Life's a party

FEATURES Life's a Party Do Political Parties Help or Hinder Women? KIRA SANBONMATSU When we think about the scarcityof female politicians, social andcultural explanations usuallycome to mind. We think aboutthe constraints of traditional gender roles, inequalities in women's socioeconomic status, and the dearth of women candidates. In other words, we tend to think about candidate supply. In doing so, we often neglect the demand for women candidates. But we need to ask: are political parties recruiting, nominating, and supporting women candidates? Because of their role in candidate selection, parties are crucial to women's election to office. Parties are particu- larly important in closed-list proportional representation systems. But parties matter even in countries with com- paratively weak political parties such as the United States. A focus on the United States is instructive for this reason. The existence of primaries in the United States can curtail a party's ability to control the nomination, particularly if the party remains neutral during the primary contest. Yet even in the United States, parties recruit and endorse KIRA SANBONMATSU is Senior Scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) at the Eagleton Institute of Politics and Associate Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University. candidates and discourage candidates from running. Too often, political parties have been an obstacle that women must overcome. But the US case suggests that women's organizations and movements, women leaders, and women voters are the keys to making parties a help rather than a hindrance to women's representation. Women and Political Parties in the United States The feminist scholar Jo Freeman has characterized women's inclusion in US parties as a long struggle for recognition—a story not unlike that of women around the w orld. Historically, the major parries were obstacles to women's advancement in US politics. The opposition oí hntli the major parties—the Republicans and Democrats— H A R V A R D I N T E R N A T I O N A L R E V I E W •Spr ing2( ) ] ( ) FEATURES m women's suffrage helps explain why the fight for suffrage was such a long one. Women's rights activists called for the vote in 1848, and over the next half century, women were gradually able to win voting rights in some states. But it would not be until 1920 that women as a class would nchieve the vote. On the eve of women's enfranchisement, lïoth parties became interested in winning women's votes ;uid worked to incorporate women into party committees, lîut neither party sought to elect women to office, and women did not wield significant influence within either part)'. Through much of the 20th century, women candi- dates were often sacrificial lambs: they won part}'support lor races the party was likely to lose. Ibday, the electoral competitiveness of women can- didates in legislative elections arguably means that the parties are no longer averse to fielding women candidates, liarbara Burrell of tbe University of Northern Illinois contends that the parues have been very supportive of women candidates and proposes that strengthening the political parties would improve women's representation. Nonetheless, women's numerical representation in US polities lags behind comparable democracies. Data from the Center tor American Women and Pohdcs (CAWP) at the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University shows that women constitute less than one-quarter of all state legislators and only 17 percent of members of Con- gress. In recent years, the presence of women in elective office has stagnated. Moreover, the ability of women to win office appears to depend on geography. CAW-T's data shows that women arc nearly 40 percent of state legislators in some states. In other states, though, women are fewer than 10 percent. If women are reaching office—or not reaching office—we need to look at the role of parties to help us understand why. WTiy were women 54 percent of voters in the 2008 elections but only 24 percent of state legislators? New CAWP Report on U.S. State Legislators We recently conducted a survey of state legislators from alt 50 states in order to understand the flagging numbers of female elected officials. Our strategy was to leiirn irtim the women who have been successful in order to understand how women reach office. We focused on stales because there are far more women serving in state legislatures than in Congress and because state legislators often go on to seek statewide and federal office. Indeed, about halt of the women members of Congress previously served in state legislatures. The results of our study, available in our new CAWP report titled Poised to Run: Women's Pathirays to the State I.egislariires, find that it is critical that women attract the support of their political parties in order to be successful. We tind that most women and men reach the legislatures with party support; state legislators do not usually attain office with even partial party leader opposition to their can- didacies. Moreover, parties appear to be more important lo women's election than to men's. Women legislators are much more likely than their male colleagues to have run for office the ver\' first time because they were recniited and much less likely to be self-starters who said that the decision to run was entirely their idea. Both women and men identified a part)' leader as the single most influential source of recruitment for this very first candidacy. VV^e also find that women legislators were more likely than men to say that recruitment was the primary reason they sought their current state legislative office. For example, 24 per- cent of women state representatives, but only 15 