Women in Mexican Subnational Legislatures: From Descriptive to Substantive Representation (Latin American Societies) 3030940772, 9783030940775

Citation preview

Latin American Societies Current Challenges in Social Sciences

Flavia Freidenberg Karolina Gilas Sebastián Garrido de Sierra Camilo Saavedra Herrera

Women in Mexican Subnational Legislatures From Descriptive to Substantive Representation

Latin American Societies Current Challenges in Social Sciences Series Editors Adrián Albala, Institute of Political Science (IPOL) University of Brasília, Brasilia, Brasília, Brazil María José Álvarez Rivadulla, School of Social Sciences Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia Alejandro Natal, Department of Social Processes Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Lerma de Villada,  Estado de México, Mexico

This series aims at presenting to the international community original contributions by scholars working on Latin America. Such contributions will address the challenges that Latin American societies currently face as well as the ways they deal with these challenges. The series will be methodologically agnostic, that is: it welcomes case studies, small-N comparative studies or studies covering the whole region, as well as studies using qualitative or quantitative data (or a mix of both), as long as they are empirically rigorous and based on high-quality research. Besides exploring Latin American challenges, the series attempts to provide concepts, findings and theories that may shed light on other regions. The series will focus on seven axes of challenges: 1) Classes and inequalities The first set of challenges revolves around the creation and distribution of symbolic and material rewards across social groups and their crystallization in stratification systems. How have social classes changed in Latin America? Which are the causes and consequences of the growth of middle classes with considerable education levels which nonetheless remain vulnerable to falling into poverty due to economic crises? Why has poverty declined but inequality remained persistently high? Moving to other kinds of inequalities, have the gaps in rewards between men and women and between ethnic groups changed, and do they vary across countries? Which are the territorial expressions of inequality, and how do they affect access to housing and the formation of lower-class ghettoes? 2) Crime, security and violence The second set of challenges stem from the persistence of violence and insecurity among Latin Americans, which consistently rank crime and insecurity at the top of their biggest problems. Crime organizations – from youth gangs to drug cartels – have grown and became more professionalized, displacing state forces in considerable chunks of national territories and, in some cases, penetrating the political class through illegal campaign funding and bribes. To this we should add, in some countries of the region, the persistence of armed insurgents fighting against governmental forces and paramilitaries, therefore creating cross-fires that threaten the lives of civilians. This results in massive human rights violations  – most of which remain in impunity – and forced population displacements. 3) Environmental threats A third challenge is related to the sources and consequences of environmental change – especially human-related change. These consequences threaten not only Latin American’s material reproduction (e. g. by threatening water and food sources) but also deeply ingrained cultural practices and lifestyles. How do existing models of economic development affect the natural environment? What are their social consequences? How have governments and communities faced these challenges? Are there viable and desirable alternatives to economic extractivism? What are the environmental prospects of Latin America for the next few decades and which are their social implications?

4) Collective action A fourth theme has to do with how collective actors  – social movements, civil society organizations, and quasi-organized groups – deal with these challenges (and others). How have labor, indigenous, student, or women’s movements adapted to environmental, economic and political changes? To what extent have they been able to shape the contours of their issue areas? Have they been successful in fighting inequality, patriarchy, or racism? Have they improved the lives of their constituencies? Why under some circumstances does collective action radicalizes both in tactics and goals? We welcome studies on a wide array of collective actors working on different issues, with different tactics, and diverse ideological stances. 5) Cultural change and resistance Culture – the understandings, symbols, and rituals that shape our quotidian – has never been static in Latin America, but modernization processes have affected it in complex ways. How has religion, lifestyles and values changed under market reforms and democratization processes? How multicultural are Latin American societies, and how they deal with the potential tensions derived from multiculturalism? Which are the causes and consequences of the decline in influence of the Catholic church, the awakening of new religious identities, and the growing sector of non-­ religious Latin Americans? How are new digital technologies and global consumption patterns shaping Latin Americans’ norms and beliefs about race, gender, and social classes? Are Latin Americans becoming “post-materialist”, and if so, why? 6) Migrations Political, economic, and environmental crises, as well as promises of better opportunities in other lands, have encouraged Latin Americans to migrate within their national borders or beyond them. While during the 1970s Latin Americans often migrated to other regions, nowadays national crises encourage them to seek other destinations in more nearby countries. What causes migration patterns and how do they affect both expelling and receiving communities? How do migrants adapt to their new residence places and coexist with native populations? How does migration contribute to social capital, national identities and gang formation? 7) Political inclusion and representation Dealing with social and ethnic minorities constitutes one of the most recurrent and unresolved challenges for the Latin American democracies. This topic includes the representation of the minorities, but includes also the study of the socio-political elites. Hence, how women are represented in the Latin American democracies? How are indigenous and blacks included into the socio-political arena? Which policies are being adopted for increasing the inclusion of such minorities? How representative are Latin American political elites? Both solicited and unsolicited proposals will be considered for publication in the series. More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/16592

Flavia Freidenberg • Karolina Gilas  Sebastián Garrido de Sierra  Camilo Saavedra Herrera

Women in Mexican Subnational Legislatures From Descriptive to Substantive Representation

Flavia Freidenberg Institute for Legal Research National Autonomous University of Mexico Mexico City, Mexico

Karolina Gilas Faculty of Political and Social Sciences National Autonomous University of Mexico Mexico City, Mexico

Sebastián Garrido de Sierra Center for Research and Teaching in Economics Mexico City, Mexico

Camilo Saavedra Herrera Institute for Legal Research National Autonomous University of Mexico Mexico City, Mexico

ISSN 2730-5538     ISSN 2730-5546 (electronic) Latin American Societies ISBN 978-3-030-94077-5    ISBN 978-3-030-94078-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94078-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgments

This work results from a research project conducted within the Observatory of Political Reforms in Latin America, an academic initiative sponsored by the Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas (Legal Research Institute), of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (National Autonomous University of Mexico), and the Organization of American States’ Secretariat for Democratic Strengthening. The support of both organizations was fundamental for conducting the project, so we would like to express our deepest gratitude to them. The project is also developed thanks to the funding provided by UNAM’s Support Program for Research and Technological Innovation Projects (PAPIIT) to the project “Electoral Reforms and Democracy in Latin America,” directed by Flavia Freidenberg and affiliated to the Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas (Legal Research Institute) of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (National Autonomous University of Mexico) for the period 2020–2021 [IN301020], and to the project “Women’s Symbolic Representation in Latin America,” directed by Karolina Gilas and affiliated to the Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales (Faculty of Political and Social Sciences) of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (National Autonomous University of Mexico) for the period 2021–2022 [IA301821]. This book is also indebted to the Project “Mujeres Políticas: la participación y la representación política de las mujeres en México (1990–2015),” funded by the Instituto Nacional Electoral de México (National Electoral Institute) and affiliated to the Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas (Legal Research Institute) of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (National Autonomous University of Mexico) for the period 2016–2017. We would also like to acknowledge and thank all the help provided by a group of undergraduate and graduate students from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, El Colegio de México, and the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Sede Iztapalapa, who generously supported the integration of the datasets employed in this book. Without your help, this book would not exist: Ximena León Patiño, Juan Felipe Santana Mora, Julio César Soto Licea, Daniela Estefany Flores Sánchez, Nicte-Ha Reyna Tovar Ramirez, Leticia Paola Sánchez Sánchez Sánchez, Rafael Orepani Capilla Barajas, Anayansi Laura Valdés Lara, Victoria Celeste Escalona vii

viii

Acknowledgments

Hernández, Cynthia Daniela Velázquez Garcés, Arturo Peralta Oliver, Lizbeth Jocelyn Medina Islas, Yazmin Patricia Noris Contreras, María José Lorenzo, Abril Alejandra Talavera Hidalgo, Brenda Lizeth González Arias, Jesús David Granados Avilés, Abraham Pacheco Rivas, and Eugenio José Mora Zamora. The authors also thank Bruno Fiuza and Adrian Albalá, editors responsible for Springer’s book series on Latin American Societies Current Challenges in Social Sciences, for their enthusiasm with the book project since its very beginning as well as Srividya Subramanian for the work done in the care and editing of this book. We are convinced that democracies without women are not democracies. It is our tribute to so many maestras feministas (feminist masters), women politicians, activists, and women’s rights advocates who fight every day to break down the obstacles women face when they want to exercise power. Mexico City, November 30, 2021

Contents

1 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.1 Research��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    4 1.2 Plan of the Book��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    6 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   10 2 They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument��������������������   15 2.1 Political Representation: A Multifaceted Conundrum����������������������   15 2.2 Institutions, Feminist Neo-institutionalism, and Gender Representation����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   20 2.3 Understanding Women’s Legislative Representation: Dimensions of Analysis��������������������������������������������������������������������   25 2.3.1 The Formal Dimension of Legislative Representation ��������   27 2.3.2 The Descriptive Dimension of Legislative Representation��   30 2.3.3 The Symbolic Dimension of Legislative Representation�����   32 2.3.4 The Substantive Dimension of Legislative Representation��   36 2.4 Factors Explaining Women’s Political Representation ��������������������   39 2.4.1 Political–Institutional Variables��������������������������������������������   39 2.4.2 Socioeconomic Variables������������������������������������������������������   41 2.4.3 Attitudinal Variables ������������������������������������������������������������   42 2.4.4 Variables of the Representation (Interactions Between the Dimensions of the Representation)������������������   44 2.5 Methodology: Proposals for Measuring and Explaining Political Representation from a Multidimensional Perspective����������������������   47 2.5.1 Case Selection����������������������������������������������������������������������   47 2.5.2 Objectives, Questions, Method, Hypotheses, and Data��������   47 2.6 Argument and Contribution��������������������������������������������������������������   52 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   55 3 The Long and Winding Road to Gender Parity in Mexican Congresses������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   67 3.1 All Politics Is Local! ������������������������������������������������������������������������   67

ix

x

Contents

3.2 A Thorny Path: The Evolution of the Federal Gender Electoral Regime in Mexico ������������������������������������������������������������   70 3.3 Advances and Setbacks in the Construction of the Gender Electoral Regime in the Mexican States ������������������������������������������   81 3.4 Multilevel, Multi-Stakeholder, and Multi Strategic: Parity in Mexican Congresses ��������������������������������������������������������������������   86 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   87 4 Why Do Some State Congresses Have More Female Legislators than Others? ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   93 4.1 The Descriptive Dimension of Women’s Representation at the Subnational Level��������������������������������������������������������������������   93 4.2 Methodological Decisions����������������������������������������������������������������   95 4.3 Women’s Presence in State Legislatures������������������������������������������  101 4.4 Parity Legislatures: More Women in Subnational Congresses ��������  104 4.5 Resistance to Women’s Descriptive Representation ������������������������  105 4.5.1 Political Parties as Gatekeepers of Women’s Participation��������������������������������������������������������������������������  106 4.5.2 Money Ceilings��������������������������������������������������������������������  109 4.5.3 Sexist Coverage, Double Standards, Gender Stereotypes, and Discrimination in Electoral Campaigns����  110 4.6 Models����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  113 4.7 It Is the Rules!����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  119 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  120 5 How Do Women Exercise the Legislative Function?����������������������������  123 5.1 The Symbolic Dimension of Women’s Representation in Subnational Legislatures��������������������������������������������������������������  123 5.2 Methodological Decisions����������������������������������������������������������������  127 5.3 The Participation of Female Legislators in Leadership Positions in Subnational Congresses������������������������������������������������  130 5.4 The Participation of Female Legislators in Legislative Commissions������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  135 5.5 Internal Dynamics: Language, Units, and Specialized Bodies ��������  138 5.6 Resistance to Women’s Symbolic Representation����������������������������  141 5.6.1 Gendered Institutions������������������������������������������������������������  142 5.6.2 Lack of Legislative Experience��������������������������������������������  144 5.6.3 Gender Stereotypes, Sexism, Double Standards, and Discrimination����������������������������������������������������������������  145 5.6.4 Little Support from Political Parties for Female Legislators’ Work������������������������������������������������������������������  146 5.7 Models����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  148 5.8 It Is the Descriptive Representation!������������������������������������������������  152 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  155

Contents

xi

6 How and Whom Do Women Represent in Legislatures? ��������������������  159 6.1 The Substantive Dimension of Women’s Legislative Representation at the Subnational Level������������������������������������������  159 6.2 Methodological Decisions����������������������������������������������������������������  164 6.3 The Legislative Activity of Mexican Congresses: An Overview������  168 6.4 Articulation of Interests: Legislative Proposals��������������������������������  170 6.5 Realization of Interests: Bills Approved ������������������������������������������  173 6.6 Resistance to Women’s Substantive Representation������������������������  176 6.6.1 Lack of a Progressive Gender Agenda and Feminist Ideology Among Women Representatives����������������������������  176 6.6.2 Lack of Collaboration and Sorority Among Women Representatives ��������������������������������������������������������������������  178 6.6.3 Stereotypes, Disregard, and Sexist Coverage of Women’s Leadership��������������������������������������������������������  178 6.7 Models����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  179 6.8 It Is to Have Seats and to Have power!��������������������������������������������  193 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  195 7 Conclusions����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  199 7.1 The Revolution of Presence��������������������������������������������������������������  199 7.2 From Inclusion to Influence: Women as Intruders����������������������������  205 7.3 The Multidimensionality of Political Representation ����������������������  207 7.4 Rethinking Representation����������������������������������������������������������������  210 7.5 Pending Political Strategies: The New Political and Social Pact������  212 7.6 Future Research Agendas������������������������������������������������������������������  214 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  221 Annex 1 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  225 Annex 2 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  229 Annex 3 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  233 Annex 4 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  239 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  243

Abbreviations

CEDAW Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women COFIPE Federal Code of Electoral Institutions and Procedures (Código Federal de Instituciones y Procedimientos Electorales) IFREG Gender Electoral Regime Strength Index (Índice de la Fortaleza del Régimen Electoral de Género) INE National Electoral Institute (Instituto Nacional Electoral) Jucopo Political Coordination Board (Junta de Coordinación Política) LGIPE General Law on Electoral Institutions and Processes (Ley General de Instituciones y Procedimientos Electorales) LGPP General Law of Political Parties (Ley General de Partidos Políticos) MC Citizens’ Movement Party (Movimiento Ciudadano) OPLES Local Public Electoral Bodies (Órganos Públicos Electorales Locales) PAN National Action Party (Partido Acción Nacional) PANAL New Alliance Party (Partido Nueva Alianza) PES Solidarity Encounter Party (Partido Encuentro Solidario) PRD Party of the Democratic Revolution (Partido de la Revolución Democrática) PRI Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional) PT Labor Party (Partido del Trabajo) PVEM Ecologist Green Party of Mexico (Partido Verde Ecologista de México) SCJN Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación) TEPJF Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary (Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación)

xiii

Chapter 1

Introduction

Women tend to participate in politics more than men but struggle more to access public office and exercise power on equal terms. They are the ones who contribute with the most significant number of votes in elections. At the same time, they are the ones who have won the fewest candidacies, have received less political education and training, and have fewer resources to do politics. They also experience greater political violence just because they are women. Once they get into office, women find themselves overlooked, isolated from decision-making, and frequently not even allowed to promote policies that would enable them to transform women’s lives progressively. Other times women themselves do not believe that, because of their gender, they are expected to legislate for a specific group (women). They prefer to devote their limited role to legislating for society, thus prioritizing other agendas and responding to partisan interests without addressing the inequalities they face as women in contemporary societies. Despite the efforts made by the feminist movement around the world, the recognition of women’s suffrage was not enough for women to be included in candidacies, to gain access to public spaces, or for public policies to reflect their interests on an equal footing with men (Schnapper 2004; Bareiro and Soto 2015). Even when they had the right to vote, they were not voted for because they never became candidates. It meant that women could exercise the vote as a legal right but had no real institutional opportunities to make their voices heard, and if they did get into office, they were seen as intruders. The systematic exclusion of women from power and political representation (Birch 1971; Dahlerup 1988; Matland 1998; Krook 2010; Bareiro and Soto 2015) is not a minor issue. It limits opportunities to live in egalitarian and fair societies. It is even more dramatic the fact that half of the population—as is the case of women— does not participate in public decisions has not prevented political systems from being considered democracies. It did not prevent them from developing their tasks such as selecting elites, making decisions, governing, or negotiating between political forces (Paxton 2008; Tripp 2013). The emphasis on the political rights © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Freidenberg et al., Women in Mexican Subnational Legislatures, Latin American Societies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94078-2_1

1

2

1 Introduction

dimension of democracy, which leads to the procedural conception of democracy, implies paying little attention to who competes and how inclusive government decisions are on agendas and interests. This implicit bias in the assessment of political systems deeply questions the very definition of democracies. Also, it negatively affects the diagnostics and strategies that need to be pursued to achieve true equality in all democracies. The absence of women in Latin American institutions is evident. At this moment, no women are holding the Presidency in any Latin American country and there have been only 11 in the region’s entire history. There are only four national parliaments with parity or more than 45% female representatives (Nicaragua, Bolivia, Costa Rica, and Mexico), so women are underrepresented in most of the region’s parliaments (ECLAC 2021). The situation at the subnational and local levels is much worse. The average number of women in  local executives in 19 Latin American countries is currently 15.5%. It rises only to 29.6% at the local legislative level in the more than 15,000 municipalities in the region (ECLAC 2021). This dramatic reality—which is not exclusive to Latin America—has led women politicians, diverse women’s movements, feminist collectives, electoral authorities, and international cooperation agencies to promote, as “critical actors,”1 political– electoral reforms to change the structural inequality women face when they want to engage in politics (Matland 1998; Dahlerup and Freidenvall 2005; Martínez and Garrido 2013). Since 1991, more than 45 reforms to the gender electoral regimes have been approved by national legislatures in 18 countries in the region (Observatory of Political Reforms in Latin America 2021). Pressured by “gender-friendly coalitions” (Caminotti 2016) and under the influence of international law, women party members organized in informal networks, activists, and the broader women’s movement endorsed the creation of rules to require political parties to nominate women candidates. At the same time, electoral courts and electoral management bodies, together with women’s networks, academics, and the broad women’s movement, demanded to eliminate the gaps and loopholes in the law that allowed political parties to fail in fulfilling gender quotas and other actions mandated by the electoral gender regime. These efforts sought to “feminize politics” (Lovenduski 2005)2 and build more egalitarian societies through the expansion, creation, and transformation of women’s political–electoral rights (Franceschet et al. 2012; Bareiro and Soto 2015; 1  The idea of “critical actors” committed to the women’s agenda is not a minor issue (Dahlerup 1988). This concept resolves the role of men as drivers of this agenda, which is by no means exclusive to women. Critical actors are, according to Celis et al. (2008, 102–3), “individuals who initiate policy proposals on their own or who embolden others to take steps to promote policies for women.” 2  Feminizing politics is understood as the process by which “the insertion and integration of women, both in terms of numbers and ideas, into a process that is important but widely regarded as unattractive” (Lovenduski 2005, 12–13). Politics “is defined as the personnel, processes, relationships, institutions and procedures that make authoritative public decisions” (Lovenduski 2005, 13). For feminists, “the political encompasses personal and private (domestic) life, which is based on unequal power relations in which men have more power than women and also have power over women. In gendered terms, political institutions mirror private institutions” (Lovenduski 2005, 13).

1 Introduction

3

Archenti and Tula 2017; Schwindt-Bayer 2018, among others). These “mechanisms of democratic innovation” (Freidenberg and Muñoz-Pogossian 2019)—the set of multidimensional actions and strategies—were developed to boost women’s political participation. It was expected that a “critical mass of women” (Dahlerup 1988) in office could drive public policies intended to transform exclusionary, misogynist, and discriminatory power relations. Legal and political changes have led to an average increase of more than 33.5% in the presence of women in national legislatures (ECLAC 2021), with a significant knock-on effect at the subnational level in various countries in the region (such as Mexico). However, this shift has also posed new challenges for incorporating a multidimensional perspective in analyzing political representation. In other words, the theoretical assumption that more women in office would bring about the transformations needed to eradicate inequalities deserves to be explored empirically by looking at different dimensions of political representation, as Hanna Pitkin and other authors proposed decades ago. Analytical efforts should look at enhancing women’s presence in political institutions and what they do and how they do it once they are in office. This problem implies significant theoretical and empirical challenges. The first is how to promote conditions for exercising women’s political representation as a social group in the legislative sphere (and other spheres). The second is how those women with a public voice in power can promote public policies that transform existing gender inequalities in public and private spheres. Any reflection on gender must adopt an intersectional and nonbinary perspective since current theories recognize that gender is a social construct and that some people express the identity of another gender (neither feminine nor masculine), some are gender fluid, some are neither, and there are still others who reject the mere notion of gender and gender identity (Richards et  al. 2017, 5). The social construction of gender also implies that it has been and continues to be interpreted in heterogeneous ways by different societies and over time. The roles, expectations, and norms assigned to people based on their biological sex are neither fixed nor unique. They also correspond to the diversity of interpretative and epistemological positions held by different currents of feminism and the discipline. The analysis becomes even more complex when it is recognized that even people who ascribe themselves to the same gender—for example, the female—are affected by a series of characteristics, situations, and preferences that make them highly heterogeneous groups. Social relations converge through multiple systems of hierarchization and oppression that condition their development. The inequalities intersect among each other, generating unique conditions of exclusion and inequality (Crenshaw 1991; Viveros Vigoya 2016). Given the complexity of nonbinary gender, the scarce scholarship on the matter, as well as the difficulties in accessing information that would allow scholars to unravel in a more profound way both gender itself and other characteristics that generate inequality, this work needs to simplify the analysis by referring to the gender perspective in binary terms. It analyzes the political representation of

4

1 Introduction

women—as opposed to that exercised by men—and does so without pretending to ignore or make invisible the diversity of the meanings of the feminine and gender. Mexico is an excellent laboratory for evaluating the formal dimension of representation, as it has approved gender quotas and parity. It also allows deepening the knowledge of political representation in a multidimensional way (formal, descriptive, substantive, and symbolic) at the subnational level. Three reasons justify this idea. First, given the process of institutional change that has taken place in recent decades and produced the most robust federal gender electoral regime in the region (Freidenberg 2020), it is urgent to evaluate the measures taken, their scope, and areas of opportunity to continue advancing in the construction of parity democracies. Second, given the federal nature of the political system with 32 states (each with its own rules of the electoral game) and recent centralization of electoral governance, looking at the states allows for a complete evaluation of how women access and exercise power. Third, given that there is a lot of information available on the legislatures that have emerged in each state after the adoption of the gender parity principle in 2014, it is not only possible but also convenient to evaluate how this principle has impacted women’s access to power and the exercise of power in subnational legislatures. Certainly, the transformations that took place in the country since the approval of parity at the constitutional level, the push for the nationalization of the electoral organization system (2014), and the acceptance of various complementary measures to the gender electoral regime of the federal entities (2015, 2017, and 2019) implied significant changes in the access of women’s representation in the states (Freidenberg and Garrido de Sierra 2021; Freidenberg and Gilas 2020; Gilas 2018; Vidal Correa 2016). The extensive theoretical and empirical question arising from these developments is to understand whether the increase in the number of women legislators in state congresses (descriptive representation of women) has resulted in increased attention to women’s political concerns (substantive representation of women) and whether it entails better conditions for women to exercise power in institutions on equal terms with men (a symbolic representation of women). The theoretical premise usually states that more women in public office will result in a different way of doing politics and the materialization of greater equality in all spheres of society (Schwindt-Bayer 2018; Franceschet 2008; Dahlerup 1988). However, in practice, there is a significant gap in comparative empirical research at the subnational level that allows empirical corroboration of whether women legislators have succeeded in feminizing politics and transforming gender inequalities.

1.1  Research This research aims to fill a gap in the comparative subnational scholarship by developing a multidimensional assessment of women’s political representation in a federal political system such as Mexico. This country allows for a comparative evaluation of the changes made in the 32 states, their interactions, and their results

1.1 Research

5

over time. The Mexican experience in terms of women’s political representation at the federal level has been very successful, as reforms created a more robust federal “gender electoral regime” and critical actors capable of monitoring the implementation of those rules, facilitating an increase in the number of elected women legislators (Freidenberg 2020). Still, little is known at the subnational level about the impact of the increase in women legislators on other dimensions of political representation, such as symbolic or substantive representation. While analyses have been developed at the national and subnational level, they have focused on formal representation (Hevia-Rocha 2020; Freidenberg and Alva Huitrón 2017; Vidal Correa 2014; Alanis Figueroa 2014; Peña Molina 2009; Aparicio Castillo 2011; Reynoso and D’Angelo 2006; among others); legislative descriptive representation (Freidenberg and Garrido de Sierra 2021; Hevia-Rocha 2020; Flores-Ivich and Freidenberg 2017; Vidal Correa 2016; Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016; Zetterberg 2007; Stevenson 1999; among others); and on the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation (González Schont 2016; García Méndez 2019; Hernández García and Rodríguez Alonso 2019; Cerna Villagra 2019; Pacheco Ladrón de Guevara 2007; among others). Although these efforts have yielded exciting conclusions based on empirical evidence and strengthened a theory focused on the analysis of presence, it is still insufficient to explain the other dimensions of representation and the relation between them. Therefore, the idea is to contribute to comparative knowledge from the subnational level and to understand the relationship between the formal and descriptive representation of women, the content of legislative work in terms of preferences and interests, and its symbolic effects for women and politics in general. This research, therefore, seeks to fill a theoretical and empirical gap regarding the effects of gender parity on the programmatic and symbolic construction of power. More specifically, it aims to broaden the analysis of women’s political representation through its dimensions (formal, descriptive, substantive, and symbolic) in the Mexican subnational Congresses and explore the political–institutional, socioeconomic, attitudinal, and representational factors that explain political representation. While having women legislators is a crucial starting point for exercising the political–electoral rights of this social group, it is also essential to observe what they do and how they do it when they are in elected office. The subnational arena has been understudied in comparative politics due to the difficulty of looking at the local level (usually with a particular national bias in methodological approaches) and the problems of accessing data that would allow for the analysis of a large number of observations in a significant number of subnational entities. Mexican women have faced adverse conditions to exercise their citizenship depending on the state they reside in. This is not a minor issue, as these inequalities affect the democratization of the political system as a whole. The fact that the distribution of public goods and access to political rights are not homogeneous for men and women—as would be expected since the inclusion of the principle of gender parity or affirmative action measures—and that these differences are accentuated at the state or local level, hinders the efforts of the construction of democracy with substantive equality.

6

1 Introduction

This research aims to advance the knowledge of the extent of formal equality and substantive equality in the territory, showing that the internal democratization of a federal country is not necessarily homogeneous in all subnational units (O’Donnell 1999; Giraudy et al. 2019). It means that parity in law does not guarantee the exercise of power on equal terms. The construction of democracies that respect substantive equality implies abandoning the idea that it is enough to recognize rights in law (formal equality). At the same time, it is urgent to generate other strategies and initiatives to achieve equality in outcomes (Saba 2016). If there are differences in the exercise of rights, formal equality does not translate into substantive equality (Bareiro and Soto 2015). If these differences are state based, this implies obstacles of different nature and intensity in the exercise of citizenship in the territory. The dynamics of interaction can also be subnational and multilevel. It may be that some state entities, at a given moment, seek the extension of political-electoral rights in a much deeper and more agile manner than other states (and even before the federal level) and, at the same time, there may be states that are much more reluctant than others to approve rights due to the autonomy of local leaders and elites vis-à-vis the national government. At a certain point, the expansion of rights may also come from the nationalizing influence of national elites through the demand for harmonization of legislation at the state level (as has happened in Mexico since 2014). It may even be that the democratizing demands have a contagion effect between state entities, pressuring political elites, state women’s networks, or women politicians so that states join the expansion of women’s political–electoral rights or other types of rights. This research seeks to overcome the political and intellectual blindness implied in ignoring the difficulties women face while exercising their rights that affect the emergence of a systematic and comparative understanding of state and local levels. In practice, when women have gained access to positions (legislative and executive), the focus has been on the national level. This has meant ignoring how informal politics, subnational spaces, pressures, simulations or practices, decisions, and ways of doing politics that limit women’s opportunities to exercise their rights are reproduced. If this is the case, understanding how the gender gap manifests itself and the factors that can reduce or eliminate it is a crucial step towards the subnational democratization of any political system.

1.2  Plan of the Book The book begins with a theoretical and conceptual discussion of political representation and its essential role in the operation of democracies. Chapter 2, Women may have the seats, but not the power: the argument sets out how women’s political representation, its dimensions, and relationships are studied. It presents the theoretical, conceptual, and methodological toolbox that structures the research and aims at filling the gap in contemporary comparative empirical research on whether more

1.2  Plan of the Book

7

women legislators in Mexican state congresses succeed in feminizing politics and transforming gender inequalities. Chapter 3, The Long and Winding Road to Gender Parity in Mexican Congresses, describes and analyzes the formal dimension of political representation, in its authorization aspect, concerning the legal changes that have been promoted to achieve a more significant insertion of women in the spaces of political representation at the federal and subnational levels. It evaluates the design of the gender electoral regime for nominating candidacies based on the “Gender Electoral Regime Strength Index” (Freidenberg 2020; Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016; Peña Molina 2009, 2014). An original dataset that captures changes to the gender electoral regime at the subnational level (#MujeresEnLasNormas) (Freidenberg and Alva Huitrón 2017, updated) allows us to assess this institutional framework’s strength over the 30-year period and for 32 Mexican states. The chapter describes the decisions that created the regulatory framework of the gender electoral regime over three decades and focuses on gender parity rules and the nationalization of the electoral system that took place in the country after the constitutional reform of 2014. Chapter 4, Why Do Some States’ Congresses Have More Female Representatives than Others? explores the factors that explain women’s descriptive representation levels in the last 30 years, although focusing on the two most recent subnational legislatures of 32 Mexican congresses. This chapter analyzes the relationship between the formal dimension (authorization aspect) and women’s descriptive representation. From the construction of an original database on the presence of women in state Congresses from 1987 to 2019 (#MujeresElectas), it evaluates the weight of political–institutional variables (such as the strength of the gender electoral regime) as well as that of socioeconomic variables (level of economic development, modernization, and educational level), controlled by the trajectory of the gender electoral regime and political alternation. The evidence presented in this chapter is consistent with the hypothesis that the political–institutional variables, particularly those that establish how candidacies are registered, have the most significant impact on the levels of women’s descriptive representation at the subnational level. It also identifies a series of institutional, partisan, and attitudinal obstacles women face to access representative positions. Chapter 5, How Do Women Exercise the Legislative Function? addresses the analysis of symbolic representation, focusing on how women act within legislative bodies and exploring the weight of different variables on symbolic representation at the subnational level. The chapter asks whether more women in seats means more women with power in decision-making bodies and whether they change how decisions are made and what the legislative agenda is pushed forward. Using an original methodology, it evaluates the symbolic dimension of representation. Based on the analysis of the institutional and critical legislative context, it estimates the women’s access to leadership positions (executive positions and commissions), the incorporation of gender mainstreaming in the internal rules of Congresses (such as the existence of a Gender Unit or a Gender Studies Centre or the use of inclusive language), and the presence of obstacles to the exercise of power by women. The original dataset (#MujeresLegisladoras) systematizes information on the integration and

8

1 Introduction

internal functioning of the 32 State Congresses in the last two legislative periods, evidencing that higher descriptive representation improves the chances of having more women leading and actively participating in legislative deliberation processes. In this sense, the research shows the relationship between the descriptive and symbolic dimensions of representation. The data evidence that the glass ceilings have been breaking down, given that the increase in the number of women has accelerated their access to the presidencies, executive bodies, and committee presidencies (both hard and soft). However, they also highlight that internal resistance, which shows that the institutions continue to be gendered. Chapter 6, How and Whom do Women Represent in Legislatures? assesses the relationship between substantive, descriptive, and symbolic representation in the Mexican states’ congresses from 2014 to 2021. Once women gain access to office, political representation aims to ensure that public decisions reflect, to some extent, the interests of the represented group. The research explores what it would take for that representation to be effective. Based on an original database of 24,397 legislative proposals presented in 46 subnational legislatures (two for each of the 23 states), it evaluates how many generalist initiatives are presented; how many of them can be classified as feminist, which actors present them (men, women, mixed group) and with what legislative success. The findings are exciting and show that there is a positive and statistically positive relationship between descriptive and substantive representation in all the operationalizations of substantive representation analyzed. The results also reveal that the relationship between symbolic representation and substantive representation is less clear, and, in some ways, challenges how various theoretical investigations link the two dimensions. Finally, Chap. 7, Conclusions, identifies good practices that allow for the advancement of gender parity and the design of public policies to strengthen parity democracy. The study offers a series of findings and contributions to comparative research based on the Mexican subnational experience. The findings of this research are novel and innovative because they contribute to the comparative knowledge on the empirical relationships between the dimensions of women’s political representation at the subnational level. It is an aspect of research that had hardly been explored in Mexico due to the difficulties of having comparative databases for a large number of observations, in all (or most) of the states over an extended period. The main finding of this research is that the political–institutional reforms carried out to demand more women in partisan candidacies have been successful in increasing the number of female legislators in Mexican states’ congresses. This peaceful and democratizing revolution of presence has also led to more women in legislative leadership positions: chairmanships of the Congresses and the Committees and participate in those Committees where they have historically been relegated. Although these transformations are important in the construction of more egalitarian democracies, they are still insufficient. The research shows that the presence of more women legislators has not eliminated political, attitudinal, or partisan obstacles. Their presence does not translate into progressive or feminist legislative agendas, nor has it led to a greater feminization of politics. The institutional and noninstitutional efforts in the Mexican states

1.2  Plan of the Book

9

were aimed at having more women in seats under the implicit assumption that they would promote the necessary transformations to eliminate the obstacles women face. However, in practice, the barriers persist. Even though the presence of more women is valuable in itself, in recent years, expectations have been raised about how these women should exercise power and leadership positions. Moreover, some thought that women should be the ones to promote a certain type of public policies that represent “women’s interests” and that they should be feminist in nature to eliminate the structural barriers existing in the states. This deterministic assumption of women’s gender in their legislative work supposes that all women are gender-conscious, that they must be spokespersons for certain identities, defend the same interests and promote the same agendas. It means assuming that there is a common identity just because they are or feel female. These assumptions ignore the diversity of ideas, interests, and demands existing among women. This research rejects such essentialist expectations and advocates for revising those assumptions that place extra demand on women and limit the view on the exercise of political representation. This research presents sufficient empirical evidence that contradicts those expectations. Thus, it challenges the fact that women’s representation should be evaluated by different criteria or standards than men’s. Women are not obliged to promote any agenda they do not consider or want to embrace, even if it is desirable for them to push policy proposals that address existing gender inequalities. This research considers that women legislators are not necessarily the ones who should “promote and lead” certain agendas to tackle the structural inequalities faced by the country. Their numbers in state congresses have not yet managed to overcome the dynamics of what is considered a “critical mass” (Dahlerup 1988), nor have they managed to impose themselves and change partisan agendas. Although having more women in congresses is fundamental for building parity democracies, it is not always sufficient to guarantee the representation of women who seek to defend women’s emancipatory (progressive) interests and causes. The parties—whatever their ideologies—control feminist demands and agendas. It seems that the “representative or partisan mandate” dominates over other types of mandates (such as the imperative or the free). These findings, therefore, question the classical view of representation as an imperative mandate, particularly when assessing the connection between female legislators with programmatic agendas and the female voters. Therefore, this research adopts the relational approach (Heywood 2004; Cotta and Best 2007; Young 2000), going beyond the classical vision and recognizing the dynamism of the representative processes and the creativity of the representatives. However, it also considers that the latter develops in a context of formal and informal rules that restrict the activity of the representatives or allow the change of the existing inequalities in the exercise of representation. Understanding representation as a process assumes that representatives are not only passive recipients of signals from the citizenry regarding what they expect them to represent but also actors who create citizenship during the process of representation. Women (and men or others) are free to represent plural demands, interests, and agendas and not limit themselves to one type of interest just because they are

10

1 Introduction

women. A person who belongs to an identity group may not necessarily represent the interests of this group. Some even argue that the inverse position could occur: there are no people from a specific group, while others promote their interests. Therefore, it is crucial to think about representation integrally and not only from a single dimension or exclusively from the principal-agent perspective (Pitkin 1967; Celis et al. 2008). These results call for a review of the assumptions and ideas (and certainties) that have accompanied the parity revolution in the Mexican states and determine how women’s political representation is exercised. The progress made in recent decades invites us to rethink representation and, with it, the narratives and expectations regarding what women legislators are supposed to do, how to promote plural and multi-spatial agendas across party lines, and how to involve different social, political, and economic actors in processes of eradication of the inequalities. These are not agendas of interest to women only—much less only to feminists—but should guide the work of all legislators committed to democracy and substantive equality. Based on all these ideas, this research has explored the challenges of accessing and exercising women’s political representation in the Mexican states. The lessons and challenges are discussed within a broader body of comparative research, providing knowledge to academia, policymakers, and international cooperation agencies on the challenges that remain to strengthen Latin American democracies and on the need to continue exploring the links between subnational politics and the democratization of federal political systems.

