Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:29:52.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Engendering the ‘Crisis of Democracy’: Institutions, Representation and Participation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2015

Georgina Waylen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many democracies are widely perceived to be suffering a serious crisis of representation, participation and legitimacy. As part of this ‘crisis’, the male domination of democracy – both in terms of its institutions and who participates – has been identified as problematic, even emblematic, of a more generalized democratic crisis. Increasing the participation of women is advocated as one solution. Using examples drawn from both long-standing and newer democracies (parliamentary and presidential), particularly from Europe and Latin America, this article explores the gender dynamics of the ‘crisis of democracy’. The ‘crisis’ has two gendered aspects. First, and paradoxically, although democracy still privileges predominantly white, elite, heterosexual, men, more women now participate in democratic institutions, leading to claims that the ‘male monopoly’ has ended (Dahlerup and Leyenaar 2013). Second, the ‘crisis of democracy’ may provide opportunities to further enhance women’s participation, as the demands of those favouring greater gender equality and those looking for solutions to the ‘crisis’ appear to coincide.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 50 , Special Issue 3: 50th Anniversary Special Issue THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY , July 2015 , pp. 495 - 520
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2015.

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

*

Georgina Waylen is Professor of Politics at the University of Manchester. Contact email: georgina.waylen@manchester.ac.uk.