percent of their male colleagues, said the single most important reason they sought tlieir seat was recruitment by a party leader or elected official. Thus, on the one hand, it seems that parties help women candidates. The fact that a larger proportion of female than male legislators serve because they were re- cruited by the party suggests that parties are the solution t(j increasing women's candidacies. Women legislators are simply much less likely than men to have planned to run for office, and far fewer of these women would probably be in state legislatures today were it not for the encourage- ment of party leaders. The historical un der-representa don of women in politics helps explain why women are less likely to decide to run on their own. On the importance of recruitment, one female legislator explained, "I think women desire to serve, have a heart to ser\'e, but...some- times they may need that little extra push." On the other hand, however, the mere fact of wom- en's numerical under-representation suggests that parties are insufficiently supportive of women cantlidates. Both parties could expand their efforts to recruit women. The Former US Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin hugs her sonTrig following a speech. After her nomination, each ma- jor US party has nominated one woman for national office. Photos Courtesy Reuters S p r i n g 2 ( ) I O « H A R V A R D I N T E R N A T I O N A 1 . R F V i K W FEATURES low numbers of women in party leadership positions are part of the problem. As one female legislator explained to us, "I think it takes women in the legislative leadership who are doing the recruiting to put a special effort into finding women candidates. And I think when women aren't in leadership, that is a lot less likely to happen." Women were more likely than men to identify the party as an important factor in their decision to run for the legislature, which may reflect the larger role that recniit- ment plays in women's candidacies. But this difference in perceptions may indicate the potential problems that par- ties pose tor women. Perhaps women are more reluctant than men to run without party support. Wnile parties can encourage women to seek office who may never previously have thought about running, parties also actively discourage certain candidates from running. In our study, more women than men report that somei)ne tried to discourage them the very first time they sought elective office (32 percent of women state representatives compared with 25 percent of their male colleagues). Among both women and men who received attempts to discourage their candidacies, a party leader was the single most common source of discouragement. The women and men in our study were strong enough to persevere; after all, they serve in the legislatures today. But there may be many potential candidates, including women, who did not become candidates because they were dissuaded from running. Democrats and Republicans Throughout our report, we compare Democratic and Republican women. The voter-based gender gap—in which women are more likely than men to vote Demo- cratic—often attracts attention. But the gender gap in A spirited supporter of Barack Obama cheers for him at a campaign rally in Colo- rado in 2008. Greater recognition of the electoral imperative of attracting female voters has increased the women's leverage in gaining support from politcial parties. partisanship among legislators is even greater than the gender gap among voters. Indeed, CAWP's data reveals a growing gap between patterns in Democratic women's and Republican women's officeholding. Democratic women outnumber Republicans two to one in state legislatures: only 518 Republican women compared with 1,265 Demo- cratic women currently serve in the state legislatures. Over time, women have become a greater share of Democratic legislators whereas women are a declining share of Re- publican legislators. Today, women are 31 percent of Democratic legislators but only 16 percent of Republican state legislators. In Congress, only 21 Republican women compared to 69 Democratic women serve, meaning that Democratic women outnumber Republicans three to one. In the CAWP study, we find tliat the role of parties was similar for women state legislators across the two major parties. Recruitment played a larger role in the candidacies of both Democratic and Republican women compared with their male colleagues. We argue, though, that organizational connections differ across the two groups of women. We find that women state legislators of both parties vt-ere more likely than their male colleagues to be a member of a women's organization. But we find that Democratic women were more likely to be members of a women's organization than Republican women. This difference suggests that Democratic women appear to have more organizational sources of support than do Republican women. It is not uncommon for feminist movements to be more identified with political parties on the left. Organized feminism in the United States is more closely aligned with the Democratic party today, although for most of the 20th century it was the Republican party that was more sup- portive of women's rights. Currently, the United States is served by its very first female Speaker of the House of Repre- sentatives, Nancy Pelosi, who is a Democrat. But women's status in politics does not always map neatly on part\' lines. After all, in 2008 it was on the Republi- can general election presidential ticket that a woman—Sarah Palin—appeared, rather than on the Democratic ticket—meaning that both parties had nominated a woman for vice president ex- actly once, with the Democrats unsuccessfully nominating Gér- aldine Ferraro in 1984. Neither major party has