References Alanis Figueroa, María del Carmen. 2014. El reto de la paridad en las candidaturas. Revista Mexicana de Derecho Electoral 6: 171–187. Aparicio Castillo, Javier. 2011. Cuotas de género en México: candidaturas y resultados electorales para diputados federales 2009. Serie Temas selectos de derecho electoral, vol. 18. México, Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación. Archenti, Nélida, and María Inés Tula. 2017. Critical challenges of quotas and parity in Latin America. In Women, politics and democracy in Latin America, ed. Tomáš Došek, Flavia Freidenberg, Mariana Caminotti, and Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian, 29–44. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bareiro, Line, and Lilian Soto. 2015. La Hora de la Igualdad Sustantiva. New York: ONU Mujeres. Birch, Anthony. 1971. Representation. London: Macmillan. Caminotti, Mariana. 2016. Cuotas de Género y Paridad en América Latina: Mujeres, Partidos Políticos y Estado. In Reformas a las Organizaciones de Partidos Políticos en América Latina (1978–2015), ed. Flavia Freidenberg and Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian, 183–103. Lima: PUCP, OEA, SAAP e IIJ-UNAM. Caminotti, Mariana, and Flavia Freidenberg. 2016. Federalismo Electoral, Fortaleza de las Cuotas de Género y Representación Política de las Mujeres en los Ámbitos Subnacionales de Argentina y México. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales 61 (228): 121–141. Celis, Karen, Sarah Childs, Johanna Kantola, and Mona Lena Krook. 2008. Rethinking women’s substantive representation. Representations 44 (2): 99–10.

References

11

Cerna Villagra, Sarah Patricia. 2019. La distribución del poder por género después de la reforma político-electoral de 2014. Una comparación de los Congresos de Chihuahua, Jalisco y San Luís Potosí. Espacios Públicos 22 (54): 47–66. Cotta, Maurizio, and Heinrich Best, eds. 2007. Democratic representation in Europe: Diversity, change and convergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–1299. Dahlerup, Drude. 1988. From a small to a large minority: Women in Scandinavian politics. Scandinavian Political Studies 11 (4): 275–297. Dahlerup, Drude, and Leni Freidenvall. 2005. Quotas as a ‘fast track’ to equal representation for women: Why scandinavia is no longer the model. International Feminist Journal of Politics 7 (1): 26–48. ECLAC, Comisión Económica para América Latina. 2021. Observatorio de Igualdad de Género en América Latina. Santiago, ca: ECLAC. Disponible en: https://oig.cepal.org/es/autonomias/ autonomia-­la-­toma-­decisiones. Flores-Ivich, Georgina, and Flavia Freidenberg. 2017. ¿Por qué las mujeres ganan en unas legislaturas y no en otras? Una evaluación de los factores que inciden en la representación política de las mujeres en las entidades federativas mexicanas. In La representación política de las mujeres en México, ed. Flavia Freidenberg, 101–152. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Electoral, and Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Franceschet, Susan. 2008. ¿ Promueven las cuotas de género los intereses de las mujeres? El impacto de las cuotas en la representación sustantiva de las mujeres. In Mujer y política. El impacto de las cuotas de género en América Latina, ed. Marcela Ríos Tobar, 61–96. Santiago, Catalonia. Franceschet, Susan, Mona Lena Krook, and Jennifer Piscopo, eds. 2012. The impact of gender quotas. New York: Oxford University Press. Freidenberg, Flavia. 2020. Electoral reform and political representation of women in Latin America. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Retrieved 24 Nov, from https://oxfordre.com/ politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-­9780190228637-­e-­1676 Freidenberg, Flavia, and Raymundo Alva Huitrón. 2017. ¡Las reglas importan! Impulsando la representación política de las mujeres desde las leyes electorales en perspectiva multinivel. In La representación política de las mujeres en México, ed. Flavia Freidenberg, 16–52. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Electoral, and Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Freidenberg, Flavia, and Sebastián Garrido de Sierra. 2021. Régimen electoral de género y representación política de las mujeres a nivel subnacional en México. Revista de Ciencia Política (Santiago) 41 (1): 67–01. Freidenberg, Flavia, and Karolina M.  Gilas. 2020. ¡Ellas tienen los escaños, ellos el poder! Representación legislativa de las mujeres en el Estado de Morelos. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales Año LXV 240: 327–358. Freidenberg, Flavia, and Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian. 2019. Democratic innovation mechanisms and women’s political participation in Latin America and the Caribbean. In Encyclopedia of educational innovation: Section on political innovation, ed. M.A. Peters and R. Heraud, 1–9. Singapore: Springer Nature. García Méndez, Erika. 2019. Representación política de las mujeres en los Congresos subnacionales en México. Un modelo de evaluación. Estudios Políticos 46: 73–98. Gilas, Karolina. 2018. Violencia política contra las mujeres. Un problema viejo en nuevos tiempos. In Los estados en 2016. Nuevos equilibrios regionales, ed. Rosa María Mirón Lince, 241–259. Tomo 2. Mexico City: FCPyS-UNAM, DGAPA-UNAM, IECM, and TECM. Giraudy, Agustina, Eduardo Moncada, and Richard Snyder. 2019. Subnational research in comparative politics substantive, theoretical, and methodological contributions. In Inside countries: Subnational research in comparative politics, ed. Agustina Giraudy, Eduardo Moncada, and Richard Snyder, 3–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12

1 Introduction

González Schont, Céline. 2016. De la representación descriptiva a la representación sustantiva: análisis de las cuotas de género en los congresos estatales en México. Working Paper. Mexico, CIDE. Retrieved 24 Nov, from http://cide.repositorioinstitucional.mx/jspui/handle/1011/578. Hernández García, María Aidé, and Jesús Alberto Rodríguez Alonso. 2019. ¿Es la paridad una realidad en los Congresos estatales? Mexico City: Universidad de Guanajuato, and Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez. Hevia-Rocha, Teresa. 2020. El impacto de las medidas de acción afirmativa de género en el registro de las candidaturas en el proceso de 2017/2018. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Electoral. Heywood, Andrew. 2004. Political theory: An introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Krook, Mona Lena. 2010. Women’s representation in parliament: A qualitative comparative analysis. Political Studies 58 (5): 886–808. Lovenduski, Joni. 2005. Feminizing politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Martínez, María Antonia, and Antonio Garrido. 2013. Representación de Género y Calidad de la Democracia: la doble brecha en América Latina. Revista Debates 7 (1): 151–173. Matland, Richard E. 1998. Women’s representation in national legislatures: Developed and developing countries. Legislative Studies Quarterly 23 (1): 109–125. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1999. Counterpoints: Selected ESSAYS ON AUTHORITARIANISM AND DEMOCRATIZATION. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Pacheco Ladrón de Guevara, Lourdes C. 2007. Cuando la democracia nos alcance. Sistemas de cuotas y agenda de género en Baja California Sur, Coahuila, Colima, Durango, Guerrero, Jalisco y Nayarit. Mexico City: Juan Pablos. Paxton, Pamela. 2008. Gendering democracy. In Politics, gender and concepts: Theory and methodology, ed. Gary Goertz and Amy G. Mazur, 47–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peña Molina, Blanca Olivia. 2009. Paridad y disparidad de género. Legislación electoral, masa crítica y sistema de cuotas en los Congresos estatales de México. Paper presented at the 3rd International Congress of the SOMEE, Salamanca, Spain, 28–30 October 2009. Peña Molina, Blanca Olivia. 2014. La paridad de género: eje de la reforma político-electoral en México. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Electorales 14: 31–74. Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The concept of representation. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Reynoso, Diego, and Natalia D’Angelo. 2006. Las leyes de cuota y su impacto en la elección de mujeres en México. Política y gobierno 13 (2): 279–213. Richards, Christina, Walter Pierre Bouman, and Meg-John Barker. 2017. Genderqueer and non-­ binary genders. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Saba, Roberto. 2016. Más allá de la igualdad formal ante la ley. Qué le debe el Estado a los grupos desaventajados. Buenos Aires: Editorial Siglo XXI. Schnapper, Dominique. 2004. La democracia providencial. Ensayo sobre la igualdad contemporánea. Santa Fe: Homo Sapiens. Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A. 2018. An introduction to gender and representation in Latin America. In Gender and representation in Latin America, ed. Leslie Schwindt-Bayer, 1–16. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship. Stevenson, Linda. 1999. Gender politics in the Mexican democratization process. Electing women and legislating sex crimes and affirmative action, 1988–97. In Towards Mexico’s democratization: Parties, campaigns, elections and public opinion, ed. Jorge I. Domínguez and Alejandro Poiré, 57–87. London: Routledge. Tripp, Aili Mari. 2013. Political system and gender. In The Oxford handbook of gender and politics, ed. Georgina Waylen, Karen Celis, Johanna Kantola, and Laurel S. Weldon, 1–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199751457.013.0020. Vidal Correa, Fernanda. 2014. Federalism and gender quotas in Mexico: Analysing propietario and suplente nominations. Representations 50 (3): 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034489 3.2014.951182. ———. 2016. Women in Mexican politics: A study of representation in a renewed federal and democratic state. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

References

13

Viveros Vigoya, Mara. 2016. La interseccionalidad: una aproximación situada a la dominación. Debate Feminista 52: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.df.2016.09.005. Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zetterberg, Pär. 2007. Gender quotas and political effectiveness women’s experiences in mexican state legislatures. Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions of Workshop, Helsinki, May 7–12.

Chapter 2

They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

2.1  Political Representation: A Multifaceted Conundrum Elections are the heart of representative democracy (Schattschneider 1942), specifically when they comply with specific preestablished procedures, respect certain guarantees and rights, and generate uncertain results. Elections are a democratic mechanism that allows people to select who will legitimately exercise power and which, for this reason, prevents violence and regulates social conflict (Dahl 1971; Manin et al. 1999). Elections do not always meet all the characteristics required to qualify them as genuinely free, fair, and competitive. However, for the moment, they are, as Przeworski (2019, 21) argues, the only instrument that allows choosing rulers democratically (or at least there is no known and better option).1 It is the advantage that democracy has over authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, charismatic leaders, or electoral authoritarianism: that in this scheme, through competitive procedures, the citizenry can select, control, and remove those who govern the community (Przeworski 2019, 20).2  Elections are free when there are no regulatory restrictions on competing, when there is freedom for candidates and their supporters to mobilize for votes, and when voters experience little or no coercion in the exercise of their vote. This means that there is a high degree of freedom of expression, movement, and association in political life. Elections are fair when the authority is neutral, competent, and effective against fraud and in counting votes; when the police, military and courts treat candidates impartially; when competitors have equal access to public means and resources; when electoral districts and regulations do not systematically disadvantage the opposition; when all adults can vote; and when there is a clear and impartial procedure for resolving complaints and disputes (Diamond 2004). 2  While elections are a necessary condition for calling a political system democratic, they are not a sufficient condition (Diamond 2004; Schedler 2002). In this sense, there may be situations where elections are held but they present irregularities, malpractices and/or electoral governance problems (Norris et al. 2014). Even when a democracy requires elections, it does not accept just any kind of elections (Schedler 2002). Moreover, there can even be elections without democracy 1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Freidenberg et al., Women in Mexican Subnational Legislatures, Latin American Societies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94078-2_2

15

16

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

One of the most exciting processes linked to elections is political representation, as it allows some people to select others to be present on their behalf in democratic institutions. This simple idea, whose materialization has historically involved so many disputes, implies an implicit agreement regulating how representatives and represented people are linked to each other through the institutions. It also involves rules on how demands and interests are processed, the guidelines framing the design and implementation of those public policies that seek to respond to the demands and needs of the represented people, and how they demand and control their representatives (Manin et al. 1999). Thus, as a polyvalent concept, representation evokes multiple meanings, both for law and politics, and entails the idea of “substituting, acting in place of, acting on behalf of, looking after someone’s interests, reproducing, reflecting the characteristics of someone or something” (Cotta 1991, 1384).3 In this scenario, the connection between institutions and society, mediated by electoral processes, results in a “representative government,” that is, a government to whom the citizenry gives its capacity to decide and, therefore, to whom it delegates that capacity over public affairs for all the groups and individuals that compose the society (Manin 1998). Representation, thus, implies a link between two parties, which is staged from the act of a mandatary to personify, “act in place of,” “on behalf of,” or to care for and expose interests, needs, and grievances of her constituents before political institutions.4 Political representation can then be understood as the process of “making present in some sense something that is not literally or actually present” (Pitkin 1967, 8), “acting in the interest of the represented, in a manner responsible to them” (Pitkin 1967, 209) or, in Alemann’s words (1985, 863), “various kinds and forms of substituting, making present, and acting for others.” In this sense, Dovi (2018) considers that, when analyzing political representation, there are at least five components that should be looked at: (a) someone that is representing (the representative, an organization, movement, party, a state agency, among others); (b) someone that is being represented (constituents, clients, among others); (c) something that is being represented (opinions, perspectives, interests, discourses, among others); (d) a setting in which the activity of representation takes place (the political context); and (e) something that is being left out (the unexpressed opinions, interests, and perspectives). The linkage is between the electorate (the principal) and the representatives or the executive (the agent). In this (Levitsky and Way 2004), since elections generate legitimacy of origin but there may be rules, behaviors and practices that coexist with them but are not democratic. 3  In practice, meanings can be articulated in two groups: (a) meanings that refer to action, where representing refers to acting according to certain canons of behaviors in relation to another person; (b) meanings related to the reproduction of existential properties and characteristics that suppose that to represent is to possess certain characteristics that reflect the subjects or objects represented (Cotta 1991, 1384). 4  From a classical view, to put it schematically, representation involves one person (the agent) advocating interests or expressing perspectives on behalf of another person (the principal) (Pitkin 1967, 209). The principal is the entity that authorizes and delegates power to an agent. Such a bond is based on a kind of arrangement that defines what the principal expects the agent to do and the consequences of the agent’s failure to perform.

2.1  Political Representation: A Multifaceted Conundrum

17

relationship, the responsiveness of representatives to citizens’ expectations and people’s belief in that responsiveness plays a key role.5 While there is no single way to observe and measure representation, it is vital to consider several elements: what is represented, who is the representative, and who is represented (which involves having information and knowledge); how citizens choose their representatives (which has to do with the electoral method); how do citizens control over their representatives (which involves being clear about accountability methods); and what is the relationship between principals and agents (which consists in knowing how representatives and represented bond, through what interests, proposals, ideas, or policies). In this sense, representation functions through different properties such as identifiability, control (accountability), and ties (particularistic, clientelist, or programmatic).6 Representing collective interests and articulating them is critical in contemporary democracies (Celis 2013; Manin 1998; Cotta 1991; Von Beyme 1986). In this scheme, parties have been seen as the key actors to generate this linkage between government and citizens (Schattschneider 1942). These affinities around ideas, favors, the charisma of a leader, or ideology may seem minimal among political parties. Still, they are fundamental if they articulate the differences between individuals and turn them into political actors. Thus, in any political party, there may be different unifying elements such as the party’s program, opposition to other groups, identity, class, ideology, or even the presence of leaders with strong charisma. These elements are essential for the integration of ideas vis-à-vis differences between citizens and groups of citizens. Parties are those who try to carry out this combination of interests. When they work properly, they can articulate themselves as coalitions of groups with diverse interests (Kitschelt 1989; Key 1962) that compete in elections across the territory. In comparative scholarship, there has been a vigorous discussion around the concept of political representation. One of the most relevant conclusions of this debate is that representation is a complex process that should be analyzed considering all its different modalities, both existent and theoretically required (Mansbridge 2003). In doing so, it is also necessary to empirically (and critically) explore the traditional

5  In this principal-agent view, the authorizing mechanism is free elections. Elected persons assume their responsibility before the electorate and commit themselves to act in a manner consistent with that responsibility. A new electoral period is the moment when voters decide whether to re-elect their rulers or change them for others (Monsiváis Carrillo 2013, 41). 6  This competitive premise and political control necessarily requires a series of “essential arrangements” (Woldenberg and Becerra 2017, 965) that, according to Manin (1998, 17), have to do with (a): those who govern and those who become representatives are appointed through a periodic election, with regular intervals; (b) decision-making by those who govern retains a degree of independence from what the electorate wants; (c) those who are governed can express their political opinions and desires without being subject to the control of those who govern, and; (d) public decisions are subject to a process of debate.

18

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

theoretical assumptions from which the experience of consolidated democracies has usually guided studies of representation.7 Although parties are key actors in the functioning of democracies (Schattschneider 1942), they are not the only actors that represent interests: social movements also can mobilize ideas, demands, and claims on behalf of groups (such as the feminist movement, the workers’ movement, or the environmental movement, among others) (Weldon 2002); social organizations, networks of civil society organizations (such as NGOs) also can mobilize interests, exert influence or articulate resources around specific agendas, on an ad hoc basis and without the need to participate directly in elections. These other political and social actors can also exercise representation in the social arena and the public space and through diverse participatory practices involving governmental and nongovernmental actors. Peruzzotti and Smulovitz (2002) argue that it is precisely the exercise of accountability that makes it possible to regulate and reduce the gap between representatives and represented, preserving the distance between political authorities and citizens proper of relations of representation and complementing the fundamental action of electing and selecting elites that characterize representative government. Nevertheless, there is no single way of studying representation because there is no single way of exercising it. Representation involves multiple forms of action and spaces (institutional and noninstitutional) conditioned by limited information. Most of the time, assuming that representation implies a linear, unidirectional relationship, it is taken for granted that the represented person knows what the representative proposes and that the representative gives her a mandate as if she were an ambassador of the interests and opinions of the represented person. This classical view of political representation as an imperative mandate assumes many things and bases the idea of representation on certain rationality, prior information, and mutual knowledge on the part of the participating actors. For the representative linkage to work—in this view—a series of mutual learning, capacities, and skills are required: information, knowledge, identifiability, understanding of what the other party wants (agent) and does (principal). Also, it requires empathy, the capacity of a person to understand in an affective (empathetic) way a reality that is unfamiliar to her, and the feelings of another person (but also to the objective situation of the other).

7  How does one know what a representative stand for when there are multiple agendas and interests? How does one establish that a representative is indeed faithful to the interests and demands that brought him or her to office and that is what the electorate supposedly elected him or her to defend? Who represents the interests: only members of the group, individuals who share the same condition, or anyone who is concerned with a specific demand, even if he or she does not belong to the identity group? What about the interests of groups that are not represented in institutions? How should representatives act: according to a mandate, or are they free to act according to their own judgement? How are representatives held accountable (Manin et al. 1999): only through elections or are there other mechanisms? How legitimate is it for elected people to do the opposite of what they promised when they came to government (Stokes 2001) or to fail to meet the expectations of group identity that society seems to demand of them? All these questions are not innocent and do not occur in a vacuum, but involve a series of public processes that intersect, energize, and condition the idea and the way in which the representative link is exercised.

2.1  Political Representation: A Multifaceted Conundrum

19

Theoretically, it might be interesting to think about the existence of all these elements in the exercise of representation. In political practice, it is difficult to imagine that each citizen carries out all these processes when deciding who should represent her, especially in such diverse and competitive contexts. Likewise, comparative scholarship has shown that there are also other types of mandates of a freer nature, where the represented person chooses without expecting a particular kind of policy, result, or proposal. In this case, the representative selects the agendas and interests based on the information she acquires in her position and makes decisions according to what she believes is best for the represented person (Stokes 2001). It is also increasingly important to break with the essentialist visions that embrace an idea of homogenous interests and claim that people can only represent a series of demands and interests when they have specific characteristics of the group’s identity (Sapiro 1991; Weldon 2002).8 There is no single way of exercising representation because men, women, or people of non-binary gender can defend a plurality of interests and diverse ideologies (Schwindt-Bayer 2014, 22). Thus, women (and men or others) are free to represent plural demands, interests, and agendas and not limit themselves to only one type of interest because they are women. The critical issue that underlies this vision is that one can have the presence and not necessarily represent the interests of an identity group. Some even argue that the inverse position could occur: there are no people from the group, and others promote their interests. Therefore, it is so important to think about representation integrally and not only from a single dimension or exclusively from the principal-agent view (Pitkin 1967; Schwindt-Bayer and Mishler 2005; Celis 2008a; Celis et al. 2008). Any model of representative mandate (imperative, partisan, or free) assumes some level of information, mutual knowledge, authorization, evaluation, and political control. When these elements are not present, it is possible that the representative exercise is weak, that the parties’ expectations about the representative linkage are unsatisfied, or that the processes of distrust or disconnection between representatives and represented are generated. It would be complicated, on the one hand, for a represented person to support, control, or punish a representative with her vote if she doesn’t know her, does not know the interests that she defends, or if, in her case, the representative promotes interests that are not those that she expects the represented person to support. On the other hand, the same happens with a representative who wants to represent other people, but does not know, does not know, or does not understand their expectations, interests, and demands. Therefore, political

8  Often, a person may even accede to the position and have no links with the groups to which he or she individually belongs or, from an intersectional perspective, may belong to several groups at the same time and not privilege a specific identity. This questions the classic way in which representation is usually understood, because from this analytical perspective there may be women, indigenous people or Afro-descendants in office who do not defend the interests of their groups or who do not promote specific policies for their identity group. This is not a minor issue because it challenges the traditional understanding of representation.

20

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

representation is one of the most exciting and important research areas for strengthening democratic systems.

2.2  I nstitutions, Feminist Neo-institutionalism, and Gender Representation One of the problems that the study of representative processes has faced is that they have ignored gender. Procedural democracy seems to fulfill many of its functions without including all groups in society (Paxton 2008). The elections have long been dominated by competition among men, and thus men were the ones overwhelmingly elected to the representative office. This election of men was done under the implicit assumption that they represented the interests of all groups in society, that they had the necessary expertise to govern on behalf of all people, and that this androcentric dominance was the usual way of doing politics. Even though only men were elected, most of the comparative scholarship insisted that they fulfilled their essential democratic functions: they produced representation and made the political system operational. Since most comparativists have looked at elections, representation, parties, and democracy without a gender lens, existing inequalities have not been sufficiently identified and analyzed. Those who have made efforts in this direction have even been marginalized to the periphery of political science. Until the end of the 1980s, political relations between genders received limited attention by the discipline (Pescatello 1973; Craske 1999; Archenti and Tula 2019, 16). Including gender as an analytical variable was considered erroneous and generated a “sexist political science” (Lovenduski 2015). The absence of a perspective sensitive to identifying how gender intersects decisions linked to power has conditioned the selection of topics, the concepts used, and the dimensions analyzed, as well as the findings that comparative politics has produced in one of the most prolific areas of research in political science. The construction of paradigms analyzing politics in an androcentric manner led to the formation of indicators that measure processes under the universal male assumption (Paxton 2008; Miranda Leibe and Suárez-Cao 2018; Criado Perez 2020). Consequently, it has led to the belief that such power relations are “normal.” Intrinsically, this accounts for the presence of gender biases that reproduce (consciously and unconsciously) dominant social ideas about gender roles and the status conferred to men and women.9 Precisely, the discipline itself has been shaped by prevailing beliefs about the intersection of biological sex, socially constructed 9  For example, gender bias has occurred when comparing the political behavior of women and men, as women are generally seen as “deviant” (Jaquette 1995, 112). In that sense, when reviewing research, it is often found that “women’s opinions are dismissed as moralistic, emotional or uninformed; women are portrayed as unpredictable or irrational [... and they are] condemned as too conservative by some, or too naïve and utopian, by others” (Jaquette 1995, 112).

2.2  Institutions, Feminist Neo-institutionalism, and Gender Representation

21

gender, and political life, adopting “the characteristics and preferences of masculinity” (Tolleson-Rinehart 2006; Carroll and Fox 2006, 508) as if they reflected the situation of society as a whole. This weakness in the mainstream scholarship is increasingly evident as democratic politics evolves (Jaquette 1995, 112).10 The scholarship on democratization has been explicit in considering that democracy only needs universal male suffrage to be regarded as such (Paxton 2008; Tripp 2013; Miranda Leibe and Suárez-Cao 2018). For a long time, it ignored the relevance of women’s participation as an indispensable component for developing a proper conceptualization of democracy (Paxton 2000). This “theoretical veil” conditioned the empirical evaluation of democracies, as it reflected practices, prejudices, and belief systems that limit access to and full exercise of citizenship (Paxton 2008; Bareiro and Soto 2015; Schwindt Bayer 2010, 2018).11 The absence of women in positions of power has not prevented an electoral democracy from functioning. However, their exclusion is contradictory to the very essence of democracy since— unlike authoritarianism or totalitarianism—democracy should be a political system that includes social diversity in the exercise of politics (Tripp 2013, 1). In recent years, feminist neo-institutionalism has provided new theoretical and methodological tools for the analysis of institutions. The problem with both old and new institutionalism has been that they have naturalized how norms have been incorporated into institutions and political representation through a series of primarily male rules, processes, ideologies, and discourses that determine their functioning and outcomes (Krook and Mackay 2011). Classical and new institutionalists have ignored the relationships between gender and institutions, evidenced by advances in feminist scholarship (Mackay et al. 2010), particularly the transformations that institutions have undergone since the incorporation of women through the processes of political participation and representation. The traditional way of constructing and operationalizing concepts in political science has hidden women in a universal masculine generic and made the inequalities between men and women invisible. The crucial contribution feminism made to neo-institutionalism is the addition of the gender variable to a set of already existing concepts (Goertz and Mazur 2008). From different perspectives, feminist

 The first research from this perspective studied comparisons of women and men in access to institutions and the exercise of politics. The inclusion of the variable “sex” in survey studies in the United States, for example, made it possible to advance in the knowledge of comparative political behavior, seeking to identify whether men and women behave in a similar way when participating in politics and whether what is defined as the “gender gap” exists. Subsequent research focused primarily on women (Randall 1987). Feminist theory began to question, deconstruct, and reconstruct concepts such as power, equality and difference, justice and democracy, some of which were incorporated into the mainstream of comparative politics, even changing the way in which certain concepts that had hitherto been exclusionary were understood. 11  The selection of such indicators reflects little attention to gender (Paxton 2008), but this does not prevent political regimes where there were no women competing for office, no rulers, and even fewer public policies that addressed women’s issues and interests from being called democratic. Although definitions of democracy commonly include all adults, measures of democracy often exclude women (Paxton 2000). 10

22

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

neo-­institutionalism offers significant analytical advantages over any other approach that ignores gender. First, it presents a challenge to scholars by opening up new questions related to the differentiated ways in which institutions affect people of different genders, how they reproduce gendered power relations, or how gender can become the factor of institutional change (Mackay et al. 2010).12 Second, the need to analyze the normalization or institutionalization of gendered power structures or hierarchies allows for strengthening the explanatory capacity of the research subject by incorporating the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion of certain groups in the exercise of power (Kenny 2007). Third, feminist neo-institutionalism shows how changes in gender relations in society lead to institutional change (Lovenduski 2011; Waylen 2011). In recent years, a group of essential studies on women’s political representation has emerged. These studies focus on the analysis of the rules and changes that allowed for women’s access to power and on the adjustments that occurred within institutions as a result of women’s inclusion (Craske 1999; Escobar-Lemmon and Taylor-Robinson 2014; Annesley and Fains 2010; Gaines and Lowndes 2016; Chiva 2018; Folke and Rickne 2012). They also address how these institutional and legislative contexts become opportunities—or obstructions—for political representation (Pastor Yuste and Iglesias Onofrio 2014). Indeed, the articulation of new institutionalism with a gender perspective has contributed to answering questions about the exercise of representation, bringing perspective on power inequalities in public life (Lovenduski 2011; Mackay and Waylen 2009). It has involved adopting gender-­ inclusive research strategies to clarify and change the invisibility experienced by women and investigate the existence of inequality between men and women in various dimensions of the political system. All institutions are intersected by gender differences that manifest themselves in “processes, practices, images, and ideologies, and distributions of power” (Acker 1992, 567), so members’ experiences within these institutions vary according to their gender. Also, institutions themselves “produce, reproduce and subvert gender” (Kenney 1996, 456–457). In other words, rules, practices, and discourses systematically privilege male norms over female norms, making it essential to incorporate a gender perspective into the study of institutions. Taking this inequality as a premise, feminist political scientists have sought to describe and explain the effects of gender on political life. This consideration has inevitably led them to focus on three fundamental aspects of the analysis of institutions: how they are formed and sustained and how gender is embedded in political institutions (Freidenberg and Gilas 2021). Their research pays attention to formal and informal institutions, whose interaction with formal institutions allows us to study political processes more broadly and identify continuities and changes in their operation and outcomes (Mackay et al. 2010, 581; Adams and Smrek 2018). It also allows us to incorporate concerns about how apparently neutral institutions (both formal and informal) are based on hidden

 These forms must be analyzed in a broader context of social dynamics in which political institutions are immersed, since politics is only one of the spheres affected by social structures.

12

2.2  Institutions, Feminist Neo-institutionalism, and Gender Representation

23

norms and values, thereby reproducing biases, and privileging certain groups over others (usually males over females) (Kenny 2007, 95). Despite the essential benefits of using feminist neo-institutionalism as a theoretical approach to empirically research representation, it still fails to address the problem of conceptualizing women and the feminist movement’s capacity for agency and its impact as a driving force of change (Mackay 2011; Lovenduski 2011). On the one hand, in the analysis of political representation, the approach seems to overestimate women’s agency, treating institutions as mechanisms or tools that feminists should use or appropriate to bring about change and increase women’s access to power (Smith 2010, 108). Paradoxically, feminist neo-institutionalism belittles the importance of agency, seeing the repertoire of action as so constrained by the game’s rules as if the actors were “trapped” by institutions (Chappell 2002; Vickers 1997).13 Incorporating the dimension of gendering representation into comparative politics involves mapping, analyzing, and explaining the inclusion and exclusion of sex and gender in (the praxis of) representation (Celis 2008a, 73; Kenney 1996). This perspective makes differences evident when looking at the actors involved or analyzing representation’s programmatic content (the issues and interests) (Celis 2008a, 71). Thus, the incorporation of gender lenses in the study of representation has been an intellectual revolution that involves analyzing the identity of bodies (“who”) and decisions and claims of representatives (“what”) (Celis 2008a, 71) (Celis 2008a, 71). The feminist neo-institutionalism allows to study existing gender differences in access to and exercise of power in institutions; how rules process political participation by gender; internal conflicts, power bids, and decision-­making processes; how programmatic proposals that seek substantive equality are defined and driven; or how formal rules interact with informal ones defining the outcomes of representation (Bjarnegård 2013; Kenny 2013; Krook and Mackay 2011).

 Like any methodological approach, feminist neo-institutionalism is not without limitations that need to be highlighted, rethought, and addressed (Mackay and Waylen 2009, 240). Other weaknesses can be identified (Freidenberg and Gilas 2021). The first is its excessive focus on the micro and meso levels, thereby losing the ability to notice the broader phenomena described by the social theory of power. The rejection of macro analysis of patriarchal structures relates to the dominance of liberal feminism and the sustained critique of radical feminist or socialist perspectives, as feminist neo-institutionalism argues that the state is not always patriarchal and does not always operate in favor of men and to the detriment of women’s interests (Chappell 2002; Krook and Mackay 2011; Kantola 2006; Holli and Kantola 2007). The second weakness lies in its conceptualizations of agency and change. While this approach reintroduced a concern for the recognition of the impact of the agency of individuals and groups in generating institutional change, it is flawed in its approach. Similarly, feminist neo-institutionalism overemphasizes the autonomy of institutions as agents capable of effecting change independently of society (Smith 2008, 21), treating the state as separate institutions (Chappell 2002; Duerst-Lahiti 2002) and attributing the gendering of institutions to the everyday culture that reflects gender patterns and institutional logic, rather than to social structures (Krook and Mackay 2011, 6). Also, from this neo-institutionalism, insufficient attention has yet been paid to multilevel governance and the differences in the operation of gendered institutions in different contexts and levels of government, particularly in federal states (Findlay 2011; Sawer and Vickers 2010, 4) nor sufficiently to the different institutional interactions that occur at the subnational level.

13

24

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

Feminist new institutionalism evidence that key actors, especially parties, function as the primary gatekeepers of women’s political participation (Childs and Caul Kittilson 2016; Llanos and Roza 2018; Lovenduski and Norris 1993). Power continues to be differentially distributed between men and women in political parties (Morgan and Hinojosa 2018; Caul Kittilson 2013, 539). Also, parties are not gender-­ neutral agents (Celis et al. 2016, 572); on the contrary, they constantly reproduce a complex web of formal and informal beliefs, norms, and practices with differentiated impact on women and men, ethnic groups, and the LGBTQ population (Celis et al. 2016, 572; Lovenduski 2005, 13). Also, concerning the equality of their members, parties function as “black boxes” that hinder women’s political careers (Caul Kittilson 1999; Kenny and Verge 2013; Morgan and Hinojosa 2018) and where men do what they want.14 Female politicians face a whole set of simulations, malpractices, and multiple forms of violence when they want to make decisions, aspire to a nomination, promote bills, or vote against what their party bosses decide. The gender perspective also makes it possible to incorporate the intersectionality agenda within studies of political representation.15 Early research on women’s representation was criticized because it treated women as a homogenous group with a common set of political interests (Schwindt-Bayer 2014, 22). In particular, studies based on evidence from the developing world drew attention to the imposition of a Western view of feminism and only one way of being a woman, interpreting the world and relationships, and defending women’s rights. Young (2000) argued that women are a relational social group, defined not by their shared set of attributes or interests but by their experience of discrimination and oppression. Thus, the significant difference between the genders is structural; different positions in society produce particular experiences that give rise to different social perspectives (Marx et al. 2007, 206). People in similar social groups may possess different interests or opinions because they reason differently or have other goals and projects (Marx et al. 2007, 206). Intersectionality dismantles simple explanations and encourages all research on women’s representation to consider their diversity and the effect that women’s heterogeneous identities and the structural inequalities associated with them have on their representation. Hence, it is necessary to distinguish between body and content because not all bodies (all women) necessarily represent women’s interests and demands. However, specific demands—such as parity democracy—need not necessarily exclude other groups (such as men). The people involved in the exercise of representation, i.e., the represented and the representatives, by definition, have sex and gender. Therefore,

 As Shvedova (2005, 34) argues, “men dominate the political arena; men formulate the rules of the political game and men define the standards for evaluation. The existence of this male-dominated model makes women reject politics altogether or reject male-style politics”. 15  The intersectional perspective focuses on the relationality, multiplicity, and complexity of social relations, postulating that ideas and practices of gender, citizenship, ethnicity, age, class, sexuality, among others, are all systems of power that generate intersecting constellations of power relations that produce unequal realities and different social experiences for individuals and groups (Crenshaw 1991; Viveros Vigoya 2016). 14

2.3  Understanding Women’s Legislative Representation: Dimensions of Analysis

25

representation is not immune to being structured by hierarchical relations between men and women. This fact is fundamental to understanding how political representation is generated and exercised, why specific demands of some groups are not articulated or effectively realized, and to what extent expectations about what women should represent are often different from what is expected of male representatives.

2.3  U  nderstanding Women’s Legislative Representation: Dimensions of Analysis Most theoretical and empirical studies on political representation begin their corresponding theoretical discussions with Hanna Pitkin’s The Concept of Representation (1967). The most important contribution of this work to political theory is recognizing different ways of exercising representation, complex, and even contradictory. The fundamental idea is that political representation involves both the presence and the promotion of the interests of a group that the representative is entitled to represent. Pitkin (1967) added to this idea a further distinction between what is “standing for” and “acting for.”16 The feminist-rooted comparative scholarship has drawn on these insights to conceptualize women’s political representation (Celis et  al. 2008, 102; Dovi 2015, 2018). Some of this scholarship has been explicitly engaged with these debates by, for example, assessing women’s legislative behavior through exploring the relations between women in office and women-friendly policy outcomes or by analyzing the institutional or social contexts in which representation occurs. Another way to examine political representation is by looking at its different dimensions: (1) the principal-agent relation, through the institutional mechanisms that confer the authorization for the agent to act on behalf of the principal and allow voters to control and punish representatives who do not comply with their mandate (formal representation); (2) the idea of supplanting the agent (symbolic); (3) the similarity between agents and principals (descriptive); and (4) the duty of representatives to act on behalf of the interests of the represented (substantive) (Pitkin 1967). The scholarship on women’s legislative behavior has focused primarily on the circumstances in which female representatives advocate for “women’s issues” (Celis 2008a). The most influential theories within this approach are the “critical mass” theory (Dahlerup 1988) and the “politics of presence” (Phillips 1995). Both  Pitkin (1967, 84) describes “standing for” as the activity of “giving of information about, a making of representation about, hence do not entail neither authorization nor accountability (...) [it] is talking rather than acting. Deliberating rather than governing”. The “acting for”, is defined by Pitkin (1967, 116) as “the substance of representing activity” and that it means “to speak for, act for, look after the interests of their respective groups (...). This is what a political scientist means when he says that the test of representation is not whether the leader is elected, but how well he acts to further the objectives of those he represents.”

16

26

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

theories argue that the presence of women in political institutions increases the likelihood that women’s issues and interests will be substantially represented (Celis 2013, 180; Celis and Childs 2012, 213). According to these classic visions, the substantive representation of women—representing women’s problems, interests, needs, and desires—will occur once women constitute a critical mass in the Legislative, allowing them to transfer their visions and experiences into bills and public policies. Although this may not always be the case, the scholarship argues that women are more likely to seek to act on behalf of other women than men (Dovi 2002; Mansbridge 1999; Phillips 1995). The gender of representatives is essential in establishing how they act, even when other important elements are observed (Phillips 1995, 53). The classical studies consider representation a mandate (Pitkin 1967, Przeworski 2019, Powell 2000, 2004, or Manin 1998). Later, the perspective of presence and other new interpretations of representation suggests considering “the creative acts of representatives” (Saward 2010) and looking at representation as a process and not as a static act. The strongest criticism of classical theories (Celis 2013, 181) questions that the exercise of representation is limited to what happens in the legislature (as if there were no other spaces where this linkage can be generated). There is another criticism related to the belief that only women can represent women (as if there were no female representatives who seek to represent other population groups or men who seek to contribute to gender equality) and that the claims female representatives articulate must always be feminist (as if it were not possible to observe a conservative representation of women’s interests) (Celis and Childs 2012, 213). Finally, some scholarship also points out that it is not feasible to study substantive representation only as a creative process since the representatives are constrained by the actions of other political actors and by the formal and informal rules within the framework of which they carry out their representative activity. This research adopts the relational approach (Heywood 2004; Cotta and Best 2007; Young 2000), going beyond the classical vision and recognizing the dynamism of the representative processes and the creativity of the representatives. However, it also considers that the latter develops in a context of formal and informal rules that restrict the activity of the representatives or allow the change of the existing inequalities in the exercise of representation. Understanding representation as a process assumes that representatives are not only passive recipients of signals from the citizenry regarding what they expect them to represent but also actors who create citizenship during the process of representation. Of course, the representatives perform all these tasks within a specific institutional framework and in tension with other actors who also exercise representation (Celis 2013, 180). A final issue in evaluating political representation is how women’s political presence is sufficient to ensure their substantive and symbolic representation. Comparative experience shows that women’s political presence in institutions is an essential purpose in and of itself (Celis and Childs 2008, 442). Still, it is not always sufficient to guarantee the representation of women who seek to defend women’s emancipatory (progressive) interests and causes. While it is always beneficial for women to be present in the decision-making and deliberative arena so that the social

2.3  Understanding Women’s Legislative Representation: Dimensions of Analysis

27

perspective they embody can be heard in public (Miguel 2001), this does not necessarily imply the promotion of a specific agenda. An essential contribution of feminist neo-institutionalist scholars has been the rejection of a sharp separation of the dimensions that make up the concept of representation and the existence of hierarchy between them (Celis 2008a, 71). Any evaluation of the formal dimension (the implementation of quotas or gender parity) and its relationship with political representation must consider the interactions between the other dimensions: descriptive, substantive, and symbolic. It is not enough to have laws to improve women’s presence (formal dimension) or only have women in the office (descriptive dimension). It is necessary to assess what they do and what they stand for (substantive dimension), how they do it in institutional context (symbolic dimension).

2.3.1  The Formal Dimension of Legislative Representation The formal dimension of political representation refers to the existence of authorization and control mechanisms that allow citizens to define who will represent them and evaluate and constrain the exercise of power (Pitkin 1967). In a democratic context, the formal dimension refers fundamentally to the celebration of elections as a mechanism of authorization and control and the existence of other tools of vertical accountability. In practice, the analysis of this dimension is mainly carried out through the study of elections since its analysis allows us to understand (and evaluate) how representatives are elected and how citizens exercise control over representative activity (Kurebwa 2015; Schwindt-Bayer and Mishler 2005; Powell 2000). International scholarship and treaties establish standards that elections must fulfill to be considered democratic. These standards are, principally, the following: (1) holding free elections at reasonable intervals; (2) allowing all seats in at least one house of the legislature to be popularly elected; (3) guaranteeing universal and equal suffrage; (4) respecting the right of citizens to seek the office; (5) respecting the right to establish political parties and ensuring that parties can compete on the basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities; (6) ensure that political campaigns can be conducted in an open and fair environment without administrative incidence, violence, intimidation or fear of reprisals against candidates, parties or voters; (7) guarantee unhindered access to the media on a nondiscriminatory basis; (8) ensure that votes are cast by secret ballot and are honestly counted and reported, and the results made public; and (9) ensure that candidates who receive the required number of votes to be elected are appropriately installed in office and allowed to remain in office until their term expires (Norris 2012). However, elections held under these standards do not guarantee all citizens the same opportunities to compete, and that representation that emerges from them is plural and (reasonably) responsive to the electorate’s preferences. An extensive scholarship analyzes the impact of electoral rules, particularly the formulas used to convert votes into seats, on electoral results, and the composition of elected bodies (Powell 2000; Rae 1967; Taagepera and Shugart 1989, among many others). In

28

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

general, this scholarship points out that proportional representation systems generate more satisfactory results in terms of plurality and favor the representation of minorities and historically excluded groups to a greater extent than plurality systems (Gilas et al. 2016; Reynolds 2006; Gallagher and Mitchell 2005). Still, proportional representation electoral systems have not significantly increased women’s access to power (Krook 2018; Tremblay 2012; Reynolds 2006; Rule and Zimmerman 1994). The electoral systems are weak in generating gender-balanced representation because electoral rules are not strong enough to reverse or counteract other processes of exclusion and discrimination against women in politics, particularly within political parties (Moreira and Johnson 2003, 21). Therefore, it was necessary to introduce additional and special rules to change these tendencies and modify the rules for nomination to allow the inclusion of women in descriptive representation: creating gender electoral regimes was necessary (Freidenberg 2020; Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016). The electoral gender regime is the set of rules that establishes how nominations for representative offices are held. Through these rules, it is possible to encourage the nomination of women for public office since their design reserves a portion of nominations for women (or for another gender that is not in the majority). One of the temporary mechanisms for securing nominations for a particular population is a gender quota (Dahlerup and Freidenvall 2005). They aim to “raise the percentage of women in parliament or achieve gender balance and set a minimum participation of women candidates in elections, at least on party lists” (Krennerich 2009, 189). Quickly, “quotas have become a key mechanism for achieving equal representation between women and men, or at least equal opportunities to run for office” (Dahlerup and Freidenvall 2005, 29–30). Gender quotas are, hence, temporary measures that force political actors (mainly parties) to include underrepresented groups in nominations and function as a kind of “fast track” (Dahlerup and Freidenvall 2005)17 to achieve numerical gender equality in contexts of historical exclusion. They have been very successful in increasing descriptive representation at the national level by more than 33.6% in Latin America since they were first adopted in the 1990s (ECLAC 2021). In recent years, the introduction of gender parity as a constitutional principle or in secondary legislation—particularly in some Latin American countries such as Mexico, Costa Rica, Bolivia, Argentina, Ecuador, or Peru—was a further step toward substantive equality. Unlike affirmative action measures such as quotas, the principle of gender parity implies a new social contract and a different way of thinking about and exercising power relations (Pateman 1988; Freidenberg 2020). The  Gender quotas are one of the most effective and efficient tools for increasing women’s political representation. For example, Denmark, one of the model countries for gender equity, managed to increase the presence of women in its parliament to 38% in 2001, i.e., it took 20 years and eight electoral processes. In contrast, Costa Rica’s implementation of the quota raised women’s representation from 19% to 35% in just one legislative election in 2002 (Dahlerup and Freidenvall 2005, 28).

17

2.3  Understanding Women’s Legislative Representation: Dimensions of Analysis

29

scholarship points out that parity can be interpreted in three ways: (a) as a principle: which functions as a parameter for interpreting the principle of substantive equality; (b) as a right: a concrete legal norm that people can assert before the courts to demonstrate a discriminatory treatment that affects their rights; and (c) as a procedural rule: application of criteria, rules or procedures to comply with the mandate of substantive equality, based on the idea of 50–50  in the binary vision of the genders (Freidenberg 2020). However, in any of them, parity implies the political translation of the principle of substantive equality. It seeks to guarantee access to equal treatment and opportunities for the recognition, enjoyment, and exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all people (Bareiro and Soto 2015). Gender electoral regimes (through quotas or the inclusion of the principle of gender parity) articulate the formal rules that regulate the competition for power and generate equal conditions for women and men. These regimes can be evaluated by applying the “Gender Electoral Regime Strength Index” (Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016), identifying the five fundamental properties for their strength: (1) size (proportion of women required to be nominated); (2) position mandate (requirement to place women in the effective and not only symbolic candidacies); (3) sanctions for noncompliance; (4) scope of the nominated formulas; and (5) existence of exceptions to their compliance. Their analysis allows for a more precise understanding of the scenario in which women compete and an assessment of the possible impact of the formal dimension on women’s access to and exercise of political representation. This limited scholarship (Dovi 2018), and, in general, the study of women’s representation trends around the world, has evidenced that the formal dimension of representation has an important impact on the descriptive dimension. The design of the electoral system in general and the gender electoral regime are fundamental to enabling women’s access to power. Formal representation also impacts, directly or indirectly, on the symbolic and substantive dimensions. Regarding symbolic representation, traditionally understood as citizen reaction to the exercise of representation (Schwindt-Bayer 2010), the scholarship argues that the integrity of electoral processes and their capacity to generate plural representation positively affect citizen perceptions about the quality of democracy and representation (Vergé et  al. 2020; Clayton et al. 2019; Arnesen and Peters 2018; Campbell and Wolbrecht 2006; Atkeson 2003; Koch 1997), as well as their beliefs about their role in politics (Alexander 2012, 437). Concerning the substantive dimension, existing research points to the fact that this depends, to a large extent, on formal rules of authorization, which impact the responsiveness of representatives to citizen demands (Stokes 2001). Likewise, it is expected that systems capable of faithfully reflecting citizen preferences generate better results in the congruence of public policies and relation to the preferences of the electorate (Powell 2000).

30

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

2.3.2  The Descriptive Dimension of Legislative Representation Descriptive representation—also called sociological or existential representation (Sartori 1992)—refers to the number and characteristics of those who accede to representative positions. It is about being in the place of another rather than acting on behalf of others (Marx et al. 2007, 202). From this perspective, “the representative does not act for others; he stands for them, by virtue of a correspondence or connection between them, a resemblance or reflection” (Pitkin 1967, 61). Thus, the most relevant aspect of a legislature refers to its composition and not to its acts. The fact that more women hold positions in institutions is a crucial step forward for this group that has had more difficulties than others (such as men) in gaining access to positions of political representation. There are multiple benefits to having more women in politics. First, for women—as an underrepresented group—the increase in their descriptive representation symbolizes a more open political arena and improves their political participation. It increases the perceived fairness of the political regime since bringing half of the population—such as women—into decision-­making processes has positive effects on the very existence of democracy (Tripp 2013, 2). Increasing the number of female representatives reduces the chances that gender agendas will be ignored and the likelihood of promoting policies and legislation aimed at improving women’s economic and social status, especially on issues of health, poverty, education, and gender equity (Dodson 1998; Carroll 1994, 2002; Thomas and Welch 1991). The scholarship also argues that female representatives bring a different voice to legislation and the functioning of the legislature (Swers 2002; Rosenthal 1998; Kathlene 1995) and are more likely than men to make politics in a more cooperative and egalitarian way (Celis 2008b; Rosenthal 1998; Kathlene 1994; Tolleson-Rinehart 1991; Eagley and Johnson 1990). Second, the inclusion of underrepresented groups entails attitudinal changes for their members who have experienced political exclusion (Alexander 2012; Mansbridge 1999; Phillips 1995; Sapiro 1981; Young 2000).18 In her classic study, Mansbridge (1999, 650) argues that descriptive representation can create “that include members of the group as truly ‘able to rule.’” When women are presidents, governors, representatives, or municipal presidents helps to break down “cement ceilings,” that is, to remove internalized beliefs of their inferiority to men, beliefs that lead women to underestimate their skills, knowledge, and abilities in areas historically dominated by men (Williams 1998, 133; García Beaudoux 2018). Third, when citizens observe women governing, for example, in the news or at political events, these observations can change their perceptions and discriminatory assumptions about the ideal leadership and, consequently, women’s capacity to govern (Alexander 2012, 439–440). Thus, descriptive representation is a transformative force concerning beliefs about women’s inferiority or incompetence in political  Williams (1998, 16) defines marginalized groups as those groups for whom inequality has been historically structured along lines of group membership, whereby group membership is not experienced as voluntary or mutable, and for whom meanings are assigned to group identity.

18

2.3  Understanding Women’s Legislative Representation: Dimensions of Analysis

31

leadership (Alexander 2012, 440), which have often been used to explain their absence in politics. Hence, their presence in spaces of power has a powerful symbolic capacity regarding what they believe they can be and what they are perceived to be able to do in the political system. In this regard, descriptive representation is interconnected in multiple ways with symbolic representation. Fourth, comparative research shows that controlling for a country’s level of development and democratic quality, the presence of women in legislative institutions positively influences women’s political engagement, interest, and participation (Desposato and Norrander 2009; Barnes and Burchard 2013; Caul Kittilson and Schwindt-Bayer 2010; Norris and Krook 2009). Also, it shows that the attitudes of both women and men towards female leaders improve (Johnson et al. 2003), always taking into account that presence, performance, or inclusion of women does not mean representation of women (Htun 2016; Marx et al. 2007, 203). Fifth, it is often pointed out that higher descriptive representation (presence or inclusion) implies a better substantive representation of women in the sense of action guided by a gender perspective. This idea suggests that the election of a certain number of female representatives could transform institutional policy by incorporating new issues related to women’s rights and interests or particular needs not usually contemplated by male representatives (Marx et al. 2007). At the same time, it is believed that more women in the office account for a more cooperative political style as a differential contribution of female representatives (Barnes 2016) and that the inclusion of more women—or, more precisely, a critical mass of women parliamentarians (Dahlerup 1988—makes a difference in politics). Despite the beneficial elements of increasing women’s descriptive representation, this new dynamic may have unintended consequences for women politicians’ lives. As men’s dominance in public office has diminished, as they have had to share power, violence against women in politics has increased (Krook 2020; Freidenberg and Del Valle 2017). Although “numbers matter” (Celis et al. 2008, 99)—because it will always be positive to have more women in office, regardless of their ideas, ideologies, and preferences—an increase in women’s descriptive representation may not always translate (although it should) into a life free of violence, into an increase in women’s substantive representation (Celis et al. 2008, 100), nor into a greater symbolic representation of women. The big question then has to do with assessing the conditions under which female representatives are able to transform or “make a big difference in politics” (Dahlerup 2005, 8); how to ensure that a minority of women parliamentarians do not block the transformative impulses of those female representatives who wish or are capable of transforming the legislative agenda and how to ensure that citizens’ expectations of female representatives are not disappointed because the women who reach office do not manage to promote policies that respond to progressive gender agendas. The question problematizes the study of representation and underlies the link between descriptive and substantive representation. As Marx et  al. (2007, 204) ask, how many female representatives are necessary for deliberative forums for representation to occur? In addition to being present, must they promote actions aimed at

32

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

satisfying specific needs and interests? This point is not a minor issue and has to do with substantive representation. This perspective also implies recognizing that not all women who reach representative office are feminists; neither do they seek to articulate an equality agenda or represent women. Their participation in representation is essential because their ideas and actions reflect the interests and preferences of certain parts of society, including conservative or nonfeminist women (Celis and Childs 2012; Schreiber 2008). Many of these female representatives see themselves as representatives of women (Duerst-Lahti 2008; Schreiber 2008). However, little has been studied, and these representatives’ impact on legislative activity and production is still unclear (Celis and Childs 2012, 2018). However, it is essential to recognize that their interests, actions, and decisions also produce representation and should be explicitly incorporated into analytical frameworks and empirical studies (Celis and Childs 2012, 213).

2.3.3  The Symbolic Dimension of Legislative Representation Pitkin’s multidimensional conceptualization has been adopted by feminist studies and has given rise to a significant theoretical and empirical construction of women’s political representation (Dovi 2002, 2015). However, most studies have focused on the analysis of descriptive and substantive dimensions. Symbolic representation, the most abstract and complex dimension to analyze, has long not been considered fundamental to understanding the phenomenon of women’s political representation. Indeed, for several decades, the symbolic dimension of the concept of representation proposed by Pitkin (1967) received little attention in comparative political studies in general and Latin American in particular. The result is that not much research is devoted to its conceptualization, measurement, and analysis of specific cases (much less at the level of subnational politics). However, with the gradual increase in women’s descriptive representation, scholarship began to analyze the distribution of power within institutions from different analytical entries, approaches, and epistemological perspectives. Pitkin’s (1967) theoretical contribution on the symbolic representation, even when it is pretty complex and ambiguous, points out that it is about the emotions and attitudes that the represented generate in the representatives (1967: 96) and that it can be understood as a process in which the beliefs, attitudes, assumptions of the citizenship before the representatives—the agents—turn them into symbols, before which people react in an emotional rather than rational way (Pitkin 1967, 100-3). These emotional reactions, and the emergence of symbolism to which Pitkin refers, do not respond to a rational justification but result from the “manipulation of affective responses and forming habits” (1967, 101). Symbolic representation exists as long as people believe or accept that political leaders represent them (Pitkin 1967, 102), so it can be reinforced or shaped by how representatives act, primarily through practices and rituals (Pitkin 1967, 103). In

2.3  Understanding Women’s Legislative Representation: Dimensions of Analysis

33

this process, the representative person becomes “a symbol-maker, making himself into an accepted leader through his activity” (Pitkin 1967, 107). This vision of symbolic representation is closely linked to how leaderships are constructed, understanding it as a relationship (for there to be a leader, there must be followers linked to her) and measured by the participants’ attitudes. Following Pitkin’s conceptualization, symbolic representation is associated with the vision and valuation that citizens have of the representative, in a similar way that a flag represents a country or a nation and, therefore, evokes certain feelings or emotions in people. This perspective, therefore, focuses on the effects produced by how citizens perceive and value their representatives, the political system, and democracy (Schwindt-Bayer 2010).1920 Therefore, the symbolic representation of politics involves describing how power is perceived, how it is exercised, and what kind of barriers women face in office.21 Recently, some studies began to explore the symbolic dimension of female representation from discursive feminist neo-institutionalism.22 Taking Pitkin’s (1967) definition as a starting point, Lombardo and Meier (2014), Rai (2015), and Rai and Spary (2019), among others, expanded and reconfigured the meaning of symbolic representation. From this perspective, which could well also be called constructivist, Lombardo and Meier (2014) define symbolic representation as the construction of women and men as political symbols; as the act of representing and making visible those represented, albeit without acting on their behalf (Lombardo and Meier 2014, 7). These views focus on how inequalities are constructed (and can be observed) in political discourses and processes and what normative elements  Although in her approach to symbolic representation Pitkin devotes much effort to the analysis of symbols, her view of the representatives and the represented is deeply traditionalist, according to which some lead and others follow, responding emotionally, but without rationally questioning the process of representation or their own reactions to the symbols with which they associate certain affective responses generated through repetition and habit (Dovi 2015). Despite the importance of emotions or the feeling of “feeling represented”, it is questionable to dismiss the idea that citizen reaction to representatives is not or cannot be mediated by rational analyses —as Pitkin herself pointed out— even of the ways in which symbolic representation is perceived (Dovi 2015; Saward 2010, 2016; Lombardo and Meier 2019). 20  Pitkin’s view ignores gender as a relevant and defining variable in how people exercise and perceive representation (Gilas 2021). Representatives and represented are the universal citizens stripped of their gender and other characteristics that make them think, feel, behave, and relate in different ways. Pitkin (1967) believes that representation is and should be about ideas, thus ignoring the differences between various citizen groups and the characteristics of individuals. 21  This has to do with how the exercise of power is approached, what actions are evaluated by institutions and what political groups promote and legitimize around it even in a cultural way (Lombardo and Meier 2014). 22  There are also visions that study how and why the political system responds to women’s demands and interests, under the assumption of the existence of gender inequalities in the functioning of the political system. Some of the works that follow this line show that a greater inclusion of the working class is associated with better evaluations of legislative performance (Barnes and Saxton 2019); that greater female representation increases women’s satisfaction with the legislature and their political participation (Clayton et al. 2019; Campbell and Wolbrecht 2006; Atkeson 2003; Koch 1997) and on perceptions of democracy (Vergé et al. 2020). 19

34

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

(values, beliefs, and norms) political documents express (Bacchi 1999; Bustelo and Lombardo 2007; Ruiz Jiménez et al. 2016). It focuses attention on the construction of gender and other inequalities in the content of politics and its outcomes. The very presence of women in public spaces has a meaning that establishes (and challenges) social norms regarding the meanings of gender, which can legitimize—or delegitimize—their participation in power, thus having a significant impact on individual behavior and the acceptance of women’s political participation (Lombardo and Meier 2014). The symbolic representation of politics, then, impacts on women’s capacity for substantive representation, for as long as women are perceived as intruders in the spheres of power, their ability to articulate demands and effectively represent the interests of other women will continue to be limited (Lombardo and Meier 2014).23 In recent years, based on the contributions of Butler (1990), new studies have provided a novel interpretation of the discursive approach: the performative (Rai 2015). The emphasis is not on what but on how representatives perform their functions and express their interests and demands. The daily performance in the exercise of the representative function “reflect, resist and refurbish existing and shifting power relations”‘(Rai 2015, 1181) within legislative spaces. Performance encompasses how representatives use their bodies, spaces, and places, as well as words, scripts, and discourses, to exercise representation. Rai and Spary (2019, 18–9) argue that this perspective, focusing on how women exercise the representative function and how gender inequalities condition ceremonies and rituals, constructs the boundaries within which representation is exercised. The current theoretical and methodological challenge is to produce a deeper conceptualization of symbolic representation and its relation to descriptive and substantive representation. First, it is indispensable to conceptualize and analyze symbolic representation as a dimension of its own and not only a consequence of descriptive representation (Lombardo and Meier 2019, 231). Symbolic representation is more than perception or feeling represented or represented; it also represents the power relations (Connell 2002) that occur in representational processes (Lombardo and Meier 2019, 235). Seen from this perspective, it offers important opportunities for analysis and a deeper understanding of representational processes. The main task is to advance in the conceptualization of symbolic representation to analyze how this affects and relates to the formal and informal rules that act in the political arena, enabling or obstructing the exercise of power and the defense of their interests by women. In methodological terms, a more robust operationalization of the concept is needed to make sense of the frameworks and scenarios for effective women’s representation. A novel way of approaching the analysis of symbolic representation from this perspective should be based on the critical institutional and legislative context in which representation occurs (Pastor Yuste and Iglesias Onofrio 2014).

 This impact of discourses encompasses not only what is said (and how it is said) in parliaments, as the reproduction of gender stereotypes in media coverage prevents women from exercising symbolic representation effectively (Verge and Pastor 2018).

23

2.3  Understanding Women’s Legislative Representation: Dimensions of Analysis

35

How representatives access decision-making bodies, act and participate in debates and negotiations, and their capacities to express their opinions and influence decision-making processes, reproduce symbolic rules of power. Integrating directive boards and committees is necessary if the people—men and women—who occupy the positions within those bodies have the ability to influence decisions.24 However, there are also symbolic resources that women (do not) have at their disposal, thus revealing the asymmetry between those who sit in parliaments, those who participate in the exercise of power, and those who are limited to attending and legitimizing the decisions taken with their presence. The presidencies of both chambers and directive boards determine the agenda and chair plenary discussions, making them the most critical control structures in parliaments (Carroll et al. 2006, 155; García Méndez 2019, 82). In some contexts, they can even negotiate the content of decisions or block bills (Cox and McCubbins 2005, 23). In the context of an increasing number of female representatives, women face new opportunities. However, they also face new obstacles, such as restricted access to the legislative committees they prefer to participate in, structures where decisions are made (such as the Presidency of Congress or the legislative committees), information, and active participation when crucial decisions are made. All these structures tend to be dominated by men (Kathlene 1994; Rosenthal 1995). Women also tend to be pressured to let others (party bosses) decide for them and difficulties in deciding the issues on which to present initiatives (because their agenda is conditioned by party leaders or the expectation of not being able to deviate from the party line if they want to be re-elected or pursue a party career). The introduction of bills, which usually follows a set of formal rules, is also “a form of expressive or symbolic politics—a ritual or performance—through which legislators speak and speak for a particular constituency” (Franceschet 2010, 395). When representatives introduce or cosponsor bills, they do not do so solely (or even primarily) to pursue political objectives. In that sense, the decision about which legislative committees to participate in—and which initiatives to present—is linked to the symbolic dimension and related to concerns about specific issues and agendas, often associated with group membership. Thus, the routine activities of representatives also have critical symbolic dimensions (Franceschet 2010, 395), so the exercise of symbolic representation may be related to the capacity for the effective exercise of substantive representation. Moreover, if they are unable to exercise it, it is evidence of the difficulties women face in representing their interests when confronted with gendered rituals, rules, or narratives of representatives that hinder their ability to advance their interests. Finally, deliberative processes often reflect—and even magnify—existing inequalities in the status and power of representatives (Sanders 1997; Young 2000). In this scenario, men’s resistance to women’s proposals and interests becomes  Legislative committees are defined as temporary or permanent working groups, structured on the basis of thematic areas and made up of some of the members of an assembly, to whom the assembly delegates part of its functions in order to promote greater efficiency in the performance of the legislative function” (García Montero and Sánchez López 2002, 5).

24

36

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

evident, as does their propensity to dominate and control the debate. In other words, women must become part of “supermajorities” to achieve the influence and capacity to articulate their interests in the way that men tend to do as a majority group (Karpowitz and Mendelberg 2014). They may also become “critical actors” who represent women as a group, affecting women’s substantive representation (Childs and Krook 2009).

2.3.4  The Substantive Dimension of Legislative Representation Once people are in office, the analytical gaze turns to what elected people do and what interests they defend in democratic institutions. Within political science and in society in general, it is generally accepted that substantive representation, the representation of the citizenry’s interests, views, needs, and perspectives, is one of the crucial aspects of democratic representation (Celis 2013; Manin 1998; Pitkin 1967). Each person is expected to advocate ideas and interests and translate them into public policy in one way or another. Since substantive representation refers to “acting in the interest of the represented,” it involves analyzing the activities representatives do, the introduction of priorities, the inclusion of a specific agenda in legislative work, and the orientation of the preferences of such production. Political representation in its substantive dimension points to the need to ensure that public decisions reflect, to some extent, the interests of the group represented (Pitkin 1967). The idea existent in “critical mass theories,” since the pioneering works of Kanter (1977) and Dahlerup (1988), is that a higher number of female representatives implies a “critical mass” that has more possibilities to form alliances, differentiate themselves from each other, change the male-dominated culture and, in general, influence the legislative process and its results (Schwindt-Bayer 2014, 20). Feminist research since the 1980s has asked whether women represent only women’s interests, whether all women have the same interests, whether only women could represent those interests, whether representation occurs only within the legislative sphere, whether “good representation” is only feminist, and about what—then—women’s agendas are (Celis 2008a, 78; Celis 2013; Celis and Childs 2012; Weldon 2002).25 The question is to define those interests, sites where representation is exercised, and who can effectively exercise that representation (Sapiro 1991, 701). Concerning the question of what interests women represent, much feminist research explicitly acknowledges the heterogeneity of women as a group, noting that “there is no empirical or theoretical plausibility to the idea that women share all or even particular experiences” (Celis et al. 2008, 102). While most research agrees that the political actors central to women’s substantive representation are likely to be women, this

 This “critical mass” would be expected to become “critical actors”, including men and women, who would promote concrete actions to address women’s rights.

25

2.3  Understanding Women’s Legislative Representation: Dimensions of Analysis

37

is not the same as arguing that they will always be, or have to be, biologically women (Young 2000).26 Moreover, women’s multifaceted identities are shaped by intersections of origin, class, ethnicity, race, age, physical ability, and sexual preference (Celis 2013; Weldon 2002; Crenshaw 1991; Viveros Vigoya 2016), which further differentiates them. Women can defend interests that reflect the whole spectrum of social diversity, positions, and interests. Hence, given that women are a heterogeneous group, and that feminism does not speak for (or to) all women, representation is reinforced by “the realization of” conflicting and contradictory views of what women’s interests and needs are. The plurality of women’s issues, the diversity of spaces where representation can occur, and the existence of conflicting views about what constitutes women’s interests raise questions about what women’s issues and interests should be considered and how the quality of women’s substantive representation should be assessed (Celis 2013; Celis and Childs 2012). The scholarship then argues that there is no single women’s agenda, nor is there only a gender agenda, nor does it necessarily assume that all content is progressive and feminist, oriented toward women’s autonomy concerning their bodies, the exercise of power, or their relationships.27 It means that heterogeneity as a group is not only a question of origin, identity, or race but also ideological distinction and even considerations about the importance of public problems (issues). Hence, not all women share the same values or promote the same interests, agendas, and demands. Not all women are necessarily gender-conscious, nor are they all feminists. Moreover, when women agree on identifying public problems or the importance of some interests, their preferences about specific strategies for their realization are not necessarily homogeneous (Beckwith 2014). In a democracy, some female representatives may defend conservative interests and demands, clearly distinguishable from a progressive agenda (let alone a feminist agenda) (Freidenberg and Gilas 2020). However, these interests, actions, and decisions also produce representation and should be explicitly incorporated into analytical frameworks and empirical studies (Celis and Childs 2012, 213). Another question has to do with the space in which representation is exercised. A large part of the comparative scholarship has focused on observing representation in the legislative arena and the relevance of women’s participation to achieve  Weldon (2002) even draws attention to this point by questioning the weakness of arguments that make a direct connection between individuals’ personal experience and their knowledge of the group perspective. 27  Research from Anglo-Saxon feminist neo-institutionalism - which has done the most work on these issues - suggests reframing the basic questions. In a very suggestive study, Celis et al. (2008, 99) argue that the terms of the debate should be changed from traditional questions such as “Do women represent women? or Do women in politics make a difference? to questions such as Who claims to act on behalf of women? Where, why and how does women’s substantive representation occur? Dovi (2007) adds another set of questions about (1) how representation is done; (2) who does it; (3) in relation to which women; (4) which policies; (5) where; (6) when; (7) why; (8) to whom is it accountable; and (9) how effective is the representation. These questions go some way to answering the challenges of studying women’s substantive representation. 26

38

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

substantive representation. Celis and Childs (2012), Celis (2013), and Celis et al. (2008) argue that women’s substantive representation is no longer seen as restricted to what happens in parliaments or only to what women do there. It means assuming that women’s substantive representation can be exercised by anyone (and not just by women), can occur in multiple spaces (and not just in legislative bodies, but also in civil society and on the street, see Gwiazda 2019), and that women will not necessarily be different from men in their leadership and in the way representation is exercised (see Cowell-Meyers 2001; Celis et al. 2008, 100).28 Acting on behalf of women may be addressing issues specific to women, related to the private or public sphere, and intending to achieve feminist goals (Celis 2009, 5). It may also be advocating for a conservative agenda that defends ideas contrary to feminist ideology.29 In addition to representing interests and advancing policies, women are expected to have real possibilities to participate in the deliberative process (Knight and Johnson 1994; Gutmann and Thompson 2004) and change the conditions that give rise to the original inequality in access representation. Substantive representation is highly dependent on institutional (gendered) contexts (Lovenduski 2005). The capacity for substantive representation is determined by the formal rules under which representatives may present legislative proposals or participate in the committees and plenary sessions. However, this capacity is also affected by the informal rules that define, beyond written norms and regulations, the relations among representatives, their capacity to operate, promote proposals, and generate majorities for their approval, since all of them establish limits within which women exercise substantive representation. In addition to these elements, female representatives’ link with their parties, their ideology, the level of cohesion of the legislative groups, the relationship with the women’s movement, and activists are also factors that shape representative link in its substantive dimension. This book assumes that women do not necessarily have to defend women’s interests (whatever that may be), nor that because they are women, they should be allies in causes that seek to change the conditions of structural inequality in which they live, or at least they cannot be required to defend the same ideas for solving those problems. It means that women’s agenda can be feminist but that there can also be a representation of the ideas of “other women” (Celis and Childs 2012); that men and women embrace different political priorities (Swers 1998), and that there can be a women’s agenda that is conservative and therefore deserves to be represented. It also argues that while representation can occur in multiple spaces, this research

 Weldon (2002) suggests that other sites, such as women’s movements and women’s policy agencies (such as women’s institutes) offer alternative, and perhaps more effective, venues of representation for advancing women’s policies since ‘women’s interests’ are better defined through processes of articulation of interests, rather than simply the perspective of a single legislator. 29  According to Franceschet and Piscopo (2008), substantive representation should be approached from two perspectives: (a) as a process of action by female representatives that advances women’s interests (legislative initiatives, participation in debates with a gender perspective, creation of women’s networks inside and outside Congress) and (b) as an output or outcome, in which female representatives transform political practices and laws in favour of women. 28

2.4  Factors Explaining Women’s Political Representation

39

focuses on the legislative proposals the representatives articulate, reviewing which groups they intend to benefit from, and how effective they are in achieving their realization.