References

Agerberg, M., Sundstrom, A. and Wangnerud, L. (2014), ‘Why Regime Type Affects the Link between Gender and Corruption’, paper presented at the IPSA Congress, Montreal, July.Google Scholar
Alexander, A. and Jalalzai, F. (2014), ‘The Symbolic Effects of Female Heads of State and Government’, paper presented to the APSA Annual Meeting, Washington, August.Google Scholar
Allen, P., Cutts, D. and Campbell, R. (2014), ‘Measuring the Quality of Politicians Elected by Gender Quotas – Are They Any Different?’, Political Studies, published early online, September, doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12161.Google Scholar
Ashcroft, P. (2014), ‘Post-Referendum Scotland Poll’, Lord Ashcroft Polls, 18–19 September, www.lordashcroftpolls.com.Google Scholar
Beckwith, K. (2014), ‘From Party Leader to Prime Minister?: Gender and Leadership Contests in Western Europe’, paper presented at ECPR Joint Sessions, Salamanca, Spain, April.Google Scholar
Besley, T., Folke, O., Persson, T. and Rickne, J. (2013), ‘Gender Quotas and the Crisis of the Mediocre Man: Theory and Evidence from Sweden’, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Bjarnegård, E. (2013), Gender, Informal Institutions and Political Recruitment (Basingstoke: Palgrave).Google Scholar
Campbell, B. (2014), End of Equality (London: Seagull Books).Google Scholar
Caul, M. (1999), ‘Women’s Representation in Parliament: The Role of Political Parties’, Party Politics, 5(1): 79–98.Google Scholar
Chappell, L. (2014), ‘Newness, Oldness and Gender Justice Outcomes: A View from the International Criminal Court’, Politics and Gender, 10(4): 572–594.Google Scholar
Chappell, L. and Waylen, G. (2013), ‘Gender and the Hidden Life of Institutions’, Public Administration, 91(3): 599–615.Google Scholar
Childs, S. and Krook, M.L. (2009), ‘Analysing Women’s Substantive Representation: From Critical Mass to Critical Actors’, Government and Opposition, 44(2): 125–145.Google Scholar
Childs, S. and Lovenduski, J. (2013), ‘Political Representation’, in G. Waylen, K. Celis, J. Kantola and L. Weldon (eds), Oxford Handbook on Gender and Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 489–513.Google Scholar
Curtin, J., Kerby, M. and Dowding, K. (2014), ‘Gender and Promotion in the Executive: Cabinet Careers in the World of Westminster’, paper presented at ECPR Joint Sessions, Salamanca, Spain, April.Google Scholar
Dahlerup, D. (2006) (ed.), Women, Quotas and Politics (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
Dahlerup, D. and Leyenaar, M. (2013), Breaking Male Dominance in Old Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Dahlerup, D. and Norris, P. (2014), ‘On the Fast Track: Why Gender Quota Laws Spread around the World’, paper presented to the APSA Annual Meeting, Washington, August.Google Scholar
Dalton, R. (2004), Democratic Challenges. Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
The Economist (2014), ‘What’s Gone Wrong with Democracy’, The Economist, 1 March.Google Scholar
Elshtain, J. (1981), Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social and Political Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Encarnación, O. (2014), ‘Gay Rights: Why Democracy Matters’, Journal of Democracy, 25(3): 90–103.Google Scholar
Escobar, M. and Taylor Robinson, M. (2014), ‘It’s All in the Resume: Comparing the Credentials and Political Capital Resources of Men and Women in Presidential Cabinets’, paper presented at ECPR Joint Sessions, Salamanca, Spain, April.Google Scholar
Fortin-Rittberger, J. and Rittberger, B. (2014), ‘Descriptive Representation in the European Parliament’, paper presented to the APSA Annual Meeting, Washington, August.Google Scholar
Franceschet, S. and Piscopo, J.M. (2008), ‘Gender Quotas and Women’s Substantive Representation: Lessons from Argentina’, Politics and Gender, 4(3): 393–425.Google Scholar
Franceschet, S. and Thomas, G. (2011), ‘Gender and Executive Office: Analysing Parity Cabinets in Chile and Spain’, paper presented to ECPR General Conference, Reykjavik.Google Scholar
Franceschet, S., Krook, M.L. and Piscopo, J. (2012) (eds), The Impact of Gender Quotas: Women’s Descriptive, Substantive and Symbolic Representation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Franceschet, S., Piscopo, J. and Thomas, G. (2013), ‘Super Madres’, paper presented to the APSA Annual Meeting, Chicago, August.Google Scholar
Helmke, G. and Levitsky, S. (2004), ‘Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda’, Perspectives on Politics, 2(4): 725–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinojosa, M. (2012), Selecting Women, Electing Women: Political Representation and Candidate Selection in Latin America (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press).Google Scholar
Htun, M. and Weldon, L. (2010), ‘When Do Governments Promote Women’s Rights? A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Sex Equality Policy’, Perspectives on Politics, 8(1): 207–216.Google Scholar
Huntington, S. (1991), The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press).Google Scholar
Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) (2014), ‘Women in National Parliaments Database’, 1 December, www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm.Google Scholar
Jalalzai, F. (2013), Shattered, Cracked or Firmly Intact? Women and the Executive Glass Ceiling Worldwide (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, M. (2013), Gender and Political Recruitment: Theorizing Institutional Change (Basingstoke: Palgrave).Google Scholar
Krook, M.L. (2009), Quotas for Women in Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Krook, M.L. and Mackay, F. (2011) (eds), Gender, Politics, and Institutions: Toward a Feminist Institutionalism (Basingstoke: Palgrave).Google Scholar