ever nominated a woman for president and it remains uncommon for women to hold leadership roles in eitlier party. H A R \ ' A R D I N T R R N A T I O N A L R E V I E W • Spring 2010 FEATURES Prospects for Change? Cross-national work by scholars such as Mild Caul Ivittilson, Sheri Kunovich, Mona Lena Krook, Pamela Paxton, and Lisa Young sheds further light on how wom- en's representation may change in the future. Research on political parties in comparative studies has often focused on quotas because of the increase in the use of quotas iiround the world, including party quotas. The nature and effectiveness of gender quotas vary substantially, but the use of quotas has definitely increased and women have sought quotas to combat discriminator;' candidate selec- tion practices. Once one party adopts a gender quota, otiier parties in the politieal system may follow suit, or statutes may mandate that parties field a certain proportion of women candidates. Rules can also dictate where women candidates will be placed on party lists. In the US case as well as comparatively, women's orga- nizations and movements, women leaders, and women vot- support is EMILVs List, a pro-choice women's political action committee. EMILY's List, which is associated with die Democratic party but is not formally part of the party structure, has been credited with the gains of women in Congress. Although Republican women have formed a counterpart to EMILY's List, called WISH List, it simply lacks the same resources and support because the Repub- lican part}' is largely pro-life. Finally, women voters can lead to party interest in fielding women. The electoral imperative of attracting women voters can increase the leverage of women's groups who seek to promote women's descriptive representation. Sometimes female politicians are aided by voters' stereo- tyjies. Eor example, the stereotype that female politicians are more honest than men can produce opportunities for women. Women's faces may reassure voters in the face of political corruption, helping parties recover from scandals. Part)' competition can boost women candidates, par- "Party leaders, who tend to be male, look to whom they know when they recruit candidates. Doubts about women's electability can also reduce the likelihood that a party will field women candidates." ers seem to be the key ingredients to making parties a help rather than a hindrance to women's representation. First, women leaders often drive party receptivity to women candidates and officeholders. Candidate recruitment by US parties typically focuses on competitive races. The par- ties' campaign committees may field candidates in primary contests and direct resources to preferred candidates. Such processes do not inherently put women at a disadvantage; women may even be the favored candidate in some cases. iiut my research on women's representation across the US states shows that party strength is usually negatively I elated to women's candidacies and officeholding. Thus, strong parties can be good for women because strong par- ties have the resources to identity women candidates. But strong parties can play the opposite role. The problem is that candidate recruitment is selective. Party leaders, who tend to be male, look to whom they know when they recruit candidates. Doubts about women's elcctabihty can iilso reduce the likelihood tliat a party will field women candidates. The slogan "When women nm, women win" is ;i popular one in die United States, where women's success rates are similar to men's. But my research has found that not all party leaders agree that women win. Instead, beliefs ;!bf)ut women's electability vary across states and districts. Second and closely related to the significance of wom- en leaders is the larger context of women's gender-based organizing within parties and outside parties. Miki Caul Ivittilson has found that women in the party grassroots can create bottom-up pressure for women's advancement. in die United States, one important source ot candidate ticularly if women's votes are desired. But competition can have the opposite effect. Important contests may reduce party leader incentives to field nontraditional candidates such as women if leaders fear that women candidates will appeal to fewer voters. The content of voter stereotypes, the beliefs ot party leaders, and the electoral context all shape party interest in women candidates. Stereotypes about the political parties also vary and interact with gender stereotypes. For example, the research I have conducted with Kathleen Dolan reveals that US voters hold gender stereotypes about women in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Stereotypes may pose more hurdles for Republican women, however, because the perceived liberal ideology of Republican women puts them at odds with the conservative base of their party. Conclusion Aldiough we often overlook parties in our discussions about women politicians, parties affect women's status in politics in important ways. Women have worked with— and sometimes around—their parties in order to enhance women's representation. While they have often been loyal party workers, they have also transformed their parties by advocating for women voters and women leaders, by call- ing for new party rules, and by seeking office themselves. Were women's access and influence within party politics to increase, and were parties to expand their com- mitment to recruit and nominate women candidates, the presence of women in prolitics would increase worldwide. Ill S p r i n g : 0 1 ( ) « I I A R V A R D I N T E R N A T I O N A L R E V I E W Copyright of Harvard International Review is the property of Harvard International Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.