2.4  Factors Explaining Women’s Political Representation Comparative research has made significant efforts to explore the reasons for women’s political representation. Most of these efforts have focused on identifying the factors that explain differences in women’s descriptive representation levels in national legislative office, with much less attention on executive office or subnational politics. Moreover, because research has focused predominantly on one dimension of political representation, few studies help to understand the interactions between the dimensions and variables over an extended period. Even fewer describe or explain the substantive and symbolic representation levels in newly democratizing countries. Several hypotheses have been used to explain the change in the levels of descriptive representation of women. Political–institutional, social mobilization, socioeconomic, attitudinal, and cultural variables have been investigated for their impact on women’s representation. Studies have explored the organizational characteristics of parties (Caul Kittilson 1999); the effect of political recruitment and candidate selection processes (Norris and Lovenduski 1995; Bjarnegård 2013; Kenny 2013); the incorporation of measures in the electoral gender regime (quotas and parity) aimed to expand the number of women in public institutions (Krook 2009; Franceschet et al. 2012; Jones et al. 2012; Gilas 2014; Schwindt-Bayer 2018; Freidenberg 2020); ideology (Alles 2014); levels of social modernization (Inglehart and Norris 2003); women’s networks and the role of feminist activists in generating critical actor alliances that monitor and control that what the law says is followed (Schwindt-Bayer 2018; Freidenberg and Gilas 2020) or the relationship between representatives and party modernization (Lovenduski 2015). Given the diversity of factors that help to explain the existing differences in political representation analyzed in a multidimensional way, either in different legislatures of a subnational unit (state/province/ department) over time or between different units of the same political system, they can be arranged into four categories: political–institutional, socioeconomic, attitudinal, and representational explanations.

2.4.1  Political–Institutional Variables One of the most explored hypotheses in comparative politics is related to the impact of political–institutional variables (or, in other words, the formal dimension of representation) on women’s descriptive representation. The underlying idea is that it is necessary to force political parties to include women as candidates, given that party

40

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

organizations are the primary gatekeepers of representation (Lovenduski 2005). Such rules have been referred to as the “gender electoral regime” (Freidenberg 2020; Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016; 2018) and are what facilitate opportunities for underrepresented groups to access and exercise power (Matland 1993; Htun and Jones 2002; Htun 2005; Dahlerup 1988; Dahlerup and Freidenvall 2005; Jones 2009; Schwindt-Bayer 2018). Comparative experience has shown that the design of the electoral gender regime is essential since similar rules have had different results due to the combination of other formal institutional elements (such as the electoral system) or informal ones (such as harmful practices in the nomination process or arrangements that take advantage in the electoral competition) that interact with what the law requires, limiting the effects the laws pretend to generate (Freidenberg 2020; Llanos and Martínez 2016). The electoral gender regimes vary according to the values assumed by its components. How affirmative action measures and constitutional principles are designed affects political representation (Matland 1993; Htun and Jones 2002; Dahlerup and Freidenvall 2005; Krook 2010; Franceschet et al. 2012; Jones et al. 2012; Piscopo 2015; Archenti and Tula 2017; Došek et al. 2017).30 Having solid and demanding designs for the inclusion of women in nominations will not bring the same results as having weaker designs; the outcomes will be different (Freidenberg 2020). Elements that may vary have to do with how large is the proportion of candidacies reserved for women (Htun and Jones 2002; Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016; Baez et al. 2016; Schwindt-Bayer 2018); whether there is a mandate to place women in candidacies with high chances of being elected (Baldez 2004; Jones 2009; Langston and Aparicio 2014; Gilas and Christiansson 2018); strong sanctions for non-­ compliance (Dahlerup 2005); and the absence of escape valves, given that these types of measures allow for strategic manipulation by partisan actors (Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016; Freidenberg 2020). The efficiency of the gender electoral regime on descriptive representation may differ in a specific electoral system (Reynolds 1999; Htun and Jones 2002; Jones et al. 2012; Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016), being proportional representation systems with closed and blocked lists, in large or medium-sized districts particularly favorable for getting women elected (Htun and Jones 2002; Jones et al. 2012; Matland 1993; Matland and Taylor 1997, although limited: see Jones 2009; Alles 2014).31  The approval of these types of parity measures and principles refers to the need to integrate sexual difference into representative democracy, which is another step towards the construction of parity democracy (Bareiro and Soto 2015). Unlike gender parity, which is permanent, quotas are temporary measures that seek to increase the number of women candidates for office, being explicitly articulated in some way in the laws or regulations that establish the way in which candidacies for positions of popular representation are registered (Caminotti 2016). 31  One element of the gender electoral regime that is in tension with the type of electoral system is the position mandate. These tend to work in favor of women when the lists are closed and blocked, as they lose strength in open list or preferential voting systems. Comparative experience shows that in countries where quotas or gender parity have been approved and preferential voting is in place, women’s representation is much lower (Ecuador, Dominican Republic and Honduras) or, as 30

2.4  Factors Explaining Women’s Political Representation

41

The formal dimension also explains substantive and symbolic representation since the formal rules are written in regulations or laws that establish the scenarios in which women exercise representation. The rules established in legislative regulations determine who may present initiatives, who decides the agendas, who has a voice, who may preside over governing bodies, and for how long. Hence, they set the stage where politics is played and establish guidelines that legitimize legislative behavior. Other evidence of the weight of the formal dimension over symbolic representation can be found in the absence of gender mainstreaming in the internal rules of Congress, the schedules that prevent family reconciliation, the absence of inclusive language in policies, the lack of specialized gender units in the legislative bureaucracy, the nonexistence of lactation rooms and even of legislation oriented toward an agenda that deals with gender gaps. The absence of all these formal elements acts as obstacles to parity democracy.

2.4.2  Socioeconomic Variables The socioeconomic context can impact women’s representation, the functioning of the electoral gender regime, and the personal resources that women who want to compete have (Matland 1998; Rosen 2012). Different studies (Inglehart and Norris 2003) have shown how the transformation of societies toward higher economic development, higher levels of education, and access to resources impact political participation. The increasing financial autonomy, the overcoming of inequality in access to the labor market, the expanding availability of time to reconcile personal and professional life, and access to personal resources affect levels of political participation and, specifically, their possibilities of electoral success. Unlike political–institutional, socioeconomic variables have hardly been explored in Latin America, much less at the subnational level. Hence the need to analyze the extent to which this set of ideas related to socioeconomic development, modernization, and education are related to women’s representation. Comparative scholarship has pointed to their interaction on the gender gap in the labor market (Gilas 2014, 54), on women’s economic autonomy and disparity in educational attainment, on gender role-based family tasks, and the scarce time men devote to domestic life (CIM 2013, 20), and on citizens’ preferences and values demanding more significant participation of women in politics (Inglehart and Norris 2003). Hence, it is argued that economic development, as measured by the gross domestic product per capita, improves systemic conditions for women’s political representation. While recent research has explored these explanations in specific subnational contexts (Freidenberg and Garrido de Sierra 2021; Caminotti and Freidenberg

Schmidt (2020) has shown, the closed list type is more beneficial for women candidates in the Peruvian provinces than for those competing in Lima, when they have previous personal prestige, where preferential voting would not necessarily seem to affect their election.

42

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

2016), there is still necessary to explore the impact of socioeconomic variables over an extended period and at the subnational level.

2.4.3  Attitudinal Variables As elections approach, it is often heard in party corridors that “there are no women with leadership skills” (Llanos and Sample 2008) to meet the demands for women candidates needed to fill the nominations for elected office. These kinds of ideas, often referred to as “starting barriers” (Bernal Olarte 2006), raise doubts about women’s leadership abilities and skills. These comments often reproduce patriarchal and discriminatory values and attitudes and have hindered women’s access to politics (Gilas 2014; Archenti 2002; Krook and Norris 2014; Archenti and Tula 2017).32 This patriarchal culture is embedded in people’s preferences and carries over into party organizations and representative institutions. It works as a deep barrier of inequalities that makes it difficult for women to participate within political parties (Htun 2005) and legislatures (Krook and Norris 2014; Archenti and Tula 2014). Implicit gendered constituency biases—that women lose the election due to sexist voter preferences (Lawless and Fox 2005)—are often exacerbated in hierarchical, macho, and masculine-vindicating cultures. Gender roles are determinant for the reduced allocation of resources to women (time and money) and lower levels of their political ambition (Lawless and Fox 2005; Norris and Lovenduski 1995). Moreover, the increasing number of women involved in political activity has exacerbated the number and frequency of all kinds of violent and hostile acts towards them (Elman 2013, 236; Biroli 2018). Existing data show that, in all its types and modalities, violence against women in politics is widespread worldwide when they want to access or exercise power.33 Attitudinal obstacles become manifest in gender-based political violence, either during election campaigns or in office.34 Attacks on women for being women have  Research shows that there is more confidence in men’s leadership than women’s (Krook and Norris 2014; D’Adamo et al. 2008); that there are questions about women’s command and leadership abilities (D’Adamo et al. 2008; Llanos and Sample 2008); and even that certain sectors of the public believe that women are unable to participate in politics 33  The study conducted by the Inter-Parliamentary Union found that 81.8% of female representatives in the world have been victims of psychological violence, 21.8% of sexual violence, 25.5% of physical violence and 32.7% of economic violence. Other studies suggest that while violence in politics is common, women are more exposed to psychological violence and gendered forms of violence (Bardall 2018). 34  The conceptualization of gender-based political violence continues to be debated by academics and activists. Frequent definitions refer to political violence and harassment against women as behaviours specifically targeting women because they are women for the purpose of getting them out of politics, pressuring them to give up candidacy or a particular political office (Krook 2016), or as the gendered distribution of power and the use - conscious or unconscious - of any means at 32

2.4  Factors Explaining Women’s Political Representation

43

as their background the systematic and undifferentiated disqualification and distrust in their abilities and possibilities of doing a good job or winning an election (CDNH 2018). Women active in politics suffer different types of violence ranging from mockery, attacks on social networks, informal impediments to their nominations, electoral fraud, intimidation, pressure to resign, to threats and physical assaults against them, their family members, or team members (Freidenberg and Gilas 2020; Bardall 2019). Acts of violence against women often include gendered scripts, sexualized language or images, as well as sexual assaults (Bardall et al. 2020). In addition to manifesting themselves in various forms, expressions of violence against women politicians arise for several other reasons. The motivations behind acts of violence directed against women in politics can be gendered, motivated by the desire to preserve male control over spaces of power or to punish them for transgressing gender roles and norms (Manne 2017; Bardall et al. 2020). At times, it is about pressuring women to discourage them from competing for a representative office, inhibit their political advocacy, and prevent them from making alliances with other women. These manifestations even occur when specific behaviors are expected of women. It is expected that, because they are women, they should talk, act, or think in a certain way, implying discrimination against women because they are women. The violence directed at women can have widespread effects, regardless of whether their gender was present in the motivation or how the attacks were conducted (Bardall et al. 2020). Attacks on women can have an inhibiting impact, as other women considering involvement in political activity may view the risks and costs to which women—and often their families—are exposed as excessive. For women who are active in politics, gender-based violence prevents them from reaching representative spaces and, for those who nonetheless achieve seats, it inhibits them from freely and effectively exercising representation. Another attitudinal variable has to do with ideological preferences and the adoption—or not—of the feminist agenda by female representatives. The expectation of changes in the content of the decisions and how politics is done that are expected to occur with higher political representation of women are based on the idea that all women defend the same interests, share the same preferences about public policies, and articulate the same agendas. Some works even point out that “the concept of ‘substantive representation of women’ ... only makes sense when embedded in feminist theory about changing male dominance” (Dahlerup 2014, 66). However, as has already been discussed in these pages, not all the women who participate in politics, hold office, exercise representation, consider themselves feminists, or adopt the feminist agenda and postulates as their own. one’s disposal to preserve it (Bardall et al. 2020, 922). International instruments also tend to capture broad conceptualizations, such as that contained in Article 1 of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, which defines it as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life”.

44

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

A biological body with female characteristics and the experience of being a woman in a male-dominated society does not necessarily lead to the construction of gender consciousness and the adoption of feminism as a political ideology. On the contrary, the scholarship suggests that conservative women who exercise power consider and argue that they do so in the name of the interests of their gender. However, they understand these interests as distinct from and even opposed to those articulated by feminists. The debate over the validity of this conservative representation remains open, though that is a simple fact of the praxis of politics (Kantola 2006; Celis and Childs 2012, 2018). The exercise of representation by nonfeminist women—still understudied empirically—may modify power relations, facilitating women’s access to power structures and changing perceptions about women’s suitability as representatives and leaders. Even so, how feminist and nonfeminist women exercise symbolic and substantive representation is different, and, likely, the latter’s actions do not contribute to the changes in public policy or the expansion of women’s rights that would be expected in a parity democracy.

2.4.4  V  ariables of the Representation (Interactions Between the Dimensions of the Representation) Pitkin (1967) conceived representation as a multidimensional concept. Its four dimensions (formal, descriptive, substantive, and symbolic) are intertwined: always present—albeit to varying degrees or levels—and mutually influencing each other. Although it has not been possible to articulate a theory suitable to explain the relationships between the dimensions, feminist scholarship has documented various links. What is already known from the scholars of feminist neo-institutionalism is that the dimensions are interconnected and that there is no hierarchy among them (Celis 2008a, 71). The connection between the descriptive and substantive dimensions is the one that has received the most attention because it is the one to which, from a theoretical point of view, the relationship between the number of women and the outcomes of legislative activity may be most robust. Early work generally asked about the differences generated by higher numbers of congresswomen and used as evidence a comparatively large number of female representatives in Western European countries during the 1970s (Norris 1996; Skard and Haavio-Mannila 1985; Wangnerud 2000). Studies of substantive representation in the United States asked similar questions during the 1970s and 1980s, during the second wave of feminism (Schwindt-Bayer 2014). However, in Latin America, these questions emerged later because research on descriptive representation commenced in the late 1990s after gender quotas began to be adopted and the number of female representatives increased significantly.

2.4  Factors Explaining Women’s Political Representation

45

The common and fairly intuitive argument of this research is that more women in the office lead to a stronger women’s substantive representation and that women’s higher descriptive representation should have positive effects on the articulation of pro-equality public policies and the realization of women’s interests in representative democracies (Williams 1998; Young 1990; Lovenduski 2005; Mansbridge 1999; Phillips 1995; Celis et  al. 2008; Escobar-Lemmon and Taylor-Robinson 2014). The relationship between descriptive and substantive representation is based on the link between numbers and outcomes (Beckwith 2007, 28; Pitkin 1967). Although there are critical positions on that relationship (Schwindt-Bayer 2014; Celis 2013; Childs and Krook 2006, 2009; Crowley 2004; Reingold 2000), it is expected that more female representatives significantly improve the quality of bills and policies. More women are expected to incorporate visions and ideas on solving social problems in general and respond to women’s demands and interests in particular (Mansbridge 2005; Dodson 2006; Reingold 2000). It has also been pointed out that the percentage of women in the legislature is a determining factor in the content of the legislation passed, and that parliaments with a stronger female presence would pass more laws with a gender perspective (Bratton 2005; Thomas 1991, 1994). Likewise, this increase should positively affect the inclusion of more women within parties and public administration, becoming a vital impulse to reduce the gender gap and promote equality within political organizations (Rodríguez 2003). This idea simplifies the relationship between the descriptive and substantive dimensions by assuming that it is crucial to reach a “critical mass” of women in the legislature to develop policies that benefit women themselves. This view has been heavily criticized in comparative scholarship (Schwindt-Bayer 2014, 19; Celis 2013; Celis et  al. 2008). Some research points out that the increase in women’s descriptive representation does not naturally and directly result in the construction of substantive representation (Childs and Krook 2009). They suggest that women will not be able to force legislative change because their presence will be seen as a threat to male representatives who will marginalize them (Hawkesworth 2003; Heath et al. 2005) and may even exercise gender-based political violence against them (Freidenberg and Del Valle 2017). In some cases, it has been argued, significant increases in women’s representation may even generate a backlash in public policy, as women can act more effectively when they form small groups. It is so because women can mobilize individually and rely on constituencies to achieve their goals (Crowley 2004; Reingold 2000; Thomas 1991). As it does not condition women’s substantive representation on the number of female representatives, this perspective implies rejecting the existence of a direct, unique, and determining link between descriptive and substantive representation. In the face of the limitations of the “critical mass” perspective, several studies have highlighted the need to understand the role played by certain “critical actors” (Och 2021; Childs and Krook 2009). The idea of “critical actors” integrates representatives—men and women—who initiate legislative proposals and often, but not necessarily, encourage others to take action to promote policies for women, regardless of the number of female representatives in the legislature (Celis and Childs 2008;

46

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

Celis et al. 2008). So, substantive representation—which involves promoting initiatives and public policies toward equality—can be performed not only by women but by anyone who wants to, regardless of their gender. In this scenario, it would not be necessary to count only on women but on alliances with men and other genders that could be key to the approval of legislation. However, the descriptive dimension of representation also positively affects symbolic representation. Research on U.S. politics has found that the number of women in politics positively impacts symbols, mobilization, and political activities (Dodson 2006; Reingold 2000; Thomas and Wilcox 1998; Kathlene 1998; Darcy et  al. 1994). Moreover, comparative scholarship has suggested that women who enter the legislative arena through affirmative action or parity are more likely to experience male tactics of discrimination and violence. Thus, female representatives would have fewer opportunities to be effective and to represent women substantively. In contrast, other empirical work (Zetterberg 2007) has pointed out that women face obstacles in legislatures with and without affirmative action or parity. The obstacles to legislative work are similar in both institutional settings. Hence the impact of formal and descriptive dimensions on the symbolic representation is not crucial. The symbolic dimension also appears to influence the articulation of substantive and descriptive representation. More women in seats do not mean more women with power, more gender awareness, feminist ideology, experience, and capacity for political negotiation. Having more women in the office (descriptive representation) can transform the symbols of power (symbolic representation) because it implies that they challenge the androcentric way in which—historically—decisions were made, things were done, and power was distributed. The scholarship (Lombardo and Meier 2014) points out that symbolic representation shapes women’s capacity to carry out the substantive representation because the fact that women have access to leadership positions in the legislature or preside over commissions places them in more favorable positions to be able to promote agendas that contribute to equality. Theoretical and empirical research on women’s political representation has produced persuasive findings on the interaction between the dimensions of representation. However, these conclusions still appear disjointed, partial, and insufficient because the efforts have concentrated on relating one dimension of representation to another without seeking to offer results that involve more than two of them. Naturally, the difficulties of constructing an adequate theoretical design and, especially, having systematic information on each dimension have been a determining factor in the lack of perspectives that provide a complete vision of the interaction between dimensions. It is one of the fundamental reasons why this research seeks to explore in a systematic and complex way, empirically, the links between the formal, descriptive, symbolic, and substantive dimensions of representation.

2.5  Methodology: Proposals for Measuring and Explaining Political Representation…

47

2.5  M  ethodology: Proposals for Measuring and Explaining Political Representation from a Multidimensional Perspective 2.5.1  Case Selection Mexico is one of only 85 of the 153 countries in the Global Gender Gap Index where no woman has ever held the presidency; it has had only nine female governors in its entire history, and women have held only 20% of municipal presidencies and 26% of trustees. Experience shows that the road to generating conditions of equality between men and women has been a winding one. Although the last two legislatures have been parity legislatures, since 1988, only 1598 women legislators have been elected, compared to 4402 men, out of a total of 6000 legislative seats in dispute at the federal level. There were only 26.66% of female representatives in the recent history of the federal Congress. The Mexican experience contributes to the discussion on women’s political representation from a multidimensional perspective, as it is a federal country with 32 states, which historically have had the possibility of exercising—to a certain degree, at least—political–electoral federalism, that is, the opportunity to design, innovate, and use their own electoral rules (Cornelius et al. 1999; Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016). Moreover, it is interesting because, after the constitutional reform of 2014, there has been a drift toward a greater nationalization of the electoral system. The reform has meant harmonizing electoral rules across the territory, modifying the relations between the Federation and the states, and evidencing the substantive differences in the extension of political citizenship within the states. This powerful idea developed by O’Donnell (1999) or Cornelius et al. (1999) regarding the differences of democratization in the territory is evidenced when we observe women’s political representation. Precisely, this has been one of the arguments used to promote the nationalization of the Mexican electoral system since 2014.

2.5.2  Objectives, Questions, Method, Hypotheses, and Data The research focuses on the analysis of political representation’s four dimensions. It aims to evaluate the progress in the construction of parity democracy, understood as a political system in which women have the same rights as men, the same possibilities and opportunities to exercise them and maintain power under conditions of equality. The general objective of the book is to assess in a comprehensive and multidimensional way the political representation of women in those contexts where the principle of constitutional parity has been approved and to evaluate the impact of their legislative presence in subnational entities. Following the increase in the women’s descriptive representation in Mexican subnational legislatures, the aim is to understand how women work in Congress; what problems they seek to solve

48

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

through their bills (problems considered to be women’s problems, feminist or conservative, or directed at the society in general) and to what extent their presence has transformed the way politics is done within those state congresses. For this reason, the four dimensions of representation (formal, descriptive, substantive, and symbolic) and their interactions are examined through the analysis of (a) how political–institutional (formal dimension) and socioeconomic variables contribute to women’s access to state legislatures (descriptive dimension); (b) how political–institutional (formal dimension), socioeconomic, attitudinal, and representational variables (descriptive dimension) facilitate the realization of women’s interests through political decisions, and public policies (substantive representation); and (c) how political–institutional (formal dimension), attitudinal and representational variables (descriptive) favor the exercise of women in the legislative function (symbolic representation). These relationships are explored through a system of hypotheses that analyzes the determining factors for the exercise of each of the dimensions and the relationships between them. This research also aims to evaluate to what extent the dimensions of representation are related to each other and to what extent the increase or strengthening of one of them directly impacts the other(s). The most basic premise on which this work is based is that formal representation (in its authorization aspect) influences descriptive representation, which conditions the exercise of the substantive and symbolic dimensions. The expectation is that the stronger the gender electoral regime, the greater the number of female representatives, the greater their presence in leadership positions and governing boards (symbolic representation), and their impact on legislatures’ decisions and public policies (substantive representation). This first expectation is complemented by another that, as shown in Fig. 2.1, considers that symbolic representation reinforces substantive representation. It assumes that the greater the women’s influence in the control and articulation of parliamentary agendas, the stronger their capacity to transcend the articulation and materialization of women’s demands and interests. Symbolic dimension

Formal dimension

Descriptive dimension

Substantive dimension

Fig. 2.1  Women’s political representation: links among dimensions

2.5  Methodology: Proposals for Measuring and Explaining Political Representation…

49

The empirical expectations of the book and, in general, the premise from which it starts is closely related to the most elementary ideas underlying the perspectives that exist in the specialized scholarship regarding the interrelation between the different dimensions of representation. The “critical mass” and “critical actors” theories suggest that the descriptive dimension impacts the substantive one. The crucial difference between them is the emphasis that the critical mass theory places on the existence of a threshold beyond which the effect of the descriptive dimension is substantial. In contrast, this research finds that the effects of descriptive representation on substantive representation do not depend on a specific threshold but, instead, is a matter of degree. The impact is determined not only by the number of women but also by their influence on parliamentary activity (the symbolic dimension of representation). The second aspect that distinguishes this research is the idea of the weight of women’s influence on parliamentary activity as a determinant of substantive representation. In line with what has been argued previously in this chapter, this influence is considered one of the most ostensible reflections of the symbolic dimension. Ultimately, this means assuming that symbolic representation mediates the effects that descriptive representation produces on substantive representation, as Celis and Mazur (2012) suggested when they point out that symbolic representation may be, precisely, the necessary link between descriptive and substantive representation. The research uses the comparative method of subnational units (Snyder 2001) to study whether the Mexican subnational experience reflects the theoretical expectations. The study of subnational politics allows for the multiplication of units of observation within a country, allowing the possibility to control many of the interpretive biases that appear at the national level (Snyder 2001; Harbers et al. 2019; Giraudy et al. 2019). By increasing the units of observation, the use of statistical tools on a sufficiently large sample is possible, allowing to produce robust estimates (King et al. 2001). For example, as done in the initial part of this research, one can estimate the relationship between electoral parity rules and women’s political representation in 64 legislatures of 32 federal entities (2015–2018, 2018–2021, or equivalent),35 instead of observing a country at two given moments in time (two legislatures). It allows identifying differences in the access to rights and the exercise of citizenship in subnational politics and the effects on political representation according to the level of strength of electoral rules. The research employs mixed methods to achieve greater analytical capacity and depth. First, four datasets have been developed: (1) #MujeresEnLasReglas, which identifies the rules that express the gender electoral regime and its reforms in the 32 federal entities from 1987 to 2019; (2) #MujeresElectas, the database containing data on the descriptive representation of women in the 32 state Congresses from 1987 to 2019; (3) #MujeresLegisladoras, which tracks the exercise of women’s symbolic representation at the subnational level from 2014 to 2021; and (4)  For the analysis of descriptive representation, all 64 legislatures are considered. However, for the other two dimensions the number is reduced since the data were not available for at least 8 legislatures.

35

50

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

#IniciativasLegislativas, which compiles 24,397 bills proposed in 46 of the 64 subnational legislatures from 2014 to 2021. The data collected for these four original datasets are used to test hypotheses regarding explanatory factors for women’s political representation.36 Second, the #RepresentaciónParitaria dataset has been developed. It compiles the perceptions of 104 female representatives from different legislative periods of Mexican Congresses. The congresswomen responded to an online survey where they were consulted on various aspects of political representation, including their positions on feminism or groups and interests they intend to represent. The survey was conducted between January 22 and July 8, 2021, through a Google Forms questionnaire distributed through social networks (Twitter, Facebook, and WhatsApp chats). The data obtained have contributed to the qualitative analysis of the dynamics of representation in state congresses and the identification of the obstacles faced by female representatives in their work. The first focus of this study seeks to identify the factors that contribute to women’s access to the legislative office (descriptive representation). This dimension assesses the extent to which the design of the gender electoral regime, the type of electoral system, and the age of the gender quotas or parity make it possible to reverse historical patterns of discrimination and the electoral systems’ effects that impact descriptive representation. It is argued that the more robust the formal dimension of representation, measured through the design of the gender electoral regime in the nominations for elected office, the greater the descriptive representation of women in the states’ legislatures (see Fig. 2.2). Another reasonable expectation regarding the effectiveness of the gender quota and parity is that a learning process is needed to get used to the presence of women in the public sphere (Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016), as this increases the visibility of the gender agenda and internalizes the fact of having women in public office as part of an everyday practice that affects symbolic representation. Thus, a positive

Formal dimension (institutional variables) Descriptive dimension Socioeconomic variables

Symbolic dimension

Substantive dimension

Fig. 2.2  Women’s political representation: causal relationships  The repository with the data, code and graphs used or generated for this research can be consulted at https://github.com/segasi/from_des_to_subs_rep

36

2.5  Methodology: Proposals for Measuring and Explaining Political Representation…

51

relationship could be expected between the time since the approval of the quota and parity (its age) and the representation of women in legislatures. Another element to be explored is the weight of socioeconomic variables on women’s descriptive representation levels. We are studying whether economic development, measured by the gross domestic product per capita, generates better systemic conditions for women’s political participation and representation. Also, we analyze the weight of the urbanization of the states and schooling levels on the women’s descriptive representation. It is expected that the higher the per capita gross domestic product of a state, the higher the percentage of the population living in urban areas and the higher the percentage of the population with at least 1 year of higher education, the higher the descriptive representation of women in the legislatures of that state. The second focus of analysis is the level of women’s symbolic representation in Mexican state Congresses in the two legislatures following the approval of parity in 2014. The dimension of symbolic representation is measured based on three fundamental categories for analyzing the institutional and legislative “critical context” in which women’s descriptive representation is exercised. First, an analysis is made of the presence of women in the spaces that embody the leadership of legislatures and whether they have the opportunity to integrate them equitably. Second, the research looks at whether women participate in legislative committees, paying attention to their access to the chairmanships and how the distribution of legislative issues reproduces gender stereotypes. Third, it focuses on the inclusion of the gender perspective in the work of the legislature by examining whether there are specialized internal organs to follow up on legislative decisions relating to gender equality (Gender and Non-Discrimination Units) and to promote research to reduce the gender gap (Gender Studies Centers). The research explores the extent to which political-institutional and socioeconomic variables impact the exercise of symbolic representation by female representatives. The theoretical expectation is that changes in the descriptive dimension of political representation have the most substantial positive impact on the symbolic dimension, access to positions in leadership bodies and legislative commissions, the (des-gendered) dynamics of legislative work, and the use of inclusive language. The premise underlying these expectations is that when women’s access to leadership positions is hindered or denied, their right to exercise a public voice is denied. Thus, it is essential to analyze the obstacles female representatives face when exercising power within legislative institutions. The third focus of analysis is the legislative production and the orientation of bills, aiming to explore the extent to which political-institutional, attitudinal, and representational variables favor substantive representation. This dimension is measured through three indicators: the level of legislative production (measured by the number of bills presented during their mandate), the effectiveness rate, and the orientation of the bills proposed (whether they represent positions close to the feminist agenda). This research explores the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation to evaluate whether a more significant presence of female representatives allowed them to present more initiatives, whether these were aimed at

52

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

reducing existing inequalities in societies, and, if so, whether they managed their approval by the Congresses. In this comprehensive scheme, this research evaluates to what extent a higher number of female representatives (descriptive representation) and their stronger presence in legislative leadership positions (symbolic representation) positively impact the substantive dimension of women’s representation at the subnational level. Its central objective is to identify the factors that determine the exercise of women’s political representation in its four dimensions and characterize the obstacles women face when they want to access and exercise power on equal terms with men.

2.6  Argument and Contribution Women’s political representation has historically been limited in the Mexican states. Although the legal recognition of women’s right to vote dates back to 1953, this right was not fully exercised in practice. Women voted but were not usually nominated, much less elected. Later, when the adoption of gender quotas and parity (formal dimension) succeeded in raising the proportion of women in representative offices, more women had the power to propose and materialize legislative initiatives. However, these initiatives do not necessarily meet women’s feminist demands and interests and transform the conditions that reproduce inequality. The main argument of this book is that women’s political representation must be analyzed in a multidimensional way, through the actions of female representatives but also of a multiplicity of critical actors committed to the equality agenda and that these political behaviors are observed at multiple levels of institutional action (federal-­subnational). It is impossible to understand the scope of women’s political representation by looking at only one aspect, one of its dimensions, or one of its institutional manifestations. Looking at only one of the dimensions or only one of the institutional levels can lead to confusion and conclude that more women are in office is a sufficient condition for achieving substantive equality. The multidimensional and empirical analysis of political representation carried out in this research evidences that the formal dimension of representation, through the gender electoral regime, has a decisive impact on descriptive representation: the more robust the gender electoral regime for candidates’ nominations, the greater the political representation of women in subnational legislative institutions, regardless of the type of electoral system. This argument is supported by the results of several binomial logistic mixed-effects models. After controlling for different variables, the models indicate that an increase in the “Gender Electoral Regime Strength Index” is associated with a 92.7% growth in the predicted proportion of women elected by plurality and 51.6% by proportional representation. The models’ results also suggest that the effect of the index is not homogeneous among states. Thus, it is necessary to explore other subnational variables in future research, such as women’s

2.6  Argument and Contribution

53

political trajectory, the level of associationism, and the capacity to articulate support networks or legal mobilization. This research also argues that even though the gender gap in descriptive representation has been reduced and more women have acceded to the leadership of subnational legislatures, this has not changed the way of doing politics. It is not enough to feminize politics or reduce the obstacles women face when they want to exercise power, given that subnational Congresses continue to be gendered. More congresswomen preside over the Congresses, but they do not manage to eliminate the obstacles. The formal and informal barriers do not allow women to exercise their public voice the same way male politicians do. Although strengthened by the increase in descriptive representation, the increase in women’s symbolic representation does not necessarily translate directly into a radical change in the gendered power relations within legislatures. Access to the symbolic resources of power (particularly to spaces in the committees and directive boards) does not lead to changes in the actual distribution of power within Congress, leaving women at a disadvantage compared to men. The research shows that female representatives have not promoted initiatives that would allow for a profound transformation of gendered social relations. It was believed—as much of the scholarship has done—that once they reached the legislatures, they would promote initiatives aimed at reducing inequalities and build alliances with other women (and with other critical actors) to generate the transformations the societies need. Although they have presented initiatives, and even as their presence in the seats has increased, the greater the number of projects presented and approved, this has not been enough to meet the expectations of transformation that the entry of more women into politics suggests. After 8 years of parity politics, with an increasing presence of women and more legislative work in state congresses, there has been no evidence of the mobilization of resources to reduce inequalities or materialize the feminist or progressive agenda. Moreover, when legislative agendas linked to women’s political–electoral rights or to reducing gender-based political violence have been promoted, it has been due to the political agreements reached at the federal level to legislative harmonization, which, by constitutional mandate, must be replicated by the states. It highlights one of the most important effects of the nationalization of the political system after the constitutional reform of 2014 and how multilevel dynamics advance in the construction of parity democracy in federal systems. It also reflects that the agendas of state representatives, for the most part, are in the representation of other interests and that gender equality is not necessarily the priority in their legislative work. The research, therefore, finds obstacles women face when exercising their positions within the male-dominated legislatures. It reveals the constant violence (partisan, institutional, and in the media). It also shows that not all women who accede to representative positions articulate feminist agenda because of the pressure from the parties to which they belong or their adherence to conservative positions and ideologies. Despite the increase in women’s legislative activity (in terms of their capacity to articulate legislative initiatives and get them approved), they rarely contribute to the construction of gender equality, beyond the strengthening of gender parity

54

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

measures or the fight against political violence. The relevant point is that the representation of the feminist agenda in the states is more in the civil society organizations, in the broad women’s movement (activists, academics, electoral officers, and social leaders) than in the Congresses. This element supports the recent research of feminist neo-institutionalism that demands looking at other spaces where representation is exercised outside the legislature. The research contributes to the comparative scholarship by emphasizing women’s agency, the impact of rules as tools for change, and the formal and informal institutions that act as agents of change or resistance to gender transformations. The book’s findings are also innovative because they allow for empirical corroboration of a series of theoretical premises that had been articulated and analyzed for national politics, but which this time have been explored throughout the territory, with a higher number of the observation units and employing the subnational comparative method to account for the differences in the exercise of women’s citizenship among the states. The research dialogues with the existing scholarship on women’s political representation, strengthening some of the arguments sustained by other studies (e.g., regarding the relationship between formal and descriptive representation); shedding more light on some aspects that until now have been understudied (e.g., the relationship between symbolic and substantive representation) and dismantling certain assumptions that for a long time predominated regarding whom women represent. The findings of this research are clear: women are diverse and plural, a single agenda does not mobilize them, they do not have homogeneous interests, and they cannot be expected to function as a single interest group fighting for a single cause. In contrast to essentialist demands that expect women to fight for women’s rights and feminist beliefs and that all women should advance interests aimed at reducing gender inequalities, this research found that the changes made so far in terms of the formal and descriptive dimensions of political representation in Mexican states do not support such expectations. More women acceded to the office but have been unable (or unwilling) to promote feminist agendas that reduce inequalities. On the contrary, as more women entered legislatures, conservative agendas have also claimed to represent women’s rights, although they do not seek to build a more egalitarian society with more rights and more autonomy for women. The research that supports this book has allowed us to make empirical, theoretical, and methodological contributions, showing that no single explanation or single factor transforms presence into influence. The process of institutional and political change that Mexican state congresses have undergone in recent years is not over. There are still obstacles and barriers that hinder the functioning of parity democracy with substantive equality. These barriers are still in the formal rules but also in the expectations, practices, and behaviors of those who represent and those who are represented. The fact that female politicians still complain that “they are there, but they are not seen” or that “they speak, but they are not heard” shows that presence does not imply influence. It is observed that they are—increasingly—in the seats, they even lead Congresses and preside over Committees, but this has not been enough for them to exercise real power.