Krook, M.L. and O’Brien, D. (2012), ‘All the President’s Men? The Appointment of Female Cabinet Ministers Worldwide’, Journal of Politics, 74(3): 840–855.Google Scholar
Krook, M.L. and Restrepo-Sanis, J. (2014), ‘Violence Against Women in Politics: Concepts and Policy Solutions’, paper presented to the APSA Annual Meeting, Washington, August.Google Scholar
Lawless, J. and Fox, R. (2010), It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Lovenduski, J. and Norris, P. (1993) (eds), Gender and Party Politics (London: Sage).Google Scholar
Mackay, F. (2014), ‘Remembering the Old, Forgetting the New: “Nested Newness” and the Limits of Gendered Institutional Change’, Politics and Gender, 10(4): 459–471.Google Scholar
Mueller-Rommel, F., Kubbe, I. and Vercesi, M. (2014), ‘How Women Become Prime Minister in Europe’, paper presented at ECPR Joint Sessions, Salamanca, Spain, April.Google Scholar
Murray, R. (2014), ‘Quotas for Men: Reframing Gender Quotas as a Means of Improving Representation for All’, American Political Science Review, 108(3): 520–532.Google Scholar
Norris, P. (1991), ‘Gender Differences in Political Participation in Britain: Traditional, Radical and Revisionist Models’, Government and Opposition, 26(1): 56–74.Google Scholar
O’Brien, D. (2014), ‘Rising to the Top: Gender, Political Performance, and Party Leadership in Parliamentary Democracies’, paper presented at ECPR Joint Sessions, Salamanca, Spain, April.Google Scholar
O’Brien, D. and Savigny, H. (2014), ‘Female Politicians in the British Press’, Journalism Education, 3(1): 6–27.Google Scholar
Pateman, C. (1983a), Feminist Critiques of the Public/Private Dichotomy’, in S. Benn and G. Gaus (eds), The Public and Private in Social Life (London: Croom Helm): 281–303.Google Scholar
Pateman, C. (1983b), Feminism and Democracy’, in G. Duncan (ed.), Democratic Theory and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 204–217.Google Scholar
Pateman, C. (1989), The Sexual Contract (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).Google Scholar
Paxton, P. (2000), ‘Women’s Suffrage in the Measurement of Democracy: Problems of Operationalization’, Studies in Comparative International Development, 35: 92–111.Google Scholar
Phillips, A. (1991), Engendering Democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
Phillips, A. (1992), ‘Must Feminists Give up on Liberal Democracy’, Political Studies, 40(1): 68–82.Google Scholar
Phillips, A. (1993), Democracy and Difference (Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
Prugl, E. (2012), ‘“If Lehmann Brothers Had Been Lehmann Sisters ...” Gender and Myth in the Aftermath of the Financial Crisis’, International Political Sociology, 6: 21–35.Google Scholar
Randall, V. (1982), Women and Politics (Basingstoke: Macmillan).Google Scholar
Reyes-Householder, C. and Schwindt-Bayer, L. (2014), ‘The Presence of Presidentas: Consequences for Political Attitudes and Participation’, paper presented to the APSA Annual Meeting, Washington, August.Google Scholar
Rueschmeyer, D., Stephens, E.H. and Stephens, J.D. (1992), Capitalist Development and Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, L. (2010), Political Power and Women’s Representation in Latin America (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, L. and Wiesehemeier, N. (2014), ‘Selecting and Electing Women in Spain’, paper presented to the APSA Annual Meeting, Washington, August.Google Scholar
Siim, B. (2013), ‘Citizenship’, in G. Waylen, K. Celis, J. Kantola and L. Weldon (eds), Oxford Handbook on Gender and Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 756–780.Google Scholar
Staab, S. and Waylen, G. (2014), ‘Gender, Politics and Institutions in Bachelet’s Chile’, paper presented at ECPR Joint Sessions, Salamanca, April.Google Scholar
Stetson, D., Mazur, A. (1995) (eds), Comparative State Feminism (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).Google Scholar
Swers, M. (2002), The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swers, M. (2013), Women in the Club: Gender and Policy Making in the Senate (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Tripp, A.M. (2013a), Political Systems and Gender’, in G. Waylen, K. Celis, J. Kantola and L. Weldon (eds), Oxford Handbook on Gender and Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 514–535.Google Scholar
Tripp, A.M. (2013b), ‘Women’s Movements and Constitution Making after Civil War and Violent Upheaval in Africa’, paper presented at Gendering New Institutions Workshop, Manchester, November.Google Scholar
Waylen, G. (1994), ‘Women and Democratization: Conceptualizing Gender Relations in Transition Politics’, World Politics, 46(3): 327–354.Google Scholar
Waylen, G. (1998), ‘Gender, Feminism and the State’, in V. Randall and G. Waylen (eds), Gender, Politics and the State (London: Routledge): 1–17.Google Scholar
Waylen, G. (2000), ‘Gender and Democratic Politics: A Comparative Analysis of Argentina and Chile’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 32(3): 765–793.Google Scholar
Waylen, G. (2007), Engendering Transitions: Women’s Mobilization, Institutions and Gender Outcomes (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Waylen, G. (2008), ‘Transforming Global Governance: Challenges and Opportunities’, in S. Rai and G. Waylen (eds), Global Governance: Feminist Perspectives (Basingstoke: Palgrave): 254–275.Google Scholar
Waylen, G. (2014a), Informal Institutions, Institutional Change and Gender Equality’, Political Research Quarterly, 67(1): 212–223.Google Scholar
Waylen, G. (2014b), ‘A Seat at the Table – Is it Enough? Gender and Multiparty Negotiations in South Africa and Northern Ireland’, Politics and Gender, 10(4): 495–523.Google Scholar
Waylen, G., Celis, K., Kantola, J. and Weldon, L. (2013) (eds), Oxford Handbook on Gender and Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Young, I.M. (1990), Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar