotas for women’s electoral funds.” Yes, there are. And they receive them and then pay for the campaigns of male candidates, typically those in the “head of the list” category.
Does the quota system work? Why would it work differently at the party level compared to electoral pity candidates? It’s not enough to have a pen in hand and a name on the board if decision-making power remains with the same individuals. If female presence in positions becomes an obligation, without a genuine desire from parties to include them in decision-making, we will see wives, daughters, nieces, and relatives serving as pity candidates. What Brazilian politics really needs are women contributing ideas and developing strategies with their parties to effectively integrate into the system. Either we change the system, or quotas and more quotas will act as a placebo.
Of course, we are dealing with a long-term process. But it is essential that the transformation occurs from outside the system, meaning with constant societal pressure. “Oh, but without quotas, this is utopia!” No! It is a matter of party will, commitment, and values. In Luziânia, Goiás, the municipal directory of the Novo party is composed entirely of women. Another example from the right: the same party elected an all-female bench in Curitiba in 2020.
If we want to cure the Brazilian political system, we need to change the remedy. The ones used so far have not had the necessary impact. On the contrary: the given remedy hides the symptoms, makes the patient think they are improving, and all is just a great illusion. The end, we all know.