References

55

References Acker, Joan. 1992. Gendered institutions. From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology 21 (5): 565–569. Adams, Melinda, and Michal Smrek. 2018. Making institutions and context count: How useful is feminist institutionalism in explaining male dominance in politics? Politics & Gender 14 (2): 271–276. von Alemann, Ulrich. 1985. Repräsentation. In Pipers Wörterbuch zur Politik, Band 1: Politikwissenschaft. Theorien—Methoden  – Begriffe, ed. Dieter Nohlen and Rainer-Olaf Schultze. München: Pipers. Alexander, Amy. 2012. Change in women’s descriptive representation and the belief in women’s ability to govern: A virtuous cycle. Politics and Gender 8: 437–464. Alles, Santiago. 2014. Ideología partidaria, competencia electoral y elección de legisladoras en cinco democracias latinoamericanas: Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Perú y Uruguay, 1980-2013. América Latina Hoy, Revista de Ciencias Sociales 66: 69–94. Annesley, Claire, and Francesca Gains. 2010. The core executive: Gender, power and change. Political Studies 58 (5): 909–929. Archenti, Nélida. 2002. La ciudadanía tardía de las mujeres. In Política en América Latina, ed. Manuel Alcántara. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Archenti, Nélida, and María Inés Tula, eds. 2014. La representación imperfecta. Logros y desafíos de las mujeres políticas. Buenos Aires: Eudeba. ———. 2017. Critical challenges of quotas and parity in Latin America. In Women, politics and democracy in Latin America, ed. Tomáš Došek, Flavia Freidenberg, Mariana Caminotti, and Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian, 29–44. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2019. Teoría y Política en clave de género. Colección 30 (1): 13–43. Arnesen, Sveinung, and Yvette Peters. 2018. The legitimacy of representation: How descriptive, formal, and responsiveness representation affect the acceptability of political decisions. Comparative Political Studies 51 (7): 868–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017720702. Atkeson, Lonna Rae. 2003. Not all cues are created equal: The conditional impact of female candidates on political engagement. The Journal of Politics 65 (4): 1040–1061. Báez, Carlos, and Manuel González Oropeza. 2016. Viejos y nuevos retos de la democracia paritaria en México: la plena igualdad en la representación política de los géneros. Revista Mexicana de Derecho Electoral 6: 125–139. Bachhi, Carol Lee. 1999. Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. London: Sage. Baldez, Lisa. 2004. Elected bodies: The gender quota law for legislative candidate in Mexico. Legislative Studies Quarterly 2: 239–258. Bardall, Gabrielle S. 2018. Violence, politics, and gender. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.208. Bardall, Gabrielle. 2019. Symbolic violence as a form of violence against women in politics: A critical examination. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales 65 (238): 379–389. Bardall, Gabrielle, Elin Bjarnegård, and Jennifer M. Piscopo. 2020. How is political violence gendered? Disentangling motives, forms, and impacts. Political Studies 68 (4): 916–935. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0032321719881812. Bareiro, Line, and Lilian Soto. 2015. La Hora de la Igualdad Sustantiva. New York: ONU Mujeres. Barnes, Tiffany. 2016. Gendering legislative behaviour. Cambridge University Press. Barnes, Tiffany, and Gregory Saxton. 2019. Working-class legislators and perceptions of representation in Latin America. Political Research Quarterly 72 (4): 910–928. https://doi. org/10.1177/1065912919829583. Barnes, Tiffany, and Stephanie Burchard. 2013. Engendering politics the impact of descriptive representation on women’s political engagement in Sub-Saharan Africa. Comparative Political Studies 46 (7): 767–790. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012463884.

56

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

Beckwith, Karen. 2007. Numbers and newness: The descriptive and substantive representation of women. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 40 (1): 27–49. ———. 2014. Plotting the path from one to the other: Women’s interests and political representation. In Representation. The case of women, ed. María Escobar-Lemmon and Michelle Taylor-­ Robinson, 19–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bernal Olarte, Argelina. 2006. Mujeres y participación política: el desencanto por la política o la nostalgia por lo comunitario. Bogotá: INSTRAW. Bjarnegård, Elin. 2013. Gender, informal institutions and political recruitment: Explaining male dominance in parliamentary representation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Biroli, Flávia. 2018. Violence against women and reactions to gender equality in politics. Politics & Gender 14 (4): 681–685. Bratton, Kathleen A. 2005. Critical mass theory revisited: The behavior and success of token women in state legislatures. Politics & Gender 1 (1): 97–25. Bustelo, María, and Emanuela Lombardo, eds. 2007. Políticas de igualdad en España y en Europa. Madrid: Cátedra. Butler, Judith. 1990. El género en disputa: el feminismo y la subversión de la identidad. Buenos Aires: Paidós. Caminotti, Mariana. 2016. Cuotas de Género y Paridad en América Latina: Mujeres, Partidos Políticos y Estado. In Reformas a las Organizaciones de Partidos Políticos en América Latina (1978-2015), ed. Flavia Freidenberg and Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian, 3–203. Lima: PUCP, OEA, SAAP, and Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Caminotti, Mariana, and Flavia Freidenberg. 2016. Federalismo Electoral, Fortaleza de las Cuotas de Género y Representación Política de las Mujeres en los Ámbitos Subnacionales de Argentina y México. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales 61 (228): 121–141. Campbell, David E., and Christina Wolbrecht. 2006. See jane run: Women politicians as role models for adolescents. The Journal of Politics 68 (2): 233–247. Carroll, Susan. 1994. Women as candidates in American politics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ———. 2002. Representing women: Congresswomen’s perceptions of their representational roles. In Women Transforming Congress, Congressional Studies Series, ed. Cindy Simon Rosenthal, vol. 4, 50–68. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Carroll, Susan, and Richard L.  Fox, eds. 2006. Gender and elections: Shaping the future of American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Caul Kittilson, Miki. 1999. Women’s representation in parliament. The role of political parties. Party Politics 5 (1): 79–98. ———. 2013. Party politics. In The Oxford handbook of gender and politics, ed. Georgina Waylen, Karen Celis, Johanna Kantola, and Laurel S. Weldon, 536–556. New York: Oxford University Press. Caul Kittilson, Miki, and Leslie Schwindt-Bayer. 2010. Engaging citizen: The role of power institutions. The Journals of Politics 72 (4): 990–902. Celis, Karen. 2008a. Gendering representation. In Politics, gender and concepts. Theory and methodology, ed. Gary Goertz and Amy Mazur, 71–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2008b. Studying women’s substantive representation in legislatures: When representative acts, contexts and women’s interests become important. Representations 44 (2): 111–123. ———. 2009. Substantive representation of women (and improving it): What it is and should be about? Comparative European Politics 7 (1): 95–13. https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2008.35. ———. 2013. Representativity in times of diversity: The political representation of women. Women’s Studies International Forum 41: 179–186. Celis, Karen Sarah Childs, and Johanna Kantola. 2016. Regendering Party Politics: An Introduction. Party Politics 22(5): 571–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068816655567

References

57

Celis, Karen, Sarah Childs, Johanna Kantola, and Mona Lena Krook. 2008. Rethinking women’s substantive representation. Representations 44 (2): 99–10. Celis, Karen and Sarah Childs. 2008. Introduction: The Descriptive and Substantive Representation of Women: New Directions. Parliamentary Affairs 61 (3): 419–425. Celis, Karen, and Sarah Childs. 2012. The substantive representation of women: What to do with conservative claims? Political Studies 60 (1): 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­9248 .2011.00904.x. Celis, Karen, and Amy Mazur. 2012. Hanna Pitkin’s ‘concept of representation’. Revisited introduction. Politics & Gender 8: 508–512. Celis, Karen, and Sarah Childs. 2018. Conservatism and women’s political representation. Politics & Gender 14: 5–26. Clayton, Amanda, Diana Z. O’Brien, and Jennifer Piscopo. 2019. All male panels? Representation and democratic legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science 63 (1): 113–129. Chappell, Louise. 2002. Gendering government: Feminist engagement with the state in Australia and Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Childs, Sarah, and Miki Caul Kittilson. 2016. Feminizing political parties. Women’s party member organizations within European parliamentary parties. Party Politics 22 (5): 598–508. Childs, Sarah, and Mona Lena Krook. 2006. Should feminists give up on critical mass? A contingent ‘yes’. Politics and Gender 2 (4): 522–530. ———. 2009. Analysing women’s substantive representation: from critical mass to critical actors. Government and Opposition 44 (2): 125–145. CIM [Comisión Interamericana de Mujeres]. 2013. La Ciudadanía de las Mujeres en las Democracias de las Américas. Stockholm/Washington: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, and Comisión Interamericana de Mujeres, Organización de los Estados Americanos. CNDH [Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos]. 2018. Violencia política contra las mujeres en razón de género. Mexico City: FEPADE, INE, CEAV, FEVIMTRA, and INMUJERES. https:// www.cndh.org.mx/sites/all/doc/OtrosDocumentos/Doc_2018_056.pdf. Connell, Raewyn W. 2002. On hegemonic masculinity and violence: Response to Jefferson and Hall. Theoretical Criminology 6 (1): 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/136248060200600104. Cornelius, Wayne A., Todd Eisenstadt, and Jane Hindley, eds. 1999. Subnational politics and democratization in Mexico. San Diego: Center for U.S.  Mexican Studies, University of California. Cotta, Maurizio. 1991. Representación política. In Diccionario de Política, ed. Norberto Bobbio, Nicola Mateucci, and Gianfranco Pasquino, 1384–1390. Mexico City: Siglo XXI Editores. Cotta, Maurizio, and Heinrich Best, eds. 2007. Democratic representation in Europe: Diversity, change and convergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2005. Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the U.S. house of representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cowell-Meyers, Kimberly. 2001. Gender, power, and peace: A preliminary look at women in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Women and Politics 23 (3): 55–88. Chiva, Cristina. 2018. Gender, institutions and political representation: Reproducing male dominance in Europe’s new democracies. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Craske, Nikki. 1999. Women & politics in Latin America. London: Routledge. Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–1299. Crowley, Jocelyn Elise. 2004. When tokens matter. Legislative Studies Quarterly 29 (1): 109–136. Criado Perez, Caroline. 2020. La mujer invisible. Descubre cómo los datos configuran un mundo hecho por y para los hombres. Madrid: Editorial Seix Barral. Darcy, Robert, Susan Welch, and Janet Clark. 1994. Women, elections, and representation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

58

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

D’Adamo, Orlando, Virginia García Beaudoux, Gladys Ferrari, and Gabriel Slavinsky. 2008. Mujeres candidatas: percepción pública del liderazgo femenino. Revista de Psicología Social 23 (1): 91–04. Dahl, Robert. 1971. La Poliarquía. Madrid: Tecnos. Dahlerup, Drude. 1988. From a small to a large minority: Women in Scandinavian politics. Scandinavian Political Studies 11 (4): 275–297. ———. 2005. The theory of a ‘critical mass’ revisited. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington DC, September. ———. 2014. Representing women: Defining substantive representation of women. In Representation. The case of women, ed. María Escobar-Lemmon and Michelle M.  Taylor-­ Robinson, 58–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dahlerup, Drude, and Leni Freidenvall. 2005. Quotas as a ‘fast track’ to equal representation for women: why scandinavia is no longer the model. International Feminist Journal of Politics 7 (1): 26–48. Desposato, Scott, and Barbara Norrander. 2009. The gender gap in Latin America. British Journal of Political Science 39 (1): 141–162. Diamond, Larry. 2004. Elecciones sin democracia. A propósito de los regímenes híbridos. Estudios Políticos 24: 117–134. Dodson, Debra L. 1998. Representing women’s interests in the U.S. house of representatives. In Women and elective office: Past, present, & future, ed. Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox, 129–151. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2006. The impact of women in congress. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Došek, Tomáš, Flavia Freidenberg, Mariana Caminotti, and Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian, eds. 2017. Women, politics and democracy in Latin America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Dovi, Suzanne. 2002. Preferable descriptive representatives: Will just any woman, black, or latino do? American Political Science Review 96: 745–754. ———. 2007. The good representative. New York: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. ———. 2015. Hanna Pitkin, the concept of representation. In The Oxford handbook of classics in contemporary political theory, ed. Jacbo T. Levy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198717133.013.24. ———. 2018. Political representation. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall Edition), ed. Edward N.  Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/ political-­representation/. Duerst-Lahti, Georgia. 2002. Governing institutions, ideologies, and gender: Toward the possibility of equal political representation. Sex Role 47 (7–8): 371–388. ———. 2008. Gender ideology: Masculinism and feminalism. In Politics, gender and concepts, ed. Gary Goertz and Amy Mazur, 159–192. New York: Cambridge University Press. Eagly, Alice, and Blair T.  Johnson. 1990. Gender and leadership style: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin 108: 233–256. ECLAC [Comisión Económica para América Latina]. 2021. Observatorio de Igualdad de Género en América Latina. Santiago: ECLAC. https://oig.cepal.org/es/autonomias/ autonomia-­la-­toma-­decisiones. Elman, R.  Amy. 2013. Gender violence. In The Oxford handbook of gender and politics, ed. Georgina Waylen, Karen Celis, Johanna Kantola, and Laurel S.  Weldon, 236–257. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Escobar-Lemmon, Maria C., and Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson. 2014. Dilemmas in the meaning and measurement of representation. In Representation. The case of women, ed. Maria Escobar-­ Lemmon and Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson, 1–18. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Findlay, Tammy. 2011. Gender, Democracy and Multilevel Governance: Early Childhood Development Roundtables in British Columbia. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Wilfrid Laurier University, May 16. https://www. cpsa-­acsp.ca/papers-­2011/Findlay.pdf

References

59

Folke, Olle, and Johanna Karin Rickne. 2012. Female Representation but Male Rule? Party Competition and the Political Glass Ceiling. IFN Working Paper 923. https://doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.2179521. Franceschet, Susan. 2010. The gendered dimensions of rituals, rules and norms in the chilean congress. The Journal of Legislative Studies 16 (3): 394–307. Franceschet, Susan, and Jennifer Piscopo. 2008. Gender quotas and women’s substantive representation: Lessons from Argentina. Politics & Gender 4: 393–325. Franceschet, Susan, Mona Lena Krook, and Jennifer Piscopo, eds. 2012. The impact of gender quotas. New York: Oxford University Press. Freidenberg, Flavia. 2020. Electoral reform and political representation of women in Latin America. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Retrieved 24 Nov., from https://oxfordre.com/ politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-­9780190228637-­e-­1676 Freidenberg, Flavia, and Gabriela Del Valle, eds. 2017. Cuando hacer política te cuesta la vida. Estrategias contra la violencia política hacia las mujeres en América Latina. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM, and Tribunal Electoral de la Ciudad de México. Freidenberg, Flavia, and Karolina M.  Gilas. 2020. ¡Ellas tienen los escaños, ellos el poder! Representación legislativa de las mujeres en el Estado de Morelos. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales Año 65 (240): 327–358. ———. 2021. Justicia electoral y representación política de las mujeres en México. Revista Estudios Políticos (España) 191: 109–148. https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rep.191.05. Freidenberg, Flavia, and Sebastián Garrido de Sierra. 2021. Régimen electoral de género y representación política de las mujeres a nivel subnacional en México. Revista de Ciencia Política (Santiago) 41(1): 67–01. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-­090X2021005000103. Gains, Francesca, and Vivien Lowndes. 2016. How is Gender implicated in institutional design and change? The role of informal institutions: A case study of police and crime commissioners in England and Wales. Manchester: University of Manchester. Gallagher, Michael, and Paul Mitchell, eds. 2005. The politics of electoral systems. Oxford: OUP Oxford. García Beaudoux, Virginia. 2018. Medios de comunicación, estereotipos de género y liderazgo femenino en América Latina. In Mujeres en la política: experiencias nacionales y subnacionales en la política, ed. Flavia Freidenberg, Mariana Caminotti, Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian, and Tomáš Došek, 119–144. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM. García Méndez, Erika. 2019. Representación política de las mujeres en los Congresos subnacionales en México. Un modelo de evaluación. Estudios Políticos 46 (enero-abril): 73–98. García Montero, Mercedes, and Francisco Sánchez López. 2002. Las comisiones legislativas en América Latina: una clasificación institucional y empírica. In Working Paper, 212. Barcelona: Institut de Ciències Polítiques i Socials. Gilas, Karolina M. 2014. Con las cuotas no basta. De las cuotas de género y otras acciones afirmativas. Mexico City: Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación. ———. 2021. Representación simbólica de las mujeres. Una propuesta de conceptualización y evaluación desde el neoinstitucionalismo feminista. Paper presented at the LASA Congress 2021, Vancouver, Canadá, May 26-29. Gilas, Karolina M., J.K. Mikaela, A. Verónica Christiansson, Méndez Pacheco, Rafael Caballero Álvarez, Ángel M.  Sebastián, and Barajas. 2016. El abanico de la representación política: variables en la integración de los congresos mexicanos a partir de la reforma 2014. Mexico City: Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación. Gilas, Karolina M., and Mikaela Christiansson. 2018. La paridad de género y la regla de los distritos perdedores en México. In Mujeres en la Política: Experiencias Nacionales y Subnacionales en América Latina, ed. Flavia Freidenberg, Mariana Caminotti, Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian, and Tomáš Došek, 145–166. Mexico City: Instituto Electoral de la Ciudad de México, and Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Goertz, Gary, and Amy Mazur. 2008. Politics, gender and concepts. Theory and methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

60

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis F.  Thompson. 2004. Why deliberative democracy? Princeton University Press. Giraudy, Agustina, Eduardo Moncada, and Richard Snyder. 2019. Subnational research in comparative politics substantive, theoretical, and methodological contributions. In Inside countries: Subnational research in comparative politics, ed. Agustina Giraudy, Eduardo Moncada, and Richard Snyder, 3–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gwiazda, Anna. 2019. The substantive representation of women in Poland. Politics & Gender 15 (2): 262–284. Harbers, Imke, Jos Bartman, and Enrike van Wingerden. 2019. Conceptualizing and measuring subnational democracy across Indian States. Democratization 26 (7): 1154–1175. Hawkesworth, Mary. 2003. Congressional enactments of race-gender: Toward a theory of raced-­ gendered institutions. The American Political Science Review 97 (4): 529–550. Heath, Roseanna Michelle, Leslie Schwindt-Bayer, and Michelle M.  Taylor-Robinson. 2005. Women on the sidelines: Women’s representation on committees. American Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 420–436. Heywood, Andrew. 2004. Political theory: An introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Holli, Anne Maria, and Johanna Kantola. 2007. State feminism finnish style: Strong policies clash with implementation problems. In Changing state feminism, ed. Joyce Outshoorn and Johanna Kantola, 82–101. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Htun, Mala N. 2005. Women, politics and electoral systems in Latin America. In Women in parliament: Beyond numbers, a New Edition, ed. I.D.E.A.  International, 112–121. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. ———. 2016. Inclusion without representation in Latin America: Gender quotas and ethnic reservations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Htun, Mala, and Mark P. Jones. 2002. Engendering the right to participate in decision-making: Electoral quotas and women’s leadership in Latin America. In Gender and the politics of rights and democracy in Latin America, ed. Nikki Crake and Maxine Molineux, 32–56. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Inglehart, Ronald, and Pippa Norris. 2003. Rising tide. Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jaquette, Jane S. 1995. Rewriting the scripts: Gender in the comparative study of Latin American politics. In Latin America in comparative perspective: New approaches to methods and analysis, ed. Peter Smith, 111–133. Boulder: Westview Press. Johnson, Deb, Hope Kabuchu, and Santa V. Kayonga. 2003. Women in ugandan local government. Gender and Development 1 (3): 8–18. Jones, Mark P. 2009. Gender quotas, electoral laws, and the election of women. Evidence from the Latin American Vanguard. Comparative Political Studies 42 (1): 56–81. Jones, Mark P., Santiago Alles, and Carolina Tchintian. 2012. Cuotas de Género, Leyes Electorales y Elección de Legisladoras en América Latina. Revista de Ciencia Política 32 (2): 331–357. Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1977. Some effects of proportion on group life: Skewed sex ratios and response to token women. American Journal of Sociology 82: 965–990. Kantola, Johanna. 2006. Feminists theorize the state. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Karpowitz, Christopher, and Tali Mendelberg. 2014. The silent sex: Gender, deliberation, and institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kathlene, Lyn. 1994. Power and influence in state legislative policymaking: The interaction of gender and position in committee hearing debates. American Political Science Review 88 (3): 560–576. Kathlene, Lyn. 1998. In a Different Voice: Women and the Policy Process. In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, eds. Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox, 188-202. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 1995. Alternative views of crime: legislative policymaking in gendered terms. Journal of Politics 57 (3): 696–623. Kenny, Meryl. 2007. Gender, institutions and power: A critical review. Politics 27 (2): 91–00.

References

61

———. 2013. Gender and political recruitment: Theorizing institutional change. New  York: Palgrave. Kenny, Meryl, and Tània Verge. 2013. Decentralization, political parties and women’s representation: Evidence from Spain and Britain. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 43 (1): 109–128. Kenney, Sally. 1996. New research on gendered political institutions. Political Research Quarterly 49 (June): 445–466. Key, V.O. 1962. Política, partidos y grupos de presión. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Políticos. King, Gary, James Honaker, Anne Joseph, and Kenneth Scheve. 2001. Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation. American Political Science Review 95: 49–69. Kitschelt, Herbert. 1989. The logics of party formation. New York: Cornell University Press. Knight, Jack, and James Johnson. 1994. Aggregation and deliberation. Political Theory 22: 277–297. Koch, Jeffrey. 1997. Candidate gender and women’s psychological engagement in politics. American Politics Quarterly 25 (1): 118–133. Krennerich, Michael. 2009. ¡Mujeres al parlamento! Sistemas electorales y cuotas de género en la mirilla. In La democracia en su contexto. Estudios en homenaje a Dieter Nohlen en su septuagésimo aniversario, ed. José Reynoso Núñez and Herminio Sánchez de la Barquera y Arroyo, 189–220. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM. Krook, Mona Lena. 2009. Quotas for women in politics: Gender and candidate selection reform worldwide. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krook, Mona Lena. 2010. Women’s Representation in Parliament: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Political Studies 58 (5): 886–808. ———. 2016. Contesting gender quotas: dynamics of resistance. Politics, Groups, and Identities 4 (2): 268–283. ———. 2018. Electoral systems and women’s representation. In The Oxford handbook of electoral systems, ed. Erick S.  Heron, Robert J.  Pekkanen, and Matthew S.  Shugart, 175–192. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2020. Violence against women in politics. In How gender can transform the social sciences, ed. Marian Sawer, Fiona Jenkins, and Karen Downing, 57–64. New York: Springer. Krook, Mona Lena, and Fiona Mackay, eds. 2011. Gender, politics and institutions. Toward a feminist institutionalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Krook, Mona Lena, and Pippa Norris. 2014. Beyond quotas: Strategies to promote gender equality in elected office. Political Studies 62: 2–20. Kurebwa, Jeffrey. 2015. A review of Hanna Pitkin’s (1967) conception of women’s political representation. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 5 (11): 50–60. Langston, Joy, and Aparicio, Javier. 2014. Why More Women Do Not Win Single-Member District Seats. Paper presented at the Foro Internacional “Mujeres, política, democracia. Rompiendo los Techos de Cristal en América Latina.” Salamanca: Instituto de Iberoamérica, Universidad de Salamanca, March 23–28. Lawless, Jennifer, and Richard Fox. 2005. It takes a candidate. Why don’t women run for office? New York: Cambridge University Press. Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan Way. 2004. Elecciones sin democracia. El surgimiento del autoritarismo competitivo. Estudios Políticos 24: 159–176. Lombardo, Emanuela, and Petra Meier. 2019. The significance of symbolic representation for gender issues in politics. NORA-Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 27 (4): 231–244. ———. 2014. The symbolic representation of gender. A discursive approach. Aldershot: Ashgate. Lovenduski, Joni. 2005. Feminizing politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. ———. 2011. Foreword. In Gender, politics and institutions: Toward a feminist institutionalism, ed. Mona Lena Krook and Fiona Mackay, vii–xi. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2015. Gendering politics, feminizing political science. Colchester: ECPR Press. Lovenduski, Joni, and Pippa Norris, eds. 1993. Gender and party politics. London: Sage.

62

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

Llanos, Beatriz, and Kristen Sample. 2008. Del dicho al hecho: Manual de buenas prácticas para la participación de mujeres en los partidos políticos latinoamericanos. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Llanos, Beatriz, and Marta Martínez. 2016. La paridad en América Latina: Se hace camino al andar. In La democracia paritaria en América Latina. Los casos de México y Nicaragua, ed. Beatriz Llanos and Marta Martínez, 15–46. Washington, DC: CIM/OEA. Llanos, Beatriz, and Vivian Roza. 2018. Más poder, menos mujeres en los partidos políticos latinoamericanos. In Mujeres en la política: experiencias nacionales y subnacionales en América Latina, ed. Flavia Freidenberg, Mariana Caminotti, Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian, and Tomáš Došek, 69–97. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM, and Instituto Electoral de la Ciudad de México. Mackay, Fiona. 2011. Conclusion: Towards a feminist institutionalism? In Gender, politics and institutions: Toward a feminist institutionalism, ed. Mona Lena Krook and Fiona Mackay, 181–196. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Mackay, Fiona, and Georgina Waylen. 2009. Critical perspectives on feminist institutionalism. Politics & Gender 5 (2): 237–280. Mackay, Fiona, Meryl Kenny, and Louise Chappell. 2010. New institutionalism through a gender lens: Towards a feminist institutionalism? International Political Science Review 31 (5): 573–588. Manne, Kate. 2017. Down girl. The logic of misogyny. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent ‘yes’. The Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–657. ———. 2003. Rethinking representation. American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515–528. ———. 2005. Quota problems: Combating the dangers of essentialism. Politics & Gender 1 (4): 622–638. Manin, Bernard. 1998. Los principios del gobierno representativo. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Manin, Bernard, Adam Przeworski, and Susan Stokes. 1999. Introduction. In Democracy, accountability, and representation, ed. Adam Przeworski, Susan Stokes, and Bernard Manin, 1–26. New York: Cambridge University Press. Marx, Jutta, Jutta Boner, and Mariana Caminotti. 2007. Las legisladoras: cupos de género y política en Argentina y Brasil. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI, PNUD, and Instituto Di Tella. Matland, Richard. 1993. Institutional Variables Affecting Female Representation in National Legislatures: The Case of Norway. Journal of Politics 55 (3): 737–755. Matland, Richard E. 1998. Women’s representation in national legislatures: Developed and developing countries. Legislative Studies Quarterly 23 (1): 109–125. Matland, Richard E., and Michelle M.  Taylor-Robinson. 1997. Electoral system effects on women’s representation: Theoretical arguments and evidence from Costa Rica. Comparative Political Studies 30 (2): 186–110. Miguel, Luis Felipe. 2001. Política de interesses, política do desvelo: representação e ‘singularidade feminina’. Revista Estudos Feministas 9: 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1590/ S0104-­026X2001000100015. Miranda Leibe, Lucía, and Julieta Suárez-Cao. 2018. Mujeres en Política: invisibilizadas por la teoría y por la empírea. In La política siempre ha sido cosa de mujeres: elecciones y protagonistas en Chile y la región, ed. Lucía Miranda Leibe and Julieta Suárez-Cao, 13–23. Santiago: FLACSO. Monsiváis-Carrillo, Alejandro. 2013. Repensando la relación entre democracia y representación: algunas propuestas para ampliar el canon democrático. Perfiles Latinoamericanos 21 (41): 45–69. https://doi.org/10.18504/PL2141-­045-­2013. Moreira, Constanza, and Niki Johnson. 2003. Democracia, género y equidad: Aportes para el debate sobre los mecanismos de acción afirmativa. Montevideo: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. Morgan, Jana, and Magda Hinojosa. 2018. Women in political parties. Seen but not heard. In Gender and representation in Latin America, ed. Leslie Schwindt-Bayer, 74–98. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190851224.003.0005.

References

63

Norris, Pippa. 1996. Women politicians: Transforming westminster? Parliamentary Affairs 49 (1): 89–02. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pa.a028675. ———. 2012. Making democratic governance work: How regimes shape prosperity, welfare, and peace. Cambridge University Press. Norris, Pippa, and Joni Lovenduski. 1995. Political recruitment: Gender, race and class in the British Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norris, Pippa y Mona Lena Krook. 2009. One of us. Paper presented at the APSA 2009 Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada. Norris, Pippa, Richard Frank, Ferran Martínez I Coma. 2014. Measuring electoral integrity around the world: A new dataset. Political Science & Politics 47 (4): 789–798. Och, Malliga. 2021. Women in Parliament: From Presence to Impact. In Women, Power, and Political Representation: Canadian and Comparative Perspectives, edited by Roosmarijn de Geus, Erin Tolley, Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant, and Peter John Loewen, 143–48. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1999. Counterpoints: Selected essays on authoritarianism and democratization. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Pastor Yuste, Raquel, and Marcela Iglesias Onofrio. 2014. La dimensión simbólica de la representación política en el Parlamento español. Revista Española de Ciencia Política 35 (July): 91–12. Pateman, Carole. 1988. The sexual contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Paxton, Pamela. 2000. Women’s suffrage in the measurement of democracy: Problems of operationalization. Studies in Comparative International Development 35: 92–11. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF02699767. ———. 2008. Gendering democracy. In Politics, gender and concepts: Theory and methodology, ed. Gary Goertz and Amy G. Mazur, 47–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pescatello, Ann, ed. 1973. Female and male in Latin America. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Peruzotti, Enrique, and Catalina Smulovitz. 2002. Controlando la política: Ciudadanos y medios en las nuevas democracias. Buenos Aires: Editorial Temas. Philips, Anne. 1995. The politics of presence. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Piscopo, Jennifer M. 2015. States as gender equality activists: The evolution of quota laws in Latin America. Latin American Politics & Society 57 (3): 27–49. Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The concept of representation. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Powell, G.  Bingham, Jr. 2000. Elections as instruments of democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. ———. 2004. Political representation in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science 7: 273–296. Przeworski, Adam. 2019. ¿Por qué tomarse la molestia de hacer elecciones? Pequeño manual para entender el funcionamiento de la democracia. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores. Rae, Douglas W. 1967. The political consequences of electoral rules. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rai, Shirin M. 2015. Political performance: A framework for analysing democratic politics. Political Studies 63 (5): 1179–1197. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9248.12154. Rai, Shirin M., and Carole Spary. 2019. Performing representation. Women members in the Indian Parliament. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Randall, Vicky. 1987. Women and politics: An international perspective. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis. Reingold, Beth. 2000. Representing women: Sex, gender and legislative behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Reynolds, Andrew. 1999. Women in the legislatures and executives of the world: Knocking at the highest glass ceiling. World Politics 51 (4): 547–572. ———. 2006. Electoral systems and the protection and participation of minorities. London: Minority Rights Group International.

64

2  They Have the Seats, But Not the Power: The Argument

Rodriguez, Victoria E. 2003. Women in Contemporary Mexican Politics. Austin: University of Texas Press. Rosen, Jennifer. 2012. The effects of political institutions on women’s political representation: A comparative analysis of 168 countries from 1992 to 2010. Political Research Quarterly 66 (2): 1–16. Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. 1995. The role of gender in descriptive representation. Political Research Quarterly 48: 599–512. ———. 1998. When women lead. New York: Oxford University Press. Ruiz Jiménez, Antonia María, Raquel Pastor Yuste, and Tània Vergé Mestre. 2016. La representación simbólica del género en la legislación sobre cuotas. Paper presented at the XII Congreso Español de Sociología, in Gijón. Rule, Wilma, and Joseph Francis Zimmerman, eds. 1994. Electoral systems in comparative perspective: Their impact on women and minorities. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Sanders, Lynn M. 1997. Against Deliberation. Political Theory 25 (3): 347–76. Sapiro, Virginia. 1981. When are Interests Interesting?: The problem of political representation of women.American Political Science Review75 (3): 701–16. Sapiro, Virginia. 1991. “Gender politics, gendered politics: the state of the field.” In Political science: Looking to the future, by William J.  Crotty, 165-187. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Sartori, Giovanni. 1992. Partidos y sistemas de partidos. Madrid: Alianza. Saward, Michael. 2010. The representative Claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2016. Fragments of equality in representative politics. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 19 (3): 245–262. Sawer, Marian, and Jill Vickers. 2010. Introduction: Political Architecture and its Gender Impact. In Federalism, Feminism and Multilevel Governance, edited by Melissa Haussman, Marian Sawer, and Jill Vickers, 3-18. Burlington VT: Ashgate. Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1942. Party government. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Schedler, Andreas. 2002. Elections without democracy: The menu of manipulation. Journal of Democracy 13 (2): 36–50. Schmidt, Gregory. 2020. Are open or closed lists better for women?: A comparison of Lima and the Provinces in Peru. Apuntes 86: 147–169. Schreiber, Ronnee. 2008. Righting feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie. 2010. Political power and women’s representation in Latin America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2014. Women’s representation in Latin American legislatures: Current challenges and new directions. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política 23 (2): 15–35. Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A. 2018. An introduction to gender and representation in Latin America. In Gender and representation in Latin America, ed. Leslie Schwindt-Bayer, 1–16. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship. Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie, and William Mishle. 2005. An integrated model of women’s representation. The Journal of Politics 67 (2): 407–428. Shvedova, Nadhezda. 2005. Obstacles to women’s participation in parliament. In Women in parliament: Beyond numbers, ed. Julie Ballington and Azza Karam, 33–50. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Skard, Torild, Elina Haavio-Mannila, et al. 1985. Women in parliament. In Unfinished democracy: women in nordic politics, ed. Elina Haavio-Mannila et al., 51–80. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Smith, Miriam. 2008. Introduction: Theories of group and movement organizing. In Group politics and social movements in Canada, ed. Miriam Smith, 15–32. Peterborough: Broadview Press y University of Toronto Press. ———. 2010. Gender politics and the same-sex marriage debate in the United States. Social Politics 17 (1): 1–28. Snyder, Richard. 2001. Scaling down: The subnational comparative method. Studies in Comparative International Development 36 (1): 93–10.

