Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T01:04:18.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Elin Bjarnegård  and
Pär Zetterberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

political partiesgender quotasdominant-party statesTanzaniagender equalitycandidate selectionelectoral authoritarianism
Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 51 , Issue 3: Candidate Selection: Parties and Legislatures in a New Era , July 2016 , pp. 464 - 486
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: [email protected].

Pär Zetterberg is Associate Professor in the Department of Government at Uppsala University. Contact email: [email protected].

References

REFERENCES

Baldez, L. (2007), ‘Primaries vs. Quotas: Gender and Candidate Nominations in Mexico, 2003’, Latin American Politics and Society, 49(3): 69–96.Google 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).Google Scholar
Bjarnegård, E. and Zetterberg, P. (2011), ‘Removing Quotas, Maintaining Representation: Overcoming Gender Inequalities in Political Party Recruitment’, Representation, 47(2): 187–199.Google Scholar
Bjarnegård, E. and Zetterberg, P. (2016), ‘Political Parties and Gender Quota Implementation: The Role of Bureaucratized Candidate Selection Procedures’, Comparative Politics, 48(3).Google Scholar
Cheng, C. and Tavits, M. (2011), ‘Informal Influences in Selecting Female Political Candidates’, Political Research Quarterly, 64(2): 460–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlerup, D. (2007), ‘Electoral Gender Quotas: Between Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Result’, Representation, 43(2): 73–92.Google Scholar
Diamond, L. (2002), ‘Thinking About Hybrid Regimes’, Journal of Democracy, 13(2): 21–35.Google Scholar
Driscoll, A. and Krook, M.L. (2009), ‘Can There Be a Feminist Rational Choice Institutionalism?’, Politics and Gender, 5(2): 238–246.Google 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): 380–408.Google Scholar
Fjelde, H. (2010), ‘Generals, Dictators, and Kings: Authoritarian Regimes and Civil Conflict, 1973–2004’, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 27(3): 195–218.Google Scholar
Gandhi, J. and Przeworski, A. (2006), ‘Cooperation, Cooptation and Rebellion under Dictatorships’, Economics and Politics, 18(1): 1–26.Google Scholar
Greene, K.F. (2008), ‘Dominant Party Strategy and Democratization’, American Journal of Political Science, 52(1): 16–31.Google Scholar
Hazan, R.Y. and Rahat, G. (2010), Democracy within Parties. Candidate Selection Methods and Their Political Consequences (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Herbst, J. (2001), ‘Political Liberalization in Africa after Ten Years’, Comparative Politics, 33(3): 357–375.Google 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): 123–136.Google 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).Google 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): 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krook, M.L. (2007), ‘Candidate Gender Quotas: A Framework for Analysis’, European Journal of Political Science, 46(3): 367–394.Google Scholar
Krook, M.L. (2009), Quotas for Women in Politics: Gender and Candidate Selection Reform Worldwide (New York: Oxford University Press).Google 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): 655–677.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): 568–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, R. (2010), Parties, Gender Quotas and Candidate Selection in France (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).Google 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): 55–66.Google Scholar
Schedler, A. (2002), ‘The Menu of Manipulation’, Journal of Democracy, 13(2): 36–50.Google 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): 338–361.Google Scholar
Vandeleene, A. (2014), ‘Gender Quotas and “Women-Friendly” Candidate Selection: Evidence from Belgium’, Representation, 50(3): 337–349.Google 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): 67–79.Google Scholar
Yoon, M.Y. (2008), ‘Special Seats for Women in the National Legislature: The Case of Tanzania’, Africa Today, 55(1): 61–86.Google Scholar
Yoon, M.Y. (2013), ‘Special Seats for Women in Parliament and Democratization: The Case of Tanzania’, Women’s Study International Forum, 41: 143–149.Google Scholar