Women's Representation in the Canadian Parliament
By María Pedernal
Women are less likely than men to run for parliament for a number of reasons. As Canada's Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing (known also as the "Lortie Commission"[1]) reported in 1991, some of the barriers to women's participation "relate to broad social phenomena … [which] do not lend themselves to solutions by institutional or legal reform of the electoral system[2] ".
For instances, women still hold a disproportionate share of the household and family responsibilities and, on average, have lower incomes (and hence less financial independence) than men. In addition, societies may have pushed them to understand that for women, politics are an unsuitable or undesirable vocation.
An American study[3] suggested that women were more than twice as likely as men to believe that they were not qualified to run for office, even when the candidates of both genders possessed similar qualifications.
When more women candidates run for office, more women are elected to office. Parties that have a greater proportion of women candidates tend to have a higher proportion of women in their caucuses. It is only logic: the higher the sample, the higher the possibilities to find the elected result.
Still, the past decade has been discouraging for female parliamentarians: since the astounding increase between 1970 and 1993, there has been no improvement of women's representation in Canada.
The major hurdle for women in Canada appears to be at the party level rather than at the polls. As it turns out, women running for office in Canada are only slightly less likely than men to be elected. The 64 women elected in January 2006 represented 17% of all women candidates running for office in that election, only slightly lower than the 19% success rate for male candidates.
Sylvia Bashevkin[4] found that despite extensive involvement in political parties, women were substantially underrepresented in Canadian political party elites, and that the pattern of underrepresentation was all the more accentuated in political parties that were highly electorally competitive. In other words, the closer one came to political power, the fewer women there were to be found.
Bashevkin's research conjectured the presence of what she called a "pink-collar ghetto" within parties, since women's participation was set at traditional roles like secretary of the riding association. In more influential positions, such as riding association[5] president, campaign manager or candidate, however, women remained widely underrepresented.
But still, can we voice that Canadian voters discriminate female candidates?
Female candidates receive fewer votes, on average, than male candidates do, as Black and Erickson's study[6] of voting in the 1993 elections proved; however, once the authors controlled for constituency characteristics, they found that female candidates received more votes than similarly situated male candidates, suggesting that being female offered these candidates a slight electoral advantage.
Hence, we cannot establish that, indeed, Canadian voters are the main cause of the misrepresentation of women in the national parliament.
If the electorate is not actively discriminating against women candidates, why there aren't more women being elected?
It is commonly held that changes to the electoral system may help boost the representation of women in parliament. Countries that rely exclusively on the "first-past-the-post" electoral system (or plurality systems) as Canada does, consistently have lower levels of representation of women.
This may be caused due to "political finance": if there are consistent gender differences in the ability to raise campaign funds, we would expect to find them at the nomination or primary election stage, rather than in the general election, because individuals are generally running without the financial endorsement of their political party. This forces the candidates to rely more heavily on personal networks for soliciting campaign support, rather than drawing on their party's financial backers. If in fact women are disadvantaged in some way in their ability to raise funds, it would consequently be more likely to be evident at this stage.
In the 2004 election we find some evidence supporting the proposition that female candidates face financial obstacles, although the evidence is not overwhelming. Money remains an obstacle for at least some women entering the political arena, but for those who are successful, it appears not to pose a problem.
Overall, then, there is little reason to believe that unequal access to campaign funds has posed a barrier to women's election in Canada in recent years. To the extent that it has, recent reforms have enriched public funding to political parties and candidates and imposed spending limits on nomination contests should eliminate any residual barriers.
One of the most consistent findings about women's representation in legislative bodies is that the electoral system matters considerably:
Plurality systems make it more difficult for women to be elected as there can only be one winning candidate per district, and so it is unlikely for parties to take away seats form popular (male) incumbents and give them to an average amount of well-prepared female candidates.
Proportional representation improves women's chances of election, because it creates a positive sum game in which both male and female candidates from the same party can win seats in a given electoral district, considering that both candidates hold a high position on the party's list.
While the Canadian electorate appears equally likely to elect men and women candidates, women still represent a minority of candidates in federal elections.
Measures proposed to address this imbalance include: education and mentoring activities to increase interest in political office among women, voluntary or mandatory changes to how candidates are selected, a re-examination of Canada's electoral system, and changes to make Parliament a more welcoming work environment for women.
[1] Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing or RCERPF, also known as the Lortie Commission, was a Royal Commission established to investigate changes to Canadian election laws defined in the Canada Elections Act appointed by the federal government in 1989.
[2] COOL, Julie (2010, 14 July). "Women in Parliament". Library of Parliament, Background Paper. Social Affairs Division, p. 3.
[3] LAWLESS, Jennifer and FOX, L. Richard (2005). "It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office". Cambridge University Press, p. 98.
[4] BASHEVKIN, Sylvia is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto. "Toeing the Lines: Women and Party Politics in English Canada". Oxford University Press, 1993.
[5] Also known as electoral district association is the basic unit of the party at the level of the electoral district.
[6] BLACK, Jerome and ERICKSON, Lynda (2002). "Women Candidates and Voter Bias: Do Women Politicians Need to be Better?". Electoral Studies, 22, p. 81-100.