References

65

Stokes, Susan C. 2001. Mandates and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swers, Michele. 1998. Are women more likely to vote for women’s issue bills than their male colleagues? Legislative Studies Quarterly 23 (3): 435–448. Swers, Michele. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Taagepera, Rein, and Matthew Soberg Shugart. 1989. Seats and votes: The effects and determinants of electoral systems. New Haven: Yale University Press. Thomas, Sue. 1991. The impact of women on state legislative policies. Journal of Politics 53 (4): 958–976. ———. 1994. How women legislate. New York: Oxford University Press. Thomas, Sue, and Susan Welch. 1991. The impact of gender on activities and priorities of state legislators. Western Political Quarterly 44: 445–456. Thomas, Sue, and Clyde Wilcox. 1998. Women and elective office: Past, present, and future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tolleson-Rinehart, Sue. 1991. Do women leaders make a difference? Substance, style and perceptions. In Gender and policymaking: Studies of women in office, ed. Debra D. Dodson, 93–102. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Tolleson-Rinehart, Sue, and Susan J. Carroll. 2006. ‘Far from ideal:’ The gender politics of political science. American Political Science Review 100 (4): 507–513. Tremblay, Manon, ed. 2012. Women and legislative representation: Electoral systems, political parties, and sex quotas. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Tripp, Aili Mari. 2013. Political system and gender. In The Oxford handbook of gender and politics, ed. Georgina Waylen, Karen Celis, Johanna Kantola, and Laurel S. Weldon, 1–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199751457.013.0020. Verge, Mestre Tània, Nina Wiesehomeier, and Ana Espírito-Santo. 2020. Framing symbolic representation: exploring how women’s political presence shapes citizens’ political attitudes. European Journal of Politics and Gender 3 (2): 257–276. Verge, Mestre Tània, and Raquel Pastor. 2018. Women’s political firsts and symbolic representation. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 39 (1): 26–50. Vickers, Jill. 1997. Reinventing political science: a feminist approach. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Viveros Vigoya, Mara. 2016. La interseccionalidad: una aproximación situada a la dominación. Debate Feminista 52: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.df.2016.09.005. Von Beyme, Klaus. 1986. Los partidos políticos en las democracias occidentales. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. Waylen Georgina. 2011. Gendered Institutionalist Analysis: Understanding Democratic Transitions. In Gender, Politics and Institutions, ed. Mona Lena Krook and Fiona Mackay, 147–162. London, Palgrave Macmillan. Weldon, Laurel S. 2002. Beyond bodies: Institutional sources of representation for women in democratic policymaking. Journal of Politics 64 (4): 132–154. Wängnerud, Lena. 2000. Testing the politics of presence: Women’s representation in the Swedish Riksdag. Scandinavian Political Studies 23 (1): 67–91. Williams, Melissa S. 1998. Voice, trust and memory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Woldenberg, José, and Ricardo Becerra. 2017. Representación política. In Diccionario electoral, ed. IIDH-CAPEL. San José de Costa Rica: IIDH-CAPEL. Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ———. 2000. Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zetterberg, Pär. 2007. Gender quotas and political effectiveness women’s experiences in mexican state legislatures. Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions of Workshop, Helsinki, May 7–12.

Chapter 3

The Long and Winding Road to Gender Parity in Mexican Congresses

3.1  All Politics Is Local! Democratic politics involves processes that channel political relations between citizens and decision makers at different institutional levels and across the territory (Fox 1994; O’Donnell 1999; Snyder 2001; Grindle 2007; Gibson 2010; Giraudy et al. 2019; Harbers and Steele 2020). Given that elections are held to select the national, state, and local offices, representation is multilevel. Although this dynamic is usually a characteristic of systems that operate with a federal or autonomic territorial structure, it is also feasible to find it in unitary systems, where we expect uniformity in the distribution of public resources, institutional incentives, or the behaviors and strategies of party elites (Freidenberg and Suárez Cao 2014). It means that all countries, whatever the degree of autonomy of their subnational units, operate within some kind of multilevel political system (Fox 1994; Cornelius et al. 1999; Schakel 2013).1 The political representation of women and other underrepresented political groups have to be analyzed from a multilevel perspective, assessing the interactions between the different levels of political competition and, from a subnational perspective, comparing the various districts in which these women candidates compete in the territory. These processes assume that political representation (authorization, presence, symbols, interests, demands, and control) coincides in multiple competitive scenarios and different elected offices. In this multilevel scenario, a person can be represented by different people simultaneously, depending on the type of elected office (legislative and executive) and the level of government (national, state, or local). Hence, political representation should be analyzed in all districts of the 1  In the comparative scholarship, the term “multilevel party systems” is often used, following Sweden and Maddens (2008, 6) who define it as the aggregation of “a national party system that emerges from elections for national offices and a set of regional party systems that reflect the results of regional elections”.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Freidenberg et al., Women in Mexican Subnational Legislatures, Latin American Societies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94078-2_3

67

68

3  The Long and Winding Road to Gender Parity in Mexican Congresses

territory, for all offices, preferably, in a multidimensional manner. In short, the analysis of representation should be multilevel and multidimensional. Women’s political underrepresentation is therefore not only a national problem; on the contrary, it is precisely at the subnational level (state and local) where the main obstacles to women doing politics on equal terms with men are found (Stevenson 1999; Massolo 2007; Tello Sánchez 2009; ONU Mujeres 2018). It is not a minor issue. Even though “all politics is local” (O’Neill and Hymel 1994), most academia, political leadership, and decision makers have reproduced a “national bias” (Rokkan 1970) in addressing what happens to women’s political participation and representation (just as they had historically done with other critical issues in comparative politics). Within the same political system, groups may be underrepresented in different ways and may have a distinct presence depending on the level of government, the institutional arena, the district, or the type of office held. For example, there may be countries with a significant increase in the number of women in the federal legislature, but where a woman has never been elected to the highest office—the Presidency—or where the increase at the national level has not translated into greater participation of women at the local or state level. Increases in the representation of one group might have spillover effects from one level to another (national to subnational or vice versa) and between subnational units (from one state to another), but this is not necessarily the case. Although interactions between levels can always occur (e.g., concerning the level of legal harmonization and protection of rights of these underrepresented groups), frequently, the institutional levels (national, state, local) can have autonomous dynamics and even be affected by different economic, social, or political factors. The absence of a multilevel perspective ignores all these interactions between the different system levels, the districts competing across the territory, and how they can impact democratic practices (Harbers and Steele 2020; Freidenberg and Suárez Cao 2014). Incorporating these dynamics into research on women’s political representation is key to understanding the nature of the democratization of political systems (Fox 1994, 106; Gibson 2010, 3; Harbers et al. 2019, 2; Giraudy et al. 2019: 14), the expansion of rights and how some units influence others as part of a process of diffusion of rules, rights, and practices in the territory (Freidenberg and Suárez Cao 2014; Giraudy et al. 2019). The democratic contract, or rather, its “fine print,” as Calvo (2004, 35) calls it, defines how unequals are represented based on their assets, gender, cultural affiliation, or territorial location. The granting of quotas or reservations to the unequals gives political content to representation, either negatively as a privilege or positively as reparation (Kymlicka 1995). Moreover, in this scenario, what happens in subnational politics is presented as a dilemma in itself, understood as “a problem of the asymmetrical distribution of resources—symbolic, political, economic—in the territorial order rather than as a problem of bureaucratic optimization” (Calvo 2004, 35). The asymmetrical distribution of rights in the territory implies the idea that political rights and civil liberties in states often differ from those guaranteed by national governments (O’Donnell 1993; Gibson 2010, 3), and this has consequences

3.1  All Politics Is Local!

69

for the dynamics of operative interactions within the same political regime as well as for how the state protects and guarantees women’s political–electoral rights. Various scholars of democratization have referred to the “juxtaposition of political regimes,” where two levels of government with jurisdiction over the same territory operate under different regimes, understood as the set of norms, rules, and practices that govern the selection and behavior of state leaders (Gibson 2005). Heterogenous institutional and political forms embed the components of a national– territorial system, subnational and national politics (Gibson 2010, 8). A democratic national polity puts evident pressure on those in power and state party elites whose political regimes or practices challenge national politics. In this sense, a strategy for optimizing this pressure can be seen in the harmonization of legislation—as occurs in Mexico—by demanding from the federal level that the states expand the recognition of political–electoral or other rights in state legislations. This type of dynamic is an example of the multilevel relations that can occur and how the nationalizing impulse can contribute to the democratization of the states. It is also true that the states can make use of their autonomy to approve laws that are not found at the national level and in this way innovate in democratic terms (as happened, e.g., with the approval of gender parity in Mexico, which was first recognized at the subnational level and then by the Federation). In recent years, an incipient—but vibrant—scholarship has been generated on the experience of women politicians at the subnational level in different countries of the region (Stevenson 1999; Vidal Correa 2016; Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016; Alles 2018; Hernández Tellez et  al. 2019; Schmidt 2020; Freidenberg and Garrido de Sierra 2021; among others), normative harmonization efforts regarding descriptive representation (Peña Molina 2009, 2014; Freidenberg and Alva Huitrón 2017; Hernández Tellez et  al. 2019; Hevia Rocha 2020; Freidenberg and Garrido de Sierra 2021, among others) and political violence against women (Freidenberg and Gilas 2021; Biroli 2018, among others). However, there are still important gaps regarding the factors that explain the levels of representation in subnational units from a multidimensional perspective and in relation to institutional interactions to expand these rights. Beyond the type of differences (slight or dramatic) that may occur in the exercise of rights within a political system, identifying these differences involves making important normative and theoretical decisions about the nature of democratic politics in Latin America (O’Donnell 1993; Cornelius et al. 1999; Snyder 2001; Gibson 2010; Giraudy et al. 2019). Underlying those decisions lies a series of crucial questions regarding how the recognition of rights for underrepresented groups empirically occurs, which are the practical resistances to that process, and how subnational entities have been agents of action or pressure—each at their own pace and in their way—to change the national normative framework or that of other state units by expanding the recognition of women’s political–electoral rights. One way to assess these actions and reactions is by creating political–institutional and policy conditions to eliminate gender gaps in women’s political representation. Subnational political elites can be agents of change or, on the contrary, they can resist transformations generated from the national level or—even—from other entities (ignoring

70

3  The Long and Winding Road to Gender Parity in Mexican Congresses

innovations made by other entities and refusing to include those ideas in state regulations), due to their powers and possibility to exercise their autonomy. This chapter describes how gender electoral regimes (formal representation) were constructed in Mexico at the federal level and in the states concerning the expansion or regression in recognition of the political–electoral rights of women as an underrepresented group. In particular, the chapter aims to understand the dynamic way in which the normative framework related to the registration of candidacies for elected office has been transformed at the same time as the descriptive representation of Mexican women has increased.

3.2  A  Thorny Path: The Evolution of the Federal Gender Electoral Regime in Mexico Normative transformations to increase women’s political representation in Mexico began decades ago, with recommendations and obligations, with advances and setbacks at the federal level. These transformations generated gaps and legal tensions or, in other words, weak rules, which led not only to dodging norms and interpretations by political elites but also to an intense process of judicialization, through which affected individuals (most of them women) perceived litigation as an opportunity for the state to recognize and fill the regulatory gaps that hindered compliance with the norms. Evaluating these advances and setbacks in women’s political–electoral rights cannot be explained by taking into account only one institutional level (such as the federal level) or only one type of political actor (such as electoral authorities or international cooperation actors). However, it must be analyzed from multiple institutional and noninstitutional interactions and in various spheres. This process has yielded success, as Mexico has the most robust gender electoral regime in Latin America (Freidenberg 2020). However, it also has experienced advances and setbacks, as legislators have left gaps and loopholes that allowed for party simulations and resistance (Stevenson 1999; Bruhn 2003; Miranda Espino 2010; Palma and Chimal 2012; Gilas 2014; Hernández Tellez et  al. 2019; Hevia Rocha 2020). This adverse path has required a coalition of critical and active actors—women politicians, women’s associations and networks, and critical people in the electoral administrative and jurisdictional institutions—whose strategic mobilization has gradually managed to shape strict rules capable of strengthening women’s political representation. It was not just a matter of approving rules but ensuring that those rules had the strategic support of actors capable of monitoring their application. With the international community’s support through cooperation agencies, these actors have demanded the expansion of the recognition of rights and the provision of more powerful tools for their interpretation in the face of partisan resistance. Experience shows that party leadership tried to avoid complying with the norms, turning to simulation or informal practices in response to each institutional change

3.2  A Thorny Path: The Evolution of the Federal Gender Electoral Regime in Mexico

71

in the formal national rules (Piscopo 2016). The leaders have played a double game between promoting women’s political–electoral rights and the resistance, harmful practices, and simulations to hinder women’s access to positions on equal terms with men. Mexican political history regarding women’s political participation is the history of expanding rights in the face of intense resistance (Stevenson 1999; Reynoso and D’Angelo 2006; Piscopo 2011, 2016; Hernández Tellez et al. 2019; Freidenberg and Gilas 2020). Although the recognition of women’s suffrage occurred in 1953 since the 1990s, Mexico had promoted measures to increase women’s descriptive representation and included the principle of equality in its constitutional text. Article 4 of the Constitution states: Male and female are equal before the law. In 1993, the legislation advised on promoting greater participation of women in parties but only recommended (not obliged) their leaderships to place women on the lists (section 3 of Article 175 of the Federal Code of Electoral Institutions and Procedures, Código Federal de Instituciones y Procedimientos Electorales, COFIPE). Such a measure is an example of laws that comparative scholarship has called “proto-quotas,” norms that did not have binding effects on the political game (Caminotti 2016). Despite this, the 1993 experience—even mere recommendations—constituted a starting point for subsequent actions on this issue, both at the federal and subnational levels. Somehow it put Mexico on the route of reforms that other countries such as Argentina had begun to implement a few years earlier when they passed laws requiring quotas in candidacies. The 1996 reform did not compel parties to include women and only recommended that they not nominate more than 70% of the same-gender candidates. However, this provision, included in Article 175 and the transitory articles (number 22) of COFIPE, required the political parties to include such quota in their statutes. The mechanisms to prevent noncompliance were absent, and the sanctions for violating, resisting, or not complying with this rule were also unclear. In the absence of specific regulations and sanctions, the parties placed women in symbolic candidacies, that is, as substitutes,2 in districts where the parties had no real chance of winning or in the last places on the proportional representation lists, which allowed for formal, though not effective, compliance with what the quota.3 The legislation made significant progress in 2002 with the new obligation of 30% gender quota for nominations for plurinominal districts in federal legislative 2  In Mexico, candidates for legislative positions are registered in fórmulas composed of two people: a principal candidate, who gets directly elected, and hers substitute (a “backup” congressperson), who takes the seat only in case of a resignation, incapacity or death of the principal candidate. 3  Despite these advances, partisan resistance persisted. The parties refused to place women in the candidacies under the argument that they would lose the internal processes (Hernández Tellez et al. 2019, 15); making them compete in districts where the leadership had no expectations of winning (Huerta and Magar 2006) or putting them in the position of substituting for male candidates (Gilas 2014). All these behaviors, which were outside the law, or which pretended to comply with what was required but in practice were contrary to what the law stated, show the resistance, simulations and bad practices promoted by the party leadership.

72

3  The Long and Winding Road to Gender Parity in Mexican Congresses

elections (Article 175-A of the COFIPE)4; clear position mandates in the proportional representation lists (one of three) (Article 175-B of the COFIPE)5; the requirement of another 30% in single-member plurality districts (SMP). The political parties were allowed to avoid this last provision if they selected the candidacies through democratic processes (Article 175 C, numeral 3 of COFIPE), which meant, in practice, a legal escape valve for noncompliance with the norm (Baldez 2004). Also, the reform established working sanctions for parties that did not comply with the 70/30 quota (Diario Oficial, June 24, 2002) (Table 3.1). Beginning in 2003, the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary (Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación, TEPJF)6 opened the doors to lawsuits related to the internal life of political parties (González Oropeza and Báez 2010), allowing aggrieved parties’ members to denounce the leaderships before the courts for their biased interpretation of the norms or malpractice in the application of affirmative action measures. These complaints focused on promoting the proper implementation of the norms—which were already in the law—and ensuring that the courts issued interpretations that avoided bias, normative loopholes, and malpractice. In those years, the TEPJF generated some of the most relevant criteria in this area to date.7,8 With these decisions, the TEPJF began to fill some regulatory gaps that legislators had left pending (Freidenberg and Gilas 2021; Alanis Figueroa 2017). The Court’s decisions received support from the international community (mainly the United Nations),9 as they aimed to strengthen affirmative action 4  “Of the total number of applications for registration, both for candidates for congressmen and senators that political parties or coalitions submit to the Federal Electoral Institute, in no case shall they include more than seventy percent of proprietary candidates of the same gender” (Article 175-A of the COFIPE). 5  “1. The lists of proportional representation shall be composed of segments of three candidates. In each of the first three segments of each list there shall be a candidate of a different gender. The foregoing is without prejudice to the further progress made in this area by the internal regulations and procedures of each party (Article 175-B of the COFIPE). 6  The Electoral Tribunal is the highest body in electoral matters, responsible for solving problems related to the performance of local and national electoral authorities’ controversy. The structure of the Electoral Tribunal Superior Room is five regional courtrooms linked to multimember electoral districts and Regional Specialized Chamber responsible for dealing with issues only access to the media and propaganda. The Superior Court has jurisdiction to review, in certain cases, decisions of the Boards Regional and is the terminal instance in electoral matters. 7  In 1996, a system of means of challenge was created, which implied having a series of trials and resources aimed at protecting the rights of the various actors with the intention of guaranteeing the legality of the elections. The Trial for the Protection of the Political-Electoral Rights of the Citizen (JDC) was conceived as a mechanism for the citizenry to challenge the decisions of the authority. It was in 2003 that the filing of lawsuits against the internal acts of political parties was allowed. 8  Examples of this are those related to the approval of the substitution of candidates on lists already registered when these had not complied with the affirmative action (SUP-JDC-155/2004); the obligation of the electoral authorities to verify compliance with quotas (SUP-JRC-336/2004, SUPJRC-170/2006) or the effective application of the rules of alternation on the lists (SUP-JDC-1130/2006). 9  In its report on the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals at the end of 2007, the UN said of Mexico: “The implementation of affirmative action measures within the public administra-

50 Strong

50 Strong

2014 Parity

2017 Parity

Strong 1/1 Head of lists (transversal parity and principle of competitiveness)

1/1

Year Size % Mandate # 2002 Minimum 30 Weak 1/3 2011 Intermediate 40 Strong 2/5

Prohibition of registration

Enforcement (absent, weak, or strong) Enforcement Weak Fine Strong Prohibition of registration Strong Prohibition of registration

Broad

Broad

Scope of the formula (restricted) or wide) Restricted Broad

Absent

Absent

Exception Valve (present or absent) Present Absent

Source: Observatory of Political Reforms in Latin America (1978–2021). Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. www.reformaspoliticas.org

Law Mexico I [COFIPE] Mexico II [Ruling SUP-JDC12624/2011]. Mexico III [Constitutional reform] [Constitutional reform Mexico IV

Table 3.1.  Gender electoral regime at the Federal Level in Mexico

3.2  A Thorny Path: The Evolution of the Federal Gender Electoral Regime in Mexico 73

74

3  The Long and Winding Road to Gender Parity in Mexican Congresses

­ easures7 as well as by the impulses in terms of recognition of rights that were takm ing place at the international level as with the approval of the Quito Consensus in 2007.10 The 2008 electoral reform established the nomination of at least 40% of proprietary candidates of the same gender and that the lists of proportional representation should include gender alternation. The reform also added an obstacle: the legal possibility of exempting parties from complying with the quota in the candidacies that competed under the SMP districts11 if the applicable selection method was democratic, as stipulated in the party statutes. These characteristics allowed the leadership to comply with the written law, but often against the spirit of the quota. As a result of this design, party leaders could argue, as happened in 2009, that because they used democratic methods to select candidates—direct voting by supporters, militants, or delegates at conventions—the provisions of the gender quota did not apply to them. After the 2009 Juanitas scandal12 and before the 2011–2012 election, a lawsuit was filed before the TEPJF in SUP-JDC-12624/2011. The plaintiffs denounced that the substitutes for female candidates should be women to avoid the pressures that women winners receive to resign. The Superior Chamber ruled that the entire formula (owner and substitute) should include women, that in the case of men, they could have substitutes of either sex and that there should be no exceptions based on

tion, such as quota laws, is crucial but insufficient. In addition, a strong political will to develop institutional mechanisms to monitor compliance with the relevant provisions is essential. In other words, laws or mechanisms that favor women’s political participation must be enforced decisively, through effective sanctions, clear legal mandates and courts empowered to enforce laws whenever they are not respected” (ECLAC 2021, in González et al. 2016, 114). 10  The Quito Consensus was the first international agreement that explicitly recognized parity as one of the key drivers of democracy, with the aim of achieving equality in the exercise of power in a comprehensive manner. The next step was taken in 2014 when the Latin American and Caribbean Parliament (Parlatino) approved the Framework Standard to Consolidate Parity Democracy, with the aim of effectively incorporating women in the legislative, executive and judicial branches. 11  The Chamber of Deputies has 500 members, elected using the parallel voting system: 300 “plurality deputies” are directly elected by plurality from single-member districts, while the remaining 200 “party deputies” are assigned through rules of proportional representation in 5 multi-state, 40-seat constituencies allocated to parties based on each party’s share of the national vote. 12  In the first session of the LXI Legislature of the Congress of the Union of Mexico on September 3, 2009, several legislators requested leave of absence in favor of their substitute (substitute are nominated at the beginning of the electoral campaign). Of these ten requests, eight were from women. Invariably, the substitute was male, except for the two male legislators, whose substitute were women. In no case was there any explanation for requesting leave. The eight women elected were from the PRI, Ecologist Green Party of Mexico (Partido Verde Ecologista de México, PVEM), PRD and Labor Party (Partido del Trabajo, PT). In the face of public and congressional pressure to deny the leave requests, several of the deputies in question resorted to not attending the sessions of the legislature; thus, according to the regulations for the internal government of the Congress of the Union, the president of the Chamber would call the substitute, only informing the assembly. Following a lawsuit filed before the TEPJF, it resolved to adopt the measure of homologating the sex of future candidates for elected public office with that of their substitute.

3.2  A Thorny Path: The Evolution of the Federal Gender Electoral Regime in Mexico

75

the candidate selection method.13 The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) welcomed this decision, recognizing that eliminating this escape valve was crucial in strengthening affirmative action measures (Alanis Figueroa 2014, 177). This historic moment, generated jointly by the “shameful fraud of the law with the case of the Juanita congresswomen” (Peña Molina 2014, 40) and the action of the electoral justice, facilitated the organization and activism of different groups of women, politicians, academics, civil servants, and communicators to promote electoral reforms for the protection of women’s political rights (Peña Molina 2014, 40). One of the most influential articulations has been the Red Mujeres en Plural (Plural Women’s Network). More than 100 women from different areas, ideologies, and social characteristics from all over the country converge, working together to advance women’s political–electoral rights.14 Another vital element in 2011 was the constitutional reform in human rights since, among other issues, it gave constitutional hierarchy to the human rights recognized in the international instruments signed by Mexico. The configuration of the “extended” Constitution (bloque de constitucionalidad) involved the incorporation of rights recognized in international treaties (like the Inter-American Convention on the Granting of Political Rights to Women of 1948, signed in 1980 and ratified in 1981, or the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women, called Convention of Belém do Pará of 1994, signed in 1995 and ratified in 1998) into the Constitution. The fourth stage in the evolution of the federal gender electoral regime occurred with the constitutional reform of February 10, 2014. The reform incorporated gender parity into the rules for nominating candidacies in the Mexican political system (Table 3.1). It addressed the demands of the broad women’s movement and complied with international standards (Alanis Figueroa 2014, 173; Peña Molina 2014). Article 41-I of the Constitution of the Mexican States incorporated gender parity for the candidates’ registration at both federal and state level, stating that: Political parties shall be considered as entities of public interest. The legislation shall specify the norms and requirements for their legal registry and their participation in the electoral process, as well as their rights, duties, and prerogatives entitled to them. The political parties’ main objectives shall be to promote people’s participation in democracy, contribute to

 The TEPJF declared unconstitutional the exception rule included in Article 219.2 of COFIPE, which stated that parties could not comply with the quota when their candidates were selected through a democratic procedure and ruled that the entire ticket (owner and substitute) must be composed of persons of the same gender, guaranteeing that, if vacancies were to occur in the owners, they should be replaced by persons of the same gender. 14  Red Mujeres en Plural is made up of women with political experience, legislators, magistrates, civil servants, academics, consultants, journalists, artists, activists, and professionals, who come together on a non-profit basis to demand that women’s right to participate in public affairs be fulfilled. Since 2009, it has been working for parity in public office, promoting initiatives and defending women’s political-electoral rights at the national and state levels. It pursues a common cause that does not follow partisan motives: the protection, guarantee, promotion, and justiciability of women’s human rights does not admit any agreement to the contrary (Peña Molina 2014, 12). 13

76

3  The Long and Winding Road to Gender Parity in Mexican Congresses the integration of national representative entities; and, as citizens’ organizations, allow citizens to access public power. These objectives shall be in accordance with political parties’ programs, principles, and ideas, and they should do so through universal, free, secret and direct vote, as well as the rules to guarantee gender equality of candidates to local and federal Congress.

Following the recommendation of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW/C/MEX/CO/7-8) and various proposals promoted by feminist women, the General Law on Electoral Institutions and Processes (Ley General de Instituciones y Procedimientos Electorales, LEGIPE), which incorporated the requirement of gender parity as a definitive measure based on the principle of equality and nondiscrimination established in the Constitution, in the spirit that power should be shared equally between men and women. Based on this idea, nominations for federal (Chamber of Deputies and Senate) and state legislatures, in case of candidates nominated by the SMP (horizontal parity) and proportional representation (vertical parity), were to be shared equally between men and women. The parity rules were accompanied by additional requirements for the nominations, which included the obligation to register principal and substitute candidates of the same gender for proportional representation and SMP positions (known as the “complete formula”) and ratified the elimination of the exception to compliance with the gender rule when using a competitive method of selecting candidates (which meant eliminating the escape valves).15 The inclusion of the principle of constitutional parity exceeded expectations since it contemplated its application in candidacies for elected positions in the Chambers of Deputies and Senators and included its enforceability in candidacies for states’ Congresses. Additionally, both the LGIPE16 and the new General Law of Political Parties (Ley General de Partidos Políticos, LGPP)17 gave powers to both the National Electoral Institute (Instituto Nacional Electoral, INE) and the Local Public Electoral Bodies (Órganos Públicos Electorales Locales, OPLES) to reject the candidacies when one gender exceeds parity, setting a non-extendable deadline for their substitution. It  Article 41, base I of the Constitution included the obligation of political parties to guarantee gender parity in their candidacies for federal and local legislators and established that in the lists of candidacies for the principle of proportional representation, formulas of different genders must alternate in order to guarantee the principle of parity until each list is exhausted. 16  The LGIPE was approved with 381 votes in favor, 62 against and 11 abstentions; in the case of the LGPP the vote was 391 in favor, 39 against and 1 abstention. Both laws were published in the Parliamentary Gazette of the Chamber of Deputies on May 15, 2014. Four existing laws were also amended: the General Law on Electoral Offenses, the General Law on the Electoral Disputes System, the Organic Law of the Judiciary of the Federation and the Federal Law on Administrative Responsibilities of Public Servants; http://gaceta.diputados.gob.mx/. 17  The new LGPP incorporated a series of obligations in terms of parity: (a) determine criteria and make them public to guarantee gender parity in both Chambers and local Congresses; (b) the inadmissibility of criteria that discriminate against the allocation of candidacies in losing districts to a single gender, as well as guaranteeing gender parity in candidacies (Articles 3, 25, 37); c) an increase from 2% to 3% of ordinary party funding for training, promotion and development of women’s political leadership, among others. 15

3.2  A Thorny Path: The Evolution of the Federal Gender Electoral Regime in Mexico

77

also established that the electoral authorities were obligated to reject the lists if the parties would not adjust the lists (Alanis Figueroa 2014, 173). The constitutional reform was fundamental in transforming (formal and legal) women’s political participation on equal terms with men, as it proclaimed gender parity as a constitutional principle. Initially, parity was established as a minimum floor only to nominate candidates for federal and local legislatures. Afterward, the electoral jurisdictional and administrative authorities and some state Congresses created provisions to extend its application to other popularly elected positions, thus guaranteeing conditions for women to exercise their political rights fully and effectively. In any case, parity as a legal principle and procedural rule was not considered as a temporary affirmative action measure or a quota in favor of women but as a definitive measure that reformulates the concept of political power as a way of sharing power between men and women. LGIPE retained the rule of gender alternation in proportional representation lists (closed and blocked); it incorporated the requirement of the nomination of “complete formulas” of only one gender and innovatively introduced the prohibition of candidacies of the same gender being assigned to what has been considered “losing districts” (Gilas and Christiansson 2018). The new law sought to prevent women from having mere token candidacies, although its implementation required interpretation and specific district apportionment rules (that of thirds) to determine the districts and entities with low, medium, and high votes for each political party (INE 2018). The application of this criterion had rather heterogeneous results depending on the contexts (Gilas and Christiansson 2018; Palma Cabrera 2017). Under the new legislation, parties maintained relative freedom to determine the internal criteria and procedures they would apply to guarantee parity in nominations (LGPP articles 3.3, 4, and 5) without contradicting or violating the application of gender parity to candidacies for positions of popular representation. In addition, the LGIPE granted powers to the OPLES to deny the registration of candidacies that do not comply with the parity requirement (Article 232). The approval of gender parity involved two “conceptual transitions” (Alanis Figueroa 2014, 174). First, the transition from formal equality to substantive equality, that is, the idea that it is sufficient to recognize equality between men and women in law to demand equality of results, is abandoned. Although the constitutional text was clear regarding the introduction of parity, the TEPJF had to resolve partisan questioning that cast doubt on the rule’s scope for subnational positions in 2015 (Alanis Figueroa 2017). Once again, the electoral justice had to clarify the constitutional norm to the parties, given their resistance to understanding the advances in protecting rights. Second, also in 2015, the principle of equality between men and women in the access and performance of public office was incorporated for elections held under internal normative systems in indigenous communities (González et al. 2016), eliminating the last exception to the application of the parity principle. INE’s General Council established new affirmative action measures for the registration of candidacies, with the idea of deepening the scope of the constitutional parity principle, in November 2017. The new measures required the nomination of

78

3  The Long and Winding Road to Gender Parity in Mexican Congresses

women at the top of the lists of candidates for the principle of proportional representation in the Chamber of Deputies and, in the Senate’s case, for the SMP.18 Transversal parity was included along with the vertical and horizontal parity requirement: in the two formulas presented for the SMP districts for each entity, persons of different genders must be presented. Women have to be in the first positions on half of the candidate’s lists (INE 2017, 20).19 A fifth stage in the process of strengthening the gender electoral regime began in 2019, when the Mujeres en Plural collective, together with a group of women from various parties and women’s networks, promoted the “Parity in Everything” initiative, which established the requirement of parity in the integration of the authorities of the three branches and three levels of government, as well as autonomous bodies. The federal Congress approved the constitutional reform at the end of May and was accepted by the State Congresses in early June 2019.20 The principle of parity was established as a guiding principle of the Mexican state, applicable to all activities of public institutions and not only in the registration of candidacies. The reform sought to guarantee women’s access to all popularly elected positions. It involved reforming Articles 2, 4, 35, 41, 52, 53, 56, 94, and 115 of the Federal Constitution, establishing the equality of women and men to be extended to the heads of the secretariats of the Federal Executive Branch and in the federal entities, within political parties, autonomous constitutional bodies, in the composition of municipal councils (mayors and city council members), as well as within the  The Mexican Senate is made up of 128 senators: 2 for each of the 32 states elected under the principle of plurality; 1 for each of the 32 states assigned under the principle of first minority (awarded to the party who had won the second highest number of votes); and 32 national senatorsat-large, divided among the parties in proportion to their share of the national vote. 19  As for parties going in coalitions, INE established that, in case of coalition in an odd number of SMP districts, the higher number should correspond to female candidates. The parity-breaking candidacy should be for a woman in both the set of coalitional districts and those in which she contests on her own (INE 2017, 20). 20  On May 14, 2019, the Senate of the Republic approved the draft decree reforming Articles 2, 4, 35, 41, 52, 53, 56, 94 and 115 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. The bill was sent to the Chamber of Deputies for processing and was approved on May 23 of that year with 445 votes. As of 31 May, of that year, fifteen local congresses had unanimously approved the constitutional reform bill on gender parity in all public posts in the three branches of government and in the three orders of government, namely Chiapas, Yucatán, Quintana Roo, Querétaro, Sinaloa, Tlaxcala, Hidalgo, Zacatecas, Jalisco, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Morelos, Mexico City, Oaxaca, and Durango. In the Mexico City Congress, the reform was approved by 44 votes in favor, zero against and zero abstentions during the special session of the plenary, held on May 31, 2019. On June 3 it was discussed in the Congress of the State of Mexico, on the 4 in Colima, San Luis Potosí, Coahuila, Campeche, and Guerrero; on the 5 in Guanajuato, Puebla, and Tabasco; on the 6 in Veracruz. On June 5, 2019, the Permanent Commission of the Congress of the Union issued the declaration of constitutionality of the reform since it obtained the approving vote of 21 local congresses and the reform was published on June 6 in the Official Gazette of the Federation. This reform still requires the issuance of secondary regulations on these issues (Humphrey, Carla. 2021. Personal interview for the evaluation of the Gender Electoral Regime in Latin America: Diagnosis and Proposal, conducted with the Electoral Counselor of the National Electoral Institute, May 8 [via digital]). 18

3.2  A Thorny Path: The Evolution of the Federal Gender Electoral Regime in Mexico

79

Judiciary: “this reform implied a paradigm shift: not only parity in nomination, but parity in integration as a constitutional principle and a mandate for flexible optimization.”21 Mexico became the first country in the region to demand parity in nominating candidates and all areas of power. These institutional transformations point to the need for adjustments not only in the electoral rules for nominations but also in those related to the mechanisms for the election, designation, and appointment of the people who must integrate the spaces of power in the three orders of government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) and at the three levels of government (federal, state, and municipal). New actions on the road to gender parity—in the integration of all authorities— were taken by the electoral authority on October 28, 2020, when the General Council of INE approved a new affirmative action measure to integrate candidacies for the election of the Governorships. Given that Congress had not regulated section II of Article 35 of the Constitution22 (even though the rule was clear regarding the applicability of parity by the 2014 reform, reinforced by the Parity in Everything of 2019) the authority had to create criteria applicable to the elections of 2021. The affirmative action measure established that in the 15 governorships in competition, political parties had to nominate women in at least seven entities. This decision was established to achieve substantive parity recognized in the federal Constitution as of the 2019 reform.23 There were questions regarding INE’s competence to issue measures on this dispute, such as those related to the principle of reserve of law and the deadline for modifying norms before the beginning of the electoral process specified in Article 105 of the Constitution. However, the INE’s Agreement established that local and federal parties, coalitions, and candidacies had to nominate women for at least half of governorships.24 Local parties were also required to preferentially nominate a  Humphrey, Carla. 2021. Personal interview for the evaluation of the Gender Electoral Regime in Latin America: Diagnosis and Proposal, conducted with the Electoral Counselor of the National Electoral Institute, May 8 [via digital]. 22  Article 35, section II, states that: “II. To be able to vote for all popularly elected positions, having the qualifications established by law. 23  The ruling arose from the request made by various individuals and civil society organizations to the General Council of INE to issue criteria aimed at guaranteeing the principle of parity in the nomination of candidates for the 15 governorships to be elected in the 2020–2021 electoral processes. This, based on a background of legislative omission, because at the time of the request, neither the Congress of the Union nor the local legislatures of these states had issued rules to regulate parity between men and women in the governorships. In response to that request, in November 2020, the General Council approved INE/CG569/2020, which determined that each national political party must nominate at least seven women candidates for the 15 governorships. This agreement was challenged before the Superior Chamber of the Electoral Court. Among the grounds of grievance, it was argued that INE lacked the legal competence to force political parties to nominate a certain number of candidates of each gender, as this was the responsibility of the Congress of the Union and/or the local congresses. The Court’s decision upheld the measure established by INE. 24  Ravel, Dania. 2021. Personal interview for the evaluation of the Gender Electoral Regime in Latin America: Diagnosis and Proposal, conducted with the Electoral Counselor of the National 21

80

3  The Long and Winding Road to Gender Parity in Mexican Congresses

person of a different gender than the one registered in the previous election, while newly created local political parties were required to nominate women as gubernatorial candidates preferably. The INE is the sole judge of full compliance with gender parity in gubernatorial candidacies in the 2020–2021 Electoral Process. If parties or coalitions do not comply with the provision, they will be given 48 h to make the substitution in compliance with the principle of parity, which, if not met in the case of a local party, the candidacy may be denied or canceled. When a national political party fails to present female candidates, noncompliance will result in a lottery among male candidates to determine who would lose their nomination until the gender parity requirement was met. The law also stated that any substitution would have to respect parity, and, in the case of extraordinary elections, the parties are obliged to nominate candidates of the same gender as in the ordinary process. Each national and local party would have to determine and make public criteria that guarantee gender parity in selecting its candidates.25 In 2021, affirmative action measures were also approved for the indigenous population, Afro-Mexicans, LGBTQ, and persons with disabilities. INE established that indigenous people should run on an equal basis in 21 districts with the highest presence of indigenous people (this measure increases the number of districts for indigenous people from 13 to 21). In addition, the parties had to register three formulas composed of Afro-Mexican persons in any of the 300 electoral districts and one for the principle of proportional representation in any of the five constituencies and put at least one formula within the first ten places on the list.26 For persons with disabilities, nominations have been reserved in six constituencies and two within the first ten places on some proportional representation lists. Persons of sexual diversity must be nominated in at least two constituencies and placed in the first ten places on the proportional representation list in any of the five constituencies. All these measures must also comply with the principle of gender parity (INE/CG572/2020). Later, following a lawsuit filed before the TEPJF, the Superior Chamber ordered INE to include special measures for nominating Mexican nationals residing abroad (SUP-RAP-21/2021). In a new agreement, INE determined that parties and coalitions should adjust their lists of candidates to include the

Electoral Institute, May 1 [via digital]. 25  The criteria indicate that any possible scenario must be contemplated, such as when the registration of pre-candidatures is declared void; when there are not enough pre-candidatures of any gender; when only people of one gender have registered for the position and when it is indicated that some entity will be reserved for a certain gender, the objective procedure to make such reservation must be established. Once the criteria are approved, the parties will have 72 hours to communicate to the Local Public Bodies, which will define within 10 days the approval of the selection process so that before January 31, 2021, the INE is informed about the actions taken together with the lists of candidates. In Central Electoral. INE Approves Parity Criteria for Governorships. Number 342 published November 6, 2020. Available at: https://centralelectoral.ine.mx/2020/11/06/ aprueba-ine-criterios-de-paridad-para-gubernaturas/ 26  In 2017, affirmative action measures for indigenous populations had already been incorporated in the districts with the largest populations.

3.3  Advances and Setbacks in the Construction of the Gender Electoral Regime…

81

formula of migrants within the first ten places in each of the multimember constituencies (INE/CG160/2021). Finally, the latest action in strengthening the gender electoral regime in Mexico has been to require moving from nomination to parity integration of elected authorities. While the constitutional reforms of “Parity in Everything” of 2019 had already been oriented in that direction, the critical point came on August 29, 2021, when the Superior Chamber of the TEPJF ordered the modification of the integration of the Chamber of Deputies—which began its operation on the same Sunday, August 29— to achieve full parity. For the first time in the history of Mexico, the Chamber of Deputies is composed of 250 women and 250 men.27

3.3  A  dvances and Setbacks in the Construction of the Gender Electoral Regime in the Mexican States Mexico is a multilevel federal political system, where the states have differentiated institutions, electoral systems, and party systems (Peschard 2008). The construction process of the Mexican gender electoral regime has been influenced by this multilevel dynamic, both through the laws and the actions of national institutional actors (such as the National Electoral Institute, INE, or the Electoral Tribunal of the Judiciary of the Federation, TEPJF). Also, women’s movements and networks have pressured subnational electoral authorities (Local Political Electoral Bodies, OPLES) for regulatory harmonization in terms of the registration of candidates for positions of popular representation. The federal system, composed initially of 31 states and Mexico City, is characterized by the participation of national parties that compete in state-level elections. Each state has a different number of legislative seats and a specific electoral system, although they must adopt a mixed electoral system with single-member plurality  The adjustment was made by modifying the allocation of the plurinominal seats. In a first project, the assignment of the federal congressperson, by the principle of proportional representation, to Oscar Daniel Martinez Terrazas (owner) and Raymundo Bolaños (substitute), of the PAN, was revoked, since they did not prove that they belonged to the indigenous community of San Juan Tetelcingo, in Tepecoacuilco, Guerrero. Therefore, it was determined that this position, located in the Fourth Constituency, will go to Ana Laura Valenzuela Sanchez (owner) and Mariana Beatriz Sabanero Zarzuela (substitute). With this, the integration of the legislators was modified and went from having 248 women and 252 men, to 249 women and 251 men, for a total of 500. In a second project, the modification of positions for PRI, PAN and PRD, in terms of gender, was presented. However, after a long discussion and even a 30-min recess, magistrates reached an agreement to modify the resolution and adjust the integration of congress to 250 women and 250 men. The adjustment was applied on the list of the Green Ecologist Party of Mexico, which nominated 58% men. The PVEM had a change in who heads the third constituency: Javier Octavio Herrera and his substitute. This seat was revoked and went to Laura Fernández Piña and her substitute. In El Universal. 2021. “TEPJF ordena paridad total en la Cámara de Diputados” (TEPJF orders total parity in the Chamber of Deputies). Available in Spanish at: https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/ nacion/tepjf-ordena-paridad-total-en-camara-de-diputados

27

82

3  The Long and Winding Road to Gender Parity in Mexican Congresses

and multimember proportional representation districts. There has been a strong tendency to promote greater transformations of gender electoral regimens through reforms of federal laws and, in recent times, with the establishment of general rules. However, it is also true that, on several occasions, some states have anticipated federal rules, constituting points of reference for subsequent federal reforms. Changes in legislation at the federal and state levels have gone at different speeds. Although the 2014 electoral reform moved toward the homologation of the electoral gender regimes, many good practices had emerged from the initiative of local electoral authorities or the women’s movement—at the federal and state level—when they had the possibility of regulating quotas and parity before the 2014 reform. States made recommendations, adopted gender quotas, and even approved gender parity in Electoral Codes at different times, with different components, and in different ways (Pacheco Ladrón de Guevara 2007; Peña Molina 2009; Vidal Correa 2014; González Schont 2014; Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016). There are very different variations and dynamics in the evolution of the measures adopted, which was reinforced by a ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice regarding that “local legislatures had the right and power to regulate the basis of operation” (La Jornada 2002 in Vidal Correa 2014, 3). This decision strengthened the federal principle of division of powers in the country. The consequence of this judicial mandate can be seen in both the design and the variety of measures adopted at the state level, especially before the centralization of the electoral systems in 2014. The process of building electoral federalism until 2014 is notable for at least four reasons (Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016; Vidal Correa 2014; Zetterberg 2011; Peña Molina 2009). First, given that each state could regulate the use of quotas, there were states that, until 2014, had not approved any measure (neither gender quotas nor parity). Second, although many states had quotas, the percentage of nominations reserved for women varied, and the other accompanying components were also very different (both between states and at different times within a state). Third, the regulations began to apply primarily to proportional representation lists and were later incorporated into the SMP districts (although there was strong resistance to this principle of representation). Finally, the freedom in the drafting of regulations also conditioned their application. The variations allow for the evaluation of the gender electoral regime: in the percentage of women’s requirement, where they were to be placed (position mandate); in the type of formula where the quota is applied (if only to the proprietary candidacy or to the complete candidacy of proprietary and substitute); if it was only for multimember lists or also for single-­ member districts; in the level of sanction and the presence of escape valves. Based on these differences, it is reasonable to expect variations in the percentages of women nominated in the period analyzed. The evaluation of measures recommended and adopted at the state level has undergone substantial changes between 1990 and 2019. As the debate on women’s political representation advanced at the national level, gender quotas and other measures were widely adopted at the state level. The approval of affirmative action

3.3  Advances and Setbacks in the Construction of the Gender Electoral Regime…

83

measures and the principle of parity aimed at incorporating women into candidacies evidenced various forms of leadership’s resistance and simulations (often not at all subtle). In the first phase, during the 1990s, the federal recommendation for nominating women led some states to incorporate specific measures in their legislation. The first states to legislate recommendations to promote women’s political participation were Durango and Chihuahua in 1994 and Zacatecas in 1995. Sonora was the first to approve a gender quota in 1996, a year after the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action was approved.28 The process of approving quotas at the state level began in 1994. Chihuahua was the first state to require at least 30% of candidates of different genders on proportional representation lists (although it did not provide penalties for non-­compliance). Afterward, in June 1996, shortly before the federal reform, Sonora approved a mandatory 20% quota applicable to municipal council slates and candidacies for seats in the House of Representatives. The percentage incorporated in the law was law. Also, it was considered harmful that the quota had not been established in allocating seats for proportional representation. From that moment on, the second phase of gender electoral regimes began. Various states adopted some type of quota, either 30% (State of Mexico, Federal District, Michoacán, Oaxaca, Guerrero, Jalisco, Colima, Durango) or less (Puebla, Sinaloa, and Sonora). At the same time, Chihuahua strengthened the design of the quota, extending its application to SMP candidacies and incorporating sanctions for noncompliance. These innovations were characterized by the fact that effective mechanisms for compliance did not accompany the obligation. In most cases, there were no sanctions, there was no application to the complete formula, and alternation in the proportional representation lists was adopted only in Coahuila (2001). These regulatory changes occurred before the 2002 federal reform obliged the parties to respect affirmative action measures, showing the level of subnational autonomy and how the states could expand rights before the federal authority did so. This process of adjustments evidences how the dynamics of electoral federalism worked in Mexico and the diversity of existing designs, which, although not very strong, surpassed the national norm, which was merely enunciative. The third phase of regulatory expansion occurred when many states incorporated gender quotas into their Electoral Laws, but this time already bound by the 2002 federal reform. Between 2002 and 2003 alone, eight states introduced a 30% requirement for women candidates (Aguascalientes, Baja California Sur, Campeche, San Luis Potosí, Tabasco, Tamaulipas, Yucatán, and Zacatecas). The highlight of this third wave was when Colima went ahead and established the principle of parity in the integration of proportional representation candidates in 2005. Once again, the states generated innovative mechanisms from the subnational level before the federal level demanded it.

 Other states also incorporated recommendations, such as Tabasco in 1996, Chiapas in 1997, Querétaro in 1999, Aguascalientes and Veracruz in 2000, and Nayarit in 2004.

28

84

3  The Long and Winding Road to Gender Parity in Mexican Congresses

In a fourth phase, beginning in 2008, 11 states carried out reforms to comply with the federal judicial mandate to strengthen the principle requiring nomination of female candidates. In that same year, nine states reformed their electoral laws to standardize the size of the quota (Campeche, Federal District, Guerrero, Estado de Mexico, Oaxaca, Querétaro, San Luis Potosí, Tabasco, Tamaulipas) and, between 2010 and 2011, another 11 incorporated a 40% quota (Colima, Federal District, State of Mexico, Aguascalientes, Baja California, Coahuila, Querétaro, Sinaloa, Tabasco, Tamaulipas, and Zacatecas). The 2008 reform established the “parity horizon” and strengthened the electoral gender regime by establishing that the proportional representation lists had to be made up in an alternating manner (a “zipper”). However, the law maintained the exception in the case of democratic candidate selection procedures, which was an escape valve, given that it allowed the quota to be waived if the party selected its candidates competitively (Aparicio Castillo 2011; Peña Molina 2009; Baldez 2004). The problem was that it was unclear what those procedures were, nor were there any control mechanisms that could certify that the parties were carrying out democratic selection mechanisms.29 When the 2014 constitutional reform was approved, at least 13 states had moved ahead of federal laws and had approved the requirement of gender parity in candidacies for local congressional and municipal councils. However, only nine required it for both proportional representation lists and SMP districts. Precisely, the constitutional and legal reforms of 2014 were significant because they promoted a process of harmonization between federal and state legislation, leading local elites toward parity, even in those states where they had systematically resisted. Given that there was so much resistance from local party leaders, the harmonization process often required the TEPJF to lead several states on the path to parity, as subnational elites expressed strong resistance to accepting what the Constitution established (Freidenberg and Gilas 2021b). As part of this process of legislative homologation, which was even part of a recommendation made to Mexico by the CEDAW Committee, the states had to reform their electoral laws to guarantee gender parity. The reform stipulated that the states were obliged to reform their respective electoral laws by June 30, 2014; the political parties had to do the same with their basic documents and respective regulations by September 30 of the same year, as stipulated in the LGPP. Most of the 18 entities that participated in the 2014–2015 electoral process modified their laws, including parity rules in their constitutions, using the verb “guarantee,” and leaving behind the much-used “seek” or “try” that opened the door to non-compliance (Alanis Figueroa 2014, 182). Even so, in some states, such as Nuevo León, there were challenges in unconstitutionality actions that were resolved

 The states that already had parity in both principles before federal approval were Campeche in 2008, Chiapas in 2010, Chihuahua in 2009, Coahuila in 2010, Guerrero in 2008, Puebla in 2013, San Luis Potosí in 2011, Sonora in 2013, Tlaxcala in 2008.

29

3.3  Advances and Setbacks in the Construction of the Gender Electoral Regime…

85

by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación) (Hernández Tellez et al. 2019, 19).30 In addition to including the requirement of vertical parity,31 the entities changed the rules on integrating proportional representation lists so that the zipper system or alternation between genders (man–woman–man or woman–man–woman) would apply (Alanis Figueroa 2014, 182). States’ legislations also eliminated exceptions that could limit the effects of parity.32 Also, concerning the rules of substitutions, the law established that the formulas had to be integrated by persons of the same gender. Only Chiapas and Yucatan approved legislation preventing women from having male substitutes while at the same time recognizing that women may be registered as substitutes for male candidatures (Alanis Figueroa 2014, 183). Regarding sanctions, LGIPE obliged the OPLES to penalize political parties that did not comply with the criteria of parity in the nominations (imposing fines, suspending public funding, and even declaring the loss of license to operate). Most states took up this mandate, although Michoacán and Morelos did not incorporate sanctions for noncompliance with the parity. At the beginning of 2017, INE supported the states in adjusting their electoral gender regimes through a General Council Agreement in which it established the rules that the states should incorporate into their legislation.33 It is clear evidence of the change in the multilevel dynamics of the political system, moving from a system of electoral federalism to one of centralization, where the states were losing their capacity for autonomy and initiative vis-à-vis INE. In this sense, the INE’s Liaison Unit issued an indication to the OPLES to approve Parity Guidelines on the position mandate,34 the principle of competitiveness, and the rule of the losing districts should be interpreted should be established, with the objective that the parties could have clear indications on how they should integrate their candidacies.35  The entities that had elections in 2014–2015 and harmonized their rules in that first instance where: Baja California Sur, Campeche, Chiapas, Distrito Federal, Guanajuato, Guerrero, Jalisco, Estado de México, Michoacán, Morelos, Nuevo León, Oaxaca (through Oaxaca’s OPLE guidelines), Querétaro, San Luís Potosí, Sonora, Tabasco, and Yucatán. Seventeen local congresses complied with this mandate except for the State of Oaxaca. 31  In the case of Chihuahua, parity is constitutionally obligatory only for the principle of PR, and in the cases of Hidalgo and Yucatán, this precept was omitted in candidates for municipal office, which means that they must also adapt their texts to standardize women’s political rights. 32  Only Chiapas, Colima and Morelos maintained exceptions to the parity rules. 33  Agreement of the General Council of the National Electoral Institute by which, in exercise of the power of attraction, general criteria are issued in order to ensure compliance with the principle of gender parity in the nomination of candidates for all popularly elected positions at the local level, of February 15, 2017 (CG63/2016). 34  These guidelines show concrete ways of confronting the practices of simulation and the resistance that the parties had promoted up to that moment in order not to comply with what the law demanded or to pretend to comply with it (Hevia Rocha 2020). 35  Responding to INE’s indications, the OPLES approved from January 2015 to December 2018 the new guidelines (Morelos, January 16, 2015; Tabasco, November 30, 2016; Chiapas, December 14, 2016; Nayarit, March 27, 2017; San Luis Potosí, July 19, 2017; Querétaro, August 30, 2017; Guanajuato, August 31, 2017; Campeche, September 21, 2017; Michoacán September 26, 2017; 30

86

3  The Long and Winding Road to Gender Parity in Mexican Congresses

In addition, in November 2017, INE established new criteria and even new affirmative action measures that reinforced the scope of the constitutional parity principle at both the federal and subnational levels. The new measures required the nomination of women at the top of the lists of candidates for the principle of proportional representation in the federal Chamber of Deputies and, in the case of the Senate, also on the list of candidates for SMP districts. It also requires that the two formulas presented for the SMP for each entity must include persons of different genders and that half of the lists of candidates for the SMP districts for each entity must be headed by each gender (Freidenberg and Gilas 2020). The description of the different regulatory changes in Mexican women’s political rights shows some interaction between the federal reforms and the regulatory changes made at the state level. In the early periods, several states adopted quota designs before those approved at the federal level. Although the experiences were limited, what is relevant is that they were ahead of what happened at the national level and adopted measures more robust than the federal law. Such cases demonstrate the influence of subnational institutional innovations that, when subsequently incorporated into the rules of the federal game, led to a more significant expansion of women’s political and electoral rights in Mexican states.

3.4  M  ultilevel, Multi-Stakeholder, and Multi Strategic: Parity in Mexican Congresses Mexico has made significant progress in building parity democracy at the national and subnational levels by introducing affirmative action measures and, later, with the principle of gender parity in the registration of candidates for elected office. Contrary to what skeptics thought for some years, laws requiring parties to place women in office have helped to break down obstacles to access to political representation. In the case of Mexico, this process was marked by various turning points, advances, and setbacks and by the leading role played by electoral, administrative, and jurisdictional authorities. Also, women’s movements and networks played a crucial role in identifying the problems and promoting new measures to advance the construction of more egalitarian democracy and to move from formal equality (which is provided for in-laws, treaties, and regulations) to real equality (which makes those rights effective).

Mexico City, September 28, 2017; Tamaulipas, October 12, 2017; Colima, October 13, 2017; Yucatán, October 20, 2017; Jalisco, November 3, 2017; Aguascalientes, November 9, 2017; State of Mexico, November 9, 2017; Guerrero, November 16, 2017; Nuevo León, November 22, 2017; Zacatecas, November 27, 2017; Tlaxcala, December 13, 2017; Durango, December 14, 2017; Oaxaca, December 18, 2017; Baja California Sur, December 21, 2017; Hidalgo, December 21, 2017; Puebla, December 22, 2017; Coahuila, December 24, 2017; Sonora, January 7, 2018; Sinaloa, January 15, 2018; Veracruz, February 28, 2018; Chihuahua, March 3, 2018; Quintana Roo, March 15, 2018; Baja California, December 24, 2018).

References

87

Mexico’s path toward parity has resulted from an intense process of strengthening institutional demands derived from the legislative activity, driven primarily by female legislators. Also, the electoral authorities sought mechanisms to strengthen the implementation of quotas and parity and to interpret the norms based on complaints and demands presented by women politicians and activists, given that the parties were reluctant to comply with them. Mexico is an example of regulatory progressivity, the participation of multiple actors in the construction of the parity framework, and institutional and noninstitutional strategies to achieve goals, overcome obstacles, and generate a climate of public opinion that accompanies the process of political change. The experience shows the impact of international legal commitments on national and state rules (Alanis Figueroa 2017), the recognition of women’s rights as human rights (Alanis Figueroa 2017; Saba 2016; Bareiro and Soto 2015), and the activism of judicial and administrative, national, and state electoral bodies (Alanis Figueroa 2017; Gilas 2014). Also, because of the pressure generated through strategic litigation (Alcocer 2013) and the relevance of informal networks of feminist women and the broader women’s movement on monitoring the rules and practices linked to women’s participation (Tagle 2017; Piscopo 2016). This process, which involved multilevel interactions between various actors and multiple strategies, involved the drafting, implementation, and revision of the regulations approved by the Federation and the states, with the participation of various actors in “gender-friendly coalitions” made up of legislators, political parties, electoral authorities, academics, feminist, and women’s organizations. All of them sought to promote the advancement of women’s political representation. The synergies that arose from this complex process, over 25 years, led to progress in quotas and parity in the nomination. Ultimately, they changed the composition at all levels and the three branches of government and laid the foundations for constructing parity democracy in Mexico.

References Alanis Figueroa, María del Carmen. 2014. El reto de la paridad en las candidaturas. Revista Mexicana de Derecho Electoral 6: 171–187. ———. 2017. Contributions of electoral justice to the strengthening of Women’s political rights: The case of Mexico in comparative perspective. In Women, politics, and democracy in Latin America, ed. Tomáš Došek, Flavia Freidenberg, Mariana Caminotti, and Betilde Muñoz-­ Pogossian, 153–163. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Alcocer, Jorge. 2013. Cuota de género. Una sentencia histórica. Mexico City: Nuevo Horizonte Editores, and Instituto Electoral y de Participación Ciudadana del Estado de Jalisco. Alles, Santiago. 2018. Equilibrar el Terreno: Instituciones Electorales e Incorporación de Mujeres en las Legislaturas Provinciales en Argentina. In Mujeres en la política en América Latina: experiencias nacionales y subnacionales, ed. Flavia Freidenberg, Mariana Caminotti, Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian Mariana, and Tomáš Došek, 193–122. Mexico City: Instituto Electoral de la Ciudad de México, and Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM.

88

3  The Long and Winding Road to Gender Parity in Mexican Congresses

Aparicio Castillo, Javier. 2011. Cuotas de género en México: candidaturas y resultados electorales para diputados federales en 2009. Mexico City: Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación. Baldez, Lisa. 2004. Elected bodies: The gender quota law for legislative candidate in Mexico. Legislative Studies Quarterly 2: 239–258. Bareiro, Line, and Lilian Soto. 2015. La hora de la igualdad sustantiva. New York: ONU Mujeres. Biroli, Flávia. 2018. Violence against Women and Reactions to Gender Equality in Politics. Politics & Gender 14 (4):681–685. Bruhn, Kathleen. 2003. Whores and lesbians: Political activism, party strategies and gender quotas in Mexico. Electoral Studies 22 (1): 101–119. Calvo, Ernesto. 2004. Política subnacional y representación política. Lo que vendrá 1 (2): (november): 35-37. Caminotti, Mariana. 2016. Cuotas de Género y Paridad en América Latina: Mujeres, Partidos Políticos y Estado. In Reformas a las Organizaciones de Partidos Políticos en América Latina (1978-2015), ed. Flavia Freidenberg and Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian, 183–103. Lima: PUCP, OEA, SAAP, and Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM. Caminotti, Mariana, and Flavia Freidenberg. 2016. Federalismo Electoral, Fortaleza de las Cuotas de Género y Representación Política de las Mujeres en los Ámbitos Subnacionales de Argentina y México. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales 61 (228): 121–141. CEDAW/C/MEX/CO/7-8. 2012. Concluding observations of the committee on the elimination of discrimination against women. Retrieved 25, Nov from https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ cedaw/docs/co/cedaw-­c-­mex-­co-­7-­8.pdf Cornelius, Wayne A., Todd Eisenstadt, and Jane Hindley, eds. 1999. Subnational politics and democratization in Mexico. San Diego: Center for U.S.  Mexican Studies, University of California. COFIPE. 2008. Código Federal de Instituciones y Procedimientos Electorales. (Federal Code of Electoral Institutions and Procedures). Cámara de Diputados. http://www.diputados.gob.mx/ LeyesBiblio/abro/cofipe.htm ECLAC, Comisión Económica para América Latina. 2021. Observatorio de Igualdad de Género en América Latina. Santiago: ECLAC. Retrieved 25, Nov from: https://oig.cepal.org/es/ autonomias/autonomia-la-toma-decisiones Fox, Jonathan. 1994. Latin America’s emerging local politics. Journal of Democracy 5 (2): 105–116. Freidenberg, Flavia. 2020. Electoral Reform and Political Representation of Women in Latin America. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Retrieved November 24, from https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-­ 9780190228637-­e-­1676 Freidenberg, Flavia, and Julieta Suárez-Cao, eds. 2014. Territorio y Poder: Nuevos actores y competencia política en los sistemas de partidos multinivel en América Latina. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Freidenberg, Flavia, and Raymundo Alva Huitrón. 2017. ¡Las reglas importan! Impulsando la representación política de las mujeres desde las leyes electorales en perspectiva multinivel. In La Representación Política de las Mujeres en México, ed. Flavia Freidenberg, 15–62. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Electora, and Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Freidenberg, Flavia, and Sebastián Garrido de Sierra. 2021. Régimen electoral de género y representación política de las mujeres a nivel subnacional en México. Revista de Ciencia Política (Santiago) 41(1): 67-01. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-­090X2021005000103. Freidenberg, Flavia, and Karolina M.  Gilas. 2020. ¡Ellas tienen los escaños, ellos el poder! Representación legislativa de las mujeres en el Estado de Morelos. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales 65 (240): 327–358.

References

89

———. Forthcoming. Political violence based on gender, normative demand and multilevel politics in Mexico. In Political representation and gender equality in Mexico, ed. Fernanda Vidal Correa. Springer. Gibson, Edward L. 2005. Boundary control: Subnational authoritarianism in democratic countries. World Politics 58: 101–132. ———. 2010. Politics of the periphery: An introduction to subnational authoritarianism and democratization in Latin America. Journal of Politics in Latin America 2: 3–12. Gilas, Karolina M. 2014. Con las cuotas no basta. De las cuotas de género y otras Acciones Afirmativas. Mexico City: Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación. Gilas, Karolina M., and Mikaela Christiansson. 2018. La paridad de género y la regla de los distritos perdedores en México. In Mujeres en la Política: Experiencias Nacionales y Subnacionales en América Latina, ed. Flavia Freidenberg, Mariana Caminotti, Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian, and Tomáš Došek, 145–166. Mexico City: Instituto Electoral de la Ciudad de México, and Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Giraudy, Agustina, Eduardo Moncada, and Richard Snyder. 2019. Subnational research in comparative politics substantive, theoretical, and methodological contributions. In Inside countries: Subnational research in comparative politics, ed. Agustina Giraudy, Eduardo Moncada, and Richard Snyder, 3–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. González Oropeza, Manuel and Carlos Báez. 2010. La intervención de los órganos electorales del estado en la vida interna de los partidos políticos. Mexico, Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM. González Oropeza, Manuel, Karolina M. Gilas, and Carlos Báez Silva. 2016. Hacia una democracia paritaria: la evolución de la participación política de las mujeres en México y sus entidades federativas. Mexico City: Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación. González-Schont, Celine. 2014. De la representación descriptiva a la representación sustantiva: análisis de las cuotas de género en los Congresos estatales en México. Tesis de Maestría. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Docencia Económica. Grindle, Merilee S. 2007. Going local: Decentralization, democratization, and the promise of good governance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Harbers, Imke, and Abbey Steele. 2020. Introduction: Subnational variation across states: A typology and research agenda. Latin American Politics and Societies 62 (3): 1–18. Harbers, Imke, Jos Bartman, and Enrike van Wingerden. 2019. Conceptualizing and measuring subnational democracy across Indian states. Democratization 26 (7): 1154–1175. Hernández-Téllez, Josefina, Alicia Martínez Cruz, and Maria Aidé Hernández García. 2019. Introducción: de las cuotas de participación a la paridad. In ¿Es la paridad una realidad en los Congresos estatales? ed. María Aidé Hernández García and Jesús Alberto Rodríguez Alonso, 9–33. Mexico City: Universidad de Guanajuato, and Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez. Hevia-Rocha, Teresa. 2020. El impacto de las medidas de acción afirmativa de género en el registro de las candidaturas en el proceso de 2017/2018. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Electoral. INE/CG160/2021. Acuerdo del Consejo General del Instituto Nacional Electoral por el que, en acatamiento a la sentencia dictada por la Sala Superior del Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación en el expediente sup-rap-21/2021 y acumulados, se modifican los criterios aplicables para el registro de candidaturas a diputaciones por ambos principios que presenten los partidos políticos nacionales y, en su caso, las coaliciones ante los consejos del Instituto, para el proceso electoral federal 2020-2021, aprobados mediante acuerdos INE/ CG572/2020 e INE/CG18/2021. https://repositoriodocumental.ine.mx/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/118027/CGex202103-­04-­ap-­1.pdf INE/CG572/2020. Acuerdo del Consejo General del Instituto Nacional Electoral por el que en acatamiento a la sentencia dictada por la Sala Superior del Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación en el expediente SUP-RAP-121/2020 y acumulados, se modifican los criterios aplicables para el registro de candidaturas a diputaciones por ambos principios que presenten los Partidos Políticos Nacionales y, en su caso, las Coaliciones ante los Consejos del Instituto,

90

3  The Long and Winding Road to Gender Parity in Mexican Congresses

para el Proceso Electoral Federal 2020–2021. https://repositoriodocumental.ine.mx/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/116389/CGex202101-­15-­ap-­12.pdf INE (Instituto Nacional Electoral). 2017. Acuerdo INE/CG508/2017. Acuerdo del Consejo General del Instituto Nacional Electoral por el que se indican los criterios aplicables para el registro de candidaturas a los distintos cargos de elección popular que presenten los partidos políticos y, en su caso, las coaliciones ante los Consejos del Instituto, para el Proceso Electoral Federal 2017-2018. https://igualdad.ine.mx/wp-­content/uploads/2018/09/Acuerdo-­ INE-­CG508-­2017.pdf Instituto Nacional Electoral (INE). (2018). México y el logro de la paridad legislativa en 2018. Buenas prácticas y aprendizajes en la promoción de la participación y la representación política de las mujeres. México: Instituto Nacional Electoral. Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority-rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Massolo, Alejandra. 2007. La participación política de las mujeres en el ámbito local en América Latina. Santo Domingo: Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones, INSTRAW. México. Sentencia SUP-REC-7/2018 del Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación. Retrieved 25, Nov from: https://www.te.gob.mx/buscador/ Constitutional reform. 2014. Decreto por el que se reforman, adicionan y derogan diversas disposiciones de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, en materia política-­ electoral. Diario Oficial de la Federación, 10 February. http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle. php?codigo=5332025&fecha=10/02/2014 LGIPE. 2014. Ley General de Instituciones y Procesos Electorales (General Law on Electoral Institutions and Processes). Cámara de Diputados. http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/ ref/lgipe.htm LGPP. 2014. Ley General de Partidos Políticos (General Law of Political Parties). Cámara de Diputados. http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/ref/lgpp.htm Medina-Espino, Adriana. 2010. La participación política de las mujeres. De las cuotas de género a la paridad. Mexico City: Centro de Estudios Legislativos para la Igualdad de Género. Observatory of Political Reforms in Latin America. 1978–2021. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. www.reformaspoliticas.org. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1993. On the state, democratization, and some conceptual problems (a Latin American view with glances at some post-communist countries). Working paper 193, April. Notre Dame: Kellogg Institute. ———. 1999. Counterpoints: Selected essays on authoritarianism and democratization. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. ONU Mujeres. 2018. La participación política de las mujeres a nivel municipal en México. Mexico City: ONU Mujeres. O’Neill, Thomas, and Gary Hymel. 1994. All politics is local: And other rules of the game. New York: Times Books. Pacheco Ladrón de Guevara, Lourdes C. 2007. Cuando la democracia nos alcance. Sistemas de cuotas y agenda de género en Baja California Sur, Coahuila, Colima, Durango, Guerrero, Jalisco y Nayarit. Mexico City: Juan Pablos. Palma Cabera, Esperanza. 2017. Tensiones en torno a la interpretación y aplicación de las cuotas de género y la paridad. In Para discutir la acción afirmativa. Democracia, procesos y circunstancias, ed. Teresa González Luna, Jesús Rodríguez Zepeda, and Alejandro Sahuí Maldonado, 15–34. Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara. Palma Cabrera, Esperanza, and Abraham Chimal. 2012. Partidos y cuotas de género. El impacto de la ley electoral en la representación descriptiva en México. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Electorales 11: 53–78. Peña Molina, Blanca Olivia. 2009. Paridad y disparidad de género. Legislación electoral, masa crítica y sistema de cuotas en los Congresos estatales de México. Paper presented at 3rd International Congress of the SOMEE, Salamanca, Spain, October 28-30.

References

91

———. 2014. La paridad de género: eje de la reforma político-electoral en México. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Electorales 14: 31–74. Peschard, Jacqueline. 2008. El federalismo electoral en México. Mexico City: Honorable Cámara de Diputados, UNAM and Porrúa. Piscopo, Jennifer M. 2011. Gender quotas and equity promotion in Mexico. In Diffusion of gender quotas in Latin America and beyond, ed. Adriana Crocker, 36–52. New York: Peter Lang. ———. 2016. When informality advantages women: Quota networks, electoral rules, and candidate selection in Mexico. Government & Opposition 51 (3): 487–412. Ravel, Dania. 2021. Personal interview for the evaluation of the Gender Electoral Regime in Latin America: Diagnosis and Proposal, conducted with the Electoral Counselor of the National Electoral Institute, May 1 [via digital]. Reynoso, Diego, and Natalia D’Angelo. 2006. Las leyes de cuota y su impacto en la elección de mujeres en México. Política y gobierno 13 (2): 279–213. Rokkan, Stein. 1970. Citizens, elections, parties: Approaches to the comparative study of the processes of development. New York: McKay. Saba, Roberto. 2016. Más allá de la igualdad formal ante la ley. Qué le debe el Estado a los grupos desaventajados. Buenos Aires: Editorial Siglo XXI. Schakel, Arjan H. 2013. Nationalisation of multilevel party systems: A conceptual and empirical analysis. European Journal of Political Research 52 (12): 212–236. Schmidt, Gregory. 2020. Are open or closed lists better for women?: A comparison of Lima and the provinces in Peru. Apuntes 86: 147–169. Snyder, Richard. 2001. Scaling down: The subnational comparative method. Studies in Comparative International Development 36 (1): 93–10. Stevenson, Linda S. 1999. Gender politics in the Mexican democratization process. Electing women and legislating sex crimes and armative action, 1988-97. In Towards Mexico’s democratization: Parties, campaigns, elections and public opinion, ed. Jorge I.  Domínguez and Alejandro Poiré, 57–87. London: Routledge. SUP-JDC-155/2004. Ruling of the Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación. Retrieved 25, Nov from: https://www.te.gob.mx/buscador/ SUP-JRC-336/2004. Ruling of the Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación. Retrieved 25, Nov from: https://www.te.gob.mx/buscador/ SUP-JRC-170/2006. Ruling of the Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación. Retrieved 25, Nov from: https://www.te.gob.mx/buscador/ SUP-JDC-1130/2006.Ruling of the Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación. Retrieved 25, Nov from: https://www.te.gob.mx/buscador/ SUP-JDC-12624/2011. Ruling of the Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación. Retrieved 25, Nov from: https://www.te.gob.mx/buscador/ SUP-RAP-21/2021. Ruling of the Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación. Retrieved 25, Nov from: https://www.te.gob.mx/buscador/ Sweden, Wilfried, and Bart Maddens. 2008. Territorial party politics in Western Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Tagle, Martha. 2017. Estrategias para romper los candados contra las mujeres “de” y “en” los partidos políticos en México. In Cuando hacer política te cuesta la vida: Estrategias contra la violencia política hacia las mujeres, ed. Flavia Freidenberg and Gabriela Del Valle, 201–208. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM, and Tribunal Electoral de la Ciudad de México. Tello-Sánchez, Flavia. 2009. La participación política de las mujeres en los gobiernos locales Latinoamericanos: Barreras y Desafíos para una efectiva democracia de género. PRIGEPP/ FLACSO: Tesis de Maestría. Vidal Correa, Fernanda. 2014. Federalism and gender quotas in Mexico: Analysing propietario and suplente nominations. Representations 50 (3): 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034489 3.2014.951182.

92

3  The Long and Winding Road to Gender Parity in Mexican Congresses

———. 2016. Women in Mexican politics: A study of representation in a renewed federal and democratic state. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Zetterberg, Par. 2011. The diffusion of sub-national gender quotas in Mexico and their impacts. In Diffusion of gender quotas in Latin America and beyond: Advances and setbacks in the last two decades, ed. Adriana Piatti-Crocker, 53–69. New York, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, Oxford and Wien: Peter Lang Publishing Group.

Personal Interview Humphrey, Carla. Personal interview to evaluate the Gender Electoral Regime in Latin America: Diagnosis and Proposal. Consultation conducted via WhatsApp, Mexico City, Mexico, May 8, 2021 [via digital means].

Chapter 4

Why Do Some State Congresses Have More Female Legislators than Others?

4.1  T  he Descriptive Dimension of Women’s Representation at the Subnational Level The historical absence of women in the elaboration and implementation of public policies and institutions has evidenced flaws in the functioning of democratic systems (Pitkin 1967; Bareiro and Soto 2015; Schwindt-Bayer 2018). The fact that half of the population does not participate in public decisions has limited democratization processes. For decades, comparative scholarship and political experience have evidenced that women have been systematically excluded from spaces of political representation (Philips 1995; Matland 1998, 1993; Dahlerup and Freidenvall 2005; Krook 2009; Piscopo 2011; Bareiro and Soto 2015), and this exclusion is much greater when looking at subnational politics. The levels of women’s descriptive representation have historically been low— concerning their numbers on the electoral roll—and have not been homogeneous across the territory; on the contrary, there are differences between state units in terms of the presence of women, and this has consequences for the exercise of political–electoral rights and the functioning of democracy. The differences in the number of women legislators imply that Mexican women have faced adverse conditions to exercise their citizenship depending on the state in which they reside (Freidenberg and Garrido de Sierra 2021). It would suggest that the distribution of public goods and access to political rights are not homogeneous for men and women across the territory, as one would expect to find from the inclusion in the constitutional text of the principle of gender parity or affirmative action measures. If there are differences in the exercise of rights, formal equality does not translate into substantive equality. If this is the case, knowing how the gender gap manifests itself and the factors that can help reduce or eliminate it is a crucial step on a long path toward the subnational democratization of any political system.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 F. Freidenberg et al., Women in Mexican Subnational Legislatures, Latin American Societies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94078-2_4

93

94

4  Why Do Some State Congresses Have More Female Legislators than Others?

Why do some state legislatures have more women representatives than others? This research question is the focus of this chapter, which evaluates the factors that explain the differences in women’s descriptive representation, emphasizing the analysis of the political–institutional and socioeconomic dynamics that may explain why some state legislatures have more elected women than others in the period 1987–2019. Feminist institutionalist hypotheses have been transferred to the evaluation of descriptive political representation in Mexican states (Stevenson 1999; Reynoso and D’Angelo 2006; Zetterberg 2007; Palma Cabrera and Chimal 2012; Peña Molina 2014; Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016; Vidal-Correa 2014, 2016; Flores-Ivich and Freidenberg 2017; Freidenberg and Garrido de Sierra 2021, among others). These investigations have contributed to discussing the validity of initial national-level explanations and have given an account of the capacity of institutional rules to generate political opportunities for women in federal entities. Unlike the comparative scholarship that has studied various aspects of this phenomenon in elections at the national level, diachronically in one or another entity or narrower periods, this chapter explores the factors that explain the descriptive representation of women at the subnational legislatures in the 32 federative entities for at least 30 years, although with emphasis on the last two legislatures (2014–2018 and 2018–2021). The research is based on constructing two original databases developed for this research agenda (Freidenberg and Alva Huitrón 2017; Flores-­ Ivich and Freidenberg 2017; Freidenberg and Garrido de Sierra 2021). This chapter explains the descriptive dimension of women’s political representation (Pitkin 1967) and its territorial variation. The objective is, first, to describe the levels of women’s political representation in subnational legislatures and, second, to explain why some legislatures have more descriptive representation of women than others. This study evaluates the weight of some institutional variables (such as the level of strength of the gender electoral regime in the registration of candidates, with different election principles and types of the electoral system, proportional representation, and plurality) and other socioeconomic variables (economic development, modernization, and educational level), controlled by the trajectory of the gender electoral regime and partisan alternation in each state, on the descriptive representation of women at the subnational legislative level. The main argument is that the stronger the gender electoral regime for candidate registration, the more robust women’s political representation in subnational legislative institutions, regardless of the type of electoral system. This argument is supported by the results of several binomial logistic mixed-effects models that indicate that, after controlling for different variables, an increase in the “Gender Electoral Regime Strength Index” (Índice de la Fortaleza del Régimen Electoral de Género, IFREG) from 0 to 5 (from the minimum to the maximum value) is associated with the 92.7% increase in the predict proportion of women elected in single-member plurality districts and 51.6% by proportional representation. The results also suggest that the effect of the index is not homogeneous between entities and the need to explore other subnational variables in future research, such as the political trajectory of women, the level of associationism, and the capacity to articulate support networks or legal mobilization.

4.2  Methodological Decisions

95

4.2  Methodological Decisions This chapter aims to identify the factors that influenced the level of descriptive representation of women in the legislatures of Mexican states in the period 1987–2019. The subnational comparative method (Snyder 2001) is employed with quantitative techniques to identify properties, compare similarities and differences, and establish variations across subnational units (legislatures). The study draws on the new feminist institutionalism from which gender inequalities affecting political competition are identified and involves focusing analysis on how rules construct, reproduce, affect, and maintain gendered power dynamics (MacKay et al. 2010). While various dimensions of this problem have been analyzed in other research (Stevenson 1999; Baldez 2004; Bruhn 2003; Huerta-García 2007; Palma Cabrera and Chimal 2012; González Schont 2014; Vidal-Correa 2016; Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016; Flores-Ivich and Freidenberg 2017, among others), this chapter updates and extends these studies in three ways, following the advances made in Freidenberg and Garrido de Sierra (2021). First, by extending the period covered by the database to include the gender integration of between 6 (Puebla) and 11 (eight entities) local legislatures in each of Mexico’s 32 federative entities during the period 1987–2019 (see Fig. 4.1). The variation in the number of legislatures analyzed for each state results from the difficulty in obtaining data in some entities in specific periods and differences in the length of specific legislative periods. Second, by analyzing the effect of the explanatory variables on the proportion of female legislators of plurality and proportional representation separately. Third, using a mixed-effects logit model. This model is appropriate because of the nature of the dependent variable (a proportion with nonconstant variance), the probable

Fig. 4.1  Number of state legislatures included in the analysis

96

4  Why Do Some State Congresses Have More Female Legislators than Others?

correlation in the observations of each entity, and the differences in the number of legislatures considered for each entity. The dependent variable is the level of descriptive representation of women in the legislatures of each state. It is operationalized in two ways. The first, called “Proportion of women legislators SMP” measures the proportion of women legislators elected by the single-member plurality with respect to the total number of legislators elected by this principle in each election and state. The second version is called “Proportion of female PR legislators” and is constructed in the same way but with the data of the legislators elected by the principle of proportional representation. Both versions of the dependent variable were configured from the information of the original database called “#MujeresElectas,” initially created in 2017 for the National Electoral Institute and updated in 2021 for the Observatory of Political Reforms in Latin America (1978–2021). Based on the proposed theoretical framework, the independent variables explore concerns regarding the weight of political–institutional and socioeconomic factors. Among the political–institutional ones, the level of strength of the electoral rules regarding the registration of candidates for subnational positions of popular representation is measured through the “Gender Electoral Regime Strength Index” (Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016; Freidenberg 2020), which is calculated by differentiating the rules that govern the plurality districts from those that govern the proportional representation districts. Thus, for this research, it is argued that Hypothesis 4.1: The more robust the gender electoral regime in candidate registration, the higher women’s descriptive representation in state legislatures.

The “Gender Electoral Regime Strength Index” was calculated for each change in state legislation in the period 1987–2019, identifying the values of this in five properties that have the same value (Table 4.1), from which an aggregate measure is constructed that allows comparing the observations of the changes in the electoral rules of the federal entities. The dimensions that make up the IFREG are the following: 1. The size of the affirmative action or gender parity measure (the percentage of women required to be nominated as candidates); 2. The position mandate of the quota or parity (the requirement to place women in effective and not only symbolic candidacies); 3. Enforcement or mechanisms that penalize noncompliance with quotas or parity (fines, warnings, non-officialization of lists, loss of party registration, no access to funding, among others); 4. The scope of the quota or parity (i.e., whether it applies only to candidates or also to substitutes, referred to as the “complete formula”); 5. Escape valves for quotas or parity (which consist of providing for situations in which they are allowed to be waived, for example, when primary elections are held or when parties are allowed to argue that there are not enough women to meet the requirement).

4.2  Methodological Decisions

97

Table 4.1  Gender electoral regime strength index: dimensions, indicators, and measurements (Caminotti and Freidenberg 2016) Dimensions and indicators 1. Size: Percentage of the nominations to be allocated to women

Categorization – Minimum (up to 30%) – Intermediate (31–49%) – Parity (50%) (vertical and horizontal), according to the type of position 2. Position mandate: Candidates – Absent placement rules – Weak: Possibility of placing women at the bottom and in losing districts – Strong: Requirement to include women in effective candidacies (alternation; principle of competitiveness; transversal parity) – Absent 3. Enforcement: Penalty for non-compliance with quota (or – Weak: Mechanisms that penalize the party parity) but are allowed to compete – Strong: Parties cannot participate in the election if they do not comply 4. Scope: Range of candidacies – Restricted: Proprietary nominations to which the quota (or parity) – Comprehensive: Complete formula applies 5. Escape valve: The regulations – Present: There are situations where it is provide exceptions to quota (or possible to waive the regulations, and some nominations are exempted parity) compliance – Absent: No exceptions

Measurement 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1

0 0.5 1 0 1 0

1

For the construction of the IFREG, we use the data on all quota laws and gender parity in the subnational entities in Mexico. It includes their regulations, differentiated according to the elements of the electoral system, such as the principle of representation (proportional and plurality), and the type of district (multimember and single member). Given that the electoral system is similar for all states, this research does not include it as a variable affecting political representation. To study this dimension, we will analyze laws, official documents, regulations, sentences, press releases, academic works, and the Databases built especially for this research agenda. We evaluated the reforms to the electoral gender regimes of each state between 1991 and 2019 (#MujeresEnLasNormas) and systematized the integration of state legislatures of both men and women from 1987 to 2019 (#MujeresElectas). It involved identifying 242 changes in electoral legislation (121  in the plurality component and 121 in the proportional representation component) in the 32 states in the period analyzed. Another explanatory institutional variable has to do with the learning time since the affirmative action measure, or the principle of gender parity was approved. A positive relationship might be expected between the time since the quota or parity was approved (its age) and the representation of women in the legislature. In this regard, it is argued that

98

4  Why Do Some State Congresses Have More Female Legislators than Others? Hypothesis 4.2: The longer the affirmative action (quota) or parity measure has been in use, the greater the learning about women’s participation in office and the greater the descriptive representation of women in the legislatures of the federative entities.

To construct this variable, which is referred to as the Age of the gender rule, we also used the updated “#MujeresEnLasNormas” database, which allows us to evaluate the age of each legislation at the subnational level. The number of years elapsed from the approval of the first law on the affirmative measure or gender parity principle until the year in which the corresponding legislature was elected calculated for this variable. The socioeconomic explanations are also considered among the independent variables, on the assumption that the socioeconomic context of the state may have an impact on the descriptive representation of women in their state and on the functioning of affirmative action measures involved in the registration of candidacies and the personal resources available to women who wish to run for elected office. In this regard, it is argued that Hypothesis 4.3: The higher the state’s gross domestic product per capita, the higher the women’s descriptive representation in that state’s legislature. Hypothesis 4.4: The higher the percentage of the population living in urban communities in a state, the higher the descriptive representation of women in that state’s legislatures. Hypothesis 4.5: The higher the average level of schooling in a state, the greater the descriptive representation of women in that state’s legislatures.

The operationalization of socioeconomic variables was carried out as follows. First, the State GDP per capita variable is used to measure each state’s economic development level, which measures the states’ gross domestic product per capita at constant 2013 prices. Second, to measure the degree of urbanization in the 32 states, the variable Urbanization is used, which indicates the percentage of the population of each state that lives in urban communities. Third, to measure the educational level of each entity, the variable Schooling is considered. This variable measures the number of years that, on average, people 15 years and older have received. Finally, the variable Partisan alternation is included as a control variable. This variable is dichotomous and measures the occurrence or nonoccurrence of alternation in the party that governs the corresponding entity before each legislature was elected and integrated. Table 4.2 summarizes the methodological decisions related to the variables presented in this section. Finally, we also evaluated the resistance that women had experienced when they wanted to gain access to positions of legislative representation in the states. An online survey was conducted in which male and female legislators from the states were consulted on situations that make it possible to identify situations of political violence against women in gaining access to legislative office. The survey gathered 104 responses from female legislators from the Mexican states and was conducted between January 22 and July 8, 2021, through a Google Forms questionnaire distributed through its link in various social networks (Twitter, Facebook, and WhatsApp chats). Together with an extensive newspaper review, this survey made it possible to identify resistance and obstacles that women face when they want to access legislative positions.

4.2  Methodological Decisions

99

Table 4.2  Definition, operationalization, and source of the variables Variable Descriptive representation of women

Descriptive representation of women

Gender electoral regime

Age of the gender rule

Short name The proportion of women legislators MR

Indicator Level of descriptive representation of women in legislatures in a given period

Measurement The proportion of women legislators elected by the single-member plurality in each state’s legislature with respect to the total number of legislators elected by SMP in that legislature The proportion of Level of The women legislators proportion of descriptive representation elected by the female PR principle of of women in legislators legislatures in a proportional representation in given period each state’s legislature with respect to the total number of legislators elected by PR in that legislature Caminotti and IFREG Level of the strength of the Freidenberg’s Gender Electoral electoral gender regime Regime Strength Index (2016) Number of years Age of the Age of the in effect since the gender rule electoral gender regime first affirmative action measure of the was passed federative entity.

Source Base #MujeresElectas at the subnational level, updated and corrected, from 1987 to 2019

Base #MujeresElectas at the subnational level, updated and corrected, from 1987 to 2019

Base #MujeresEnLasReglas on electoral legislation at the subnational level from 1987 to 2019 Base #MujeresEnLasReglas on electoral legislation at the subnational level from 1987 to 2019 (continued)

100

4  Why Do Some State Congresses Have More Female Legislators than Others?

Table 4.2 (continued) Variable Economic development

Measurement Annual state GDP divided by the population’s size for the corresponding year, multiplied by one million The latter is necessary because the original figures are in millions of pesos The reduced retropoled series of the gross domestic product of the federal entities at constant 2013 prices were used The number of Percentage of Urbanization Level of urbanization of people living in the state’s communities with the state population more than 2500 population living in urban inhabitants in a areas particular entity and year, divided by the total number of inhabitants in that entity and year, multiplied by 100 Number of years The Average grade Schooling that, on average, educational level of persons aged 15 level of the schooling and overpassed state

Partisan political alternation in the executive government

Short name State GDP per capita

Partisan alternation

Indicator Gross state per capita domestic product

Presence or absence of political alternation in the entities

States that have had political alternation in the period analyzed

Source State GDP data obtained from the National Institute of statistics and geography of Mexico (INEGI) Population datA (reconciliations for 1987–2015 and projections for 2016– 2019) obtained from the National Population Council (CONAPO)

Data obtained from censuses (1990, 2000, and 2010), population counts (1995 and 2005), and intercensal surveys (2015) conducted by INEGI

Data obtained from censuses (2000, 2010, and 2020), a population count (2005), and an intercensal survey (2015) conducted by INEGI González Ulloa Aguirre (2017)

4.3  Women’s Presence in State Legislatures

101

Fig. 4.2  The average percentage of women and men in the legislatures of the federative entities elected by both plurality and proportional representation, 1991–2019

4.3  Women’s Presence in State Legislatures Women’s descriptive representation varies from state to state and over time (synchronic and diachronic comparison). Over the last three decades, the level of descriptive representation of women at the legislative level in Mexican states has increased, on average, by 40% (Fig. 4.2). The progressive and sustained reduction of the gender gap between male and female state legislators is not a minor issue since it implies that people can do politics in a more egalitarian way, a fundamental step in subnational democratization.1 When analyzing the evolution of the percentage of female legislators in each entity (Fig. 4.3), the data reveal interesting variations in each series’ starting point (compare, e.g., the first observation of Nayarit or Tabasco to the first data from Mexico City). Also, it shows the differences in the pace and direction of the growth trend in the percentage of local women legislators from one legislature to another, even showing cases where the path has not been linear but rather one of advances and setbacks (as can be seen, e.g., in Aguascalientes, Morelos, Nuevo León, or Puebla).2 Although there has been an upward trend since the 1990s, the average  The graph begins in 1991 because it is the first year for which data is available for at least a third of the states (12 of 32). When analyzing this graph, it is important to keep in mind that it is from 2001 onwards that data from all states are included in order to calculate the averages of local male and female legislators. Prior to this year, the number of states considered ranged from 12 to 29. In spite of the efforts made by the research team to have the largest number of data per legislature, it was not possible to obtain such information for all states since 1987. 2  The lines for each entity cover the years for which information was collected. Therefore, the fact that there is no line in the first years of a graph does not necessarily mean that the percentage of women elected is zero, since there is no information available for the corresponding period. 1

102

4  Why Do Some State Congresses Have More Female Legislators than Others?

Fig. 4.3  Percentage of women in the legislatures of the federative entities elected under both the plurality and proportional representation principles, 1987–2019

proportion of women elected has varied from one state to another. Until 2000, most state entities had less than 20% of women legislators in state congresses. Although the increasing trend is consistent with the evolution of federal representation, from 2015 onward, most of the entities surpassed 30% of elected women. The different rates of representation of women legislators also show two significant elements: on the one hand, the resistance of the political elites and the various state actors to giving women candidates a space (it is impossible to be elected if one is not previously nominated as a candidate by the party) and, on the other hand, the capacity of articulation and pressure of women politicians in each entity to demand compliance with electoral rules, create new rules or, where appropriate, strengthen existing ones. Morelos is an excellent example of this process. The zigzagging in the levels of descriptive representation shows the struggles for political power in the access to the legislative space, which have been clearly expressed in the effort that women have made to exercise their positions on equal terms with men. The experience of the last legislature (2018–2021), where the majority of Congress is female (14 out of 20), and women cannot effectively exercise the legislative function, is evidence of this. Despite these differences, the most significant growth in the percentage of local women legislators occurred fundamentally in the last 5 years (Fig. 4.3), following the approval and enforcement of the constitutional principle of gender parity in each entity (2014) and, specifically, the reinforcement of this principle with stronger political will on the part of the Local Public Electoral Bodies (Órganos Públicos Electorales Locales, OPLES) and the National Electoral Institute (Instituto Nacional Electoral, INE) to demand that parties comply with the specific guidelines that had been designed to establish how they should integrate the candidacies for positions of popular representation (2017). As a result, at the beginning of the last legislature for which data are available in most of the entities, women won approximately 50%

4.3  Women’s Presence in State Legislatures

103

Fig. 4.4  Evolution of the Gender Electoral Regime Strength Index in Mexican states, 1994–2016 (For Coahuila, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Nuevo León, and Tabasco the IFREG values are the same for the plurality and proportional representation component for all years. Therefore, the lines overlap and only one is visible in the respective panels)

of the legislators, and in some cases, that figure is higher than 60% (see Chiapas, Morelos, and Tlaxcala). In the same way, as at the national level, electoral engineering has created opportunities for women to access a candidacy in more competitive and inclusive conditions in the federal entities of the country, sometimes originated from the entities (as was the case of Chihuahua in 1994) and others by the impulse of the Federation (such as the electoral reform of gender parity in 2014), when it sought to nationalize the electoral system (Fig. 4.4). The evolution of the Mexican gender electoral regime at the subnational level should be analyzed in two stages: (a) that of electoral federalism and (b) that of electoral nationalization. In the first phase, electoral rules varied considerably from one state to another. The electoral principles of plurality and proportional representation within the same state, such as the size of quotas, the type of sanctions, or position mandates, were heterogeneous. Moreover, in that first phase of electoral federalism, the level of ambiguity of the rules was quite common since the parties left gaps or loopholes that allowed a more loose interpretation of those rules. The second phase begins in 2014 (vertical red line in Fig. 4.4) with the nationalization process in which the Federation demands that the entities reform their electoral gender regimes in a homogeneous way to the federal rules, the requirements to the parties regarding the registration of candidacies begin to be harmonized in all territorial units. At the same time, the spaces of interpretation and ambiguity of the rules tend to be closed, either by the action of electoral authorities (the OPLES) or by the decisions of the judicial authorities.3 3  Caminotti and Freidenberg (2016) argue that the wording of the rules until 2014 was ambiguous, their application was subject to the interpretation of party leaders and there were cases where it was

104

4  Why Do Some State Congresses Have More Female Legislators than Others?

4.4  P  arity Legislatures: More Women in Subnational Congresses When the Mexican Federation approved gender parity at the constitutional level in 2014 and forced the federal entities to harmonize their regulations, several states already had these rules in their electoral gender regimes. Guerrero, Tlaxcala, and Campeche since 2008; Chihuahua in 2009; Chiapas and Coahuila in 2010, San Luis Potosí in 2011; Puebla and Sonora since 2013 had already approved various parity rules in the registration of candidates for positions of popular representation. The other states were forced to carry out constitutional and legal reforms to incorporate the principle of parity in the nomination of candidates and to articulate the specific rules necessary for the practical implementation of this principle. In this scenario, for the 2014–2015 electoral process, 17 states had to rush to harmonize their legislation.4 Even though the rule adopted in the legislation was quite clear in terms of the scope of parity, the states maintained a wide margin of normative adaptation, which led to the articulation of electoral gender regimes of varying strength that also generated mixed results on the descriptive representation of women in the states. The actions of the electoral authorities and the interpretation of the law by the specialized courts also led to significant heterogeneity in the implementation of gender parity in the 2014–2015 elections. Data from that election show that three state Congresses had an integration above 50%, such as Chiapas (60%), Campeche (57.1%), and Querétaro (52%), while most of the entities that held elections barely exceeded 30% of women elected. This increase in women legislators also occurred in the following 2017–2018 process, in which elections were held in 27 states. In 12 of them, women occupied 50% or more of the seats. The state of Morelos had the highest percentage of women with 70%, followed by Chiapas (65%), Tlaxcala (60%), Baja California Sur (57.1%), Coahuila (56%), Colima (56%), Oaxaca (54.8%), Hidalgo (53.3%), Nuevo León (52.4%), Querétaro (52%), Aguascalientes (51.9%), Campeche (51.4%). At the same time, four had an even integration (Mexico City, Guanajuato, Veracruz, and Zacatecas), while there was less than 50% in the rest.5 The differences in the functioning of the gender parity rules in the states can be explained by party resistance to the new rules that sought to strengthen the political representation of women, by the design of these rules, as well as by the performance not contemplated that those who did not respect the law could not register candidacies. This has been changing since the approval of the gender parity rules in the Constitution, partly due to the actions of the women’s movement, as well as the role of federal and state administrative and jurisdictional authorities, which have been resolving conflicts and demands increasingly in favor of the protection of women’s political-electoral rights. 4  They had until June 30, 2014, to harmonize the rules and 17 managed to do so, except Oaxaca. See Chap. 3. 5  These include the State of Mexico (49.3%), San Luis Potosí (48.1%), Yucatán (48%), Puebla (46.5%), Chihuahua (45.5%), Sinaloa (45%), Durango (44%), Sonora (42.4%), Jalisco (42.1%), Guerrero (41.3%) and Michoacán (40.0%).

4.5  Resistance to Women’s Descriptive Representation

105

and interpretation of these rules by the parties, the electoral authorities, and the constitutional and legal interpretation of the scope of parity. This last point turned out to be fundamental since, for example, in the stage of assigning proportional representation seats, it allowed parity to be achieved in some cases. In contrast, in others, it prevented the incorporation of women into legislative spaces through its interpretations (Freidenberg and Gilas 2021). It is the scenario in which women legislators have exercised political representation in the Mexican states. Despite the increase in the number of women, even surpassing the “critical mass,” resistance persisted. Women candidates faced different forms of violence (physical, patrimonial, discursive, or symbolic) and discrimination based on origin or gender.6 It is expressed in the internal decisions and practices of the parties, in the sexist and stereotypical coverage by the media, and the media’s coverage of women’s issues. These forms of violence have been much more pronounced in an intersectional manner when they belong to diverse groups (Afro-­ descendants, indigenous people, people of sexual diversity, among others). These types of expressions, speeches, threats, actions, or omissions affect women’s political–electoral rights because they are women.

4.5  Resistance to Women’s Descriptive Representation Despite efforts to get more women to run for office in Mexican politics, women continue to compete on a kind of tilted playing field that puts them at a disadvantage relative to their male peers. Women are seen as outsiders in a political world dominated by men and a masculine vision of power present in societies. They face—just because they are women—glass ceilings, sticky floors, ticket ceilings, double-­ standard evaluations, gender stereotypes, and an electorate that still does not see the opportunities that diversity and plurality bring to democracy as beneficial.7 Women who exercise autonomous leadership become a threat to the status quo, how things have been done, and challenge the privileges of those who controlled the political dynamics up to that moment. In this scenario, men generally violate them when they feel challenged. These violent practices are normalized and naturalized. As lawyer and activist Line Bareiro argues, despite many efforts, “so far we have not managed to normalize the presence of women or any of the elements of equality” (in Muñoz-Pogossian and Freidenberg 2020).

6  Personal interview with Martha Tagle. Federal Congresswoman for Movimiento Ciudadano. Consultation conducted via WhatsApp. Mexico City, Mexico, July 20, 2020 [via digital]. 7  Gender stereotypes refers to the generalizing and socially shared beliefs, images and ideas that are considered properly feminine (or masculine) and that guide the formation of certain expectations, evaluations and ways of being around the expected behavior of gender stereotyped individuals” (García Beaudoux 2017, 37). People of each gender are perceived in a certain way, according to a series of roles, what they are expected to do and how it is considered that they should behave in family life, in politics, in professional life or in the relationship with others (Eagly 1987).

106

4  Why Do Some State Congresses Have More Female Legislators than Others?

4.5.1  Political Parties as Gatekeepers of Women’s Participation Political parties are controlled by leaderships that make decisions constrained by formal rules (written in the statutes or general laws), in the framework of centralized power networks, led by a dominant figure or a small group of leaders usually men), who promote exclusionary practices regarding the use of power resources (candidacies, financing, positions within the party, access to media, among others). Local leaders, in coordination with national leaders, tend to use non-meritocratic criteria for the designation of candidates, favoring women with primary links to members of the leadership (kinship, business, friendship, or “buddy system” compadrazgo links) or by exchanging them between districts, placing those closest to them in the territories of other leaders. In this way, candidacies tend to be the product of party arrangements and negotiations rather than the objective result of women’s political careers, successful leadership, or militant experience. Women politicians with more trajectory have faced defending their candidacies before their political parties, first within the negotiations prior to the assemblies or designation of candidacies, and when they have not been fruitful, this negotiation has been through electoral lawsuits before the Electoral Tribunal of the State of Morelos and even the TEPJF [Interviews 1, 2 and 4, Congresswomen 2018–2021, Morelos]. [...] A big problem is the lack of political culture because in each party it is a small group of people—usually men—who decide the candidates.8 In most of these institutes, a misogynistic culture prevails that prevents the full use of women’s political rights. The structures and models of power traditionally dominated by men have been objectified, despite the discourse. They face barriers and exclusions to their effective participation. They face the hypocritical imposture of a discourse of empowerment.9

Parties remain the gatekeepers of women’s political participation and function as “black boxes” that hinder women’s political careers. In this way, party leaders comply with the requirement to place women as candidates as required by law, although, in practice, they tend to displace those women who have autonomous leadership or experience in the political work of the militancy. While they direct the party organization or control the candidacies, women are usually in charge of the “private life of the party” (Htun 2005), of the tasks linked to the care of others (cleaning, support, organizing activities, and supporting those who are going to exercise leadership) and even the work of mobilization in the territory (door-to-door campaigns, rallies, registration of needs, and social networks).

8  In Evaristo Torres. “Detect que hubo violencia política hacia las mujeres en el pasado proceso electoral,” in La Unión, published December 7, 2018. Available at: https://www.launion.com.mx/ morelos/zona-sur/noticias/134446-detectan-que-hubo-violencia-politica-hacia-las-mujeres-en-elpasado-proceso-electoral.htm [Accessed September 12, 2019, 4:15 p.m.]. 9  In Bernardo Barranco. “Género y política en las elecciones 2021”, published in La Jornada Newspaper, May 26, 2021. Available at: https://www.jornada.com.mx/notas/2021/05/26/politica/ genero-y-politica-en-las-elecciones-2021/ [Accessed June 15, 2021, 10:45 a.m.].

4.5  Resistance to Women’s Descriptive Representation

107

One of the biggest problems I faced is that there were always 90% men in decision-making, and it is complicated to be heard and have your opinions considered. You have to struggle quite a lot to achieve this, and although you demonstrate with results in elections and with work, there is still resistance to recognition. [Interview #75, Congresswoman 2012-2015, Guerrero]. [One of the main obstacles to accessing a position is] “Not being considered for decision-­ making because I am a woman and a young woman, that men decided for me, and my voice was not heard despite having more work and support than them. I overcame this by insisting, making it clear that I was not a quota but a competitive profile and that my condition as a young woman was an extra, not an obstacle” [Interview #28, Congresswoman 2018-2021, Puebla]. I worked for 18 years in a political party. Whenever there were elections, I was considered a substitute, and men occupied the titularity in elected positions until a gender affirmative action forced political parties to have the lists of proportional representation (plurinominal) headed by women. That was the only way I was considered, and even then, I was conditioned to many things, both economic and political, telling me that the space belonged to a man, but I was giving it up. It was a tough beginning. [Interview #25, Congresswoman 2018-2021, Morelos].

Political elites often manipulate the rules and have a biased interpretation of the rules (whether for the implementation of affirmative action measures or gender parity) as a way of rejecting the nomination of women candidates. In every election, the leadership finds ways to subvert the locks that quotas or gender parity have placed on the nomination process: nominating the wives, sisters, daughters, or friends of those who were initially intended to be candidates, on the assumption that they will be submissive and obey them once they are in office. Parties often pretend to respect the criteria required by law or, if they do, they often make biased interpretations of the rules.10 For example, although the constitutional reform clearly stated that gender parity was “for all offices” (Art. 41) and that this was reinforced with the “Parity in Everything” (Paridad en Todo) reform in 2019, the leadership resisted putting women in subnational positions (until the electoral justice clarified to them in 2015 that the Constitution also referred to these popularly elected positions). Years later, the same thing happened in the candidacies for governorships (the INE and then the TEPJF had to explain to the leadership that they should also place women in the candidacies at the State Executive level). The

 For example, the presentation of false candidacies claiming to be of one gender (being of another) to occupy a space that requires parity, as in the case of Tlaxcala where 18 male candidates of the Fuerza Por México party registered as trans women to pretend to comply with gender parity (Animal Político, May 25, 2021). Or also by submitting affidavits that fail to comply with the guidelines approved by the INE regarding the 3 × 3 Declaration against violence in the 2021 subnational elections. For example, the Observatoria Ciudadana Todas Mx, which integrates more than 150 social organizations, reported at least 105 complaints of candidates who do not comply with any of the three assumptions required by this measure: alimony debtors, sexual aggressors, including stalking and harassment, as well as aggressors of women in the public and/or private sphere. It also makes women candidates renounce their candidacy days before the election by pretending to form “united fronts” and encouraging a useful vote against a certain candidate.

10

108

4  Why Do Some State Congresses Have More Female Legislators than Others?

judicialization of elections implies that the courts have to force by law what the law already contemplates. Another rule that continues to be a source of resistance prohibits placing women in noncompetitive districts. The data show that parties continue to place women in districts that are considered losing districts for their parties at the subnational level, which is legally not allowed. For example, in the 2015 and 2016 elections, the three dominant parties in the federal entities (National Action Party, Partido Acción Nacional, PAN; Institutional Revolutionary Party, Partido Revolucionario Institucional, PRI; and Party of the Democratic Revolution, Partido de la Revolución Democrática, PRD) ran women in more than half of the losing districts in federal elections and 9 of the 12 entities with elections (Gilas and Christiansson 2018). The main obstacles (that) women face when we aspire to hold a decision-making position within the Legislative is that the state leaders of the different political parties send women to spaces where there is no chance of winning, right? Unfortunately, this is an attitude; it is an action that is repeatedly carried out by most of the parties, in addition to the fact that there is no equal competition in terms of economic resources. The parties have funding that is not distributed equally, and that is another obstacle that we face and that limits our participation. In addition to the fact that, on many occasions, they prefer to promote a woman’s candidacy because they do not have a broad knowledge of the real participation of women. (Interview 3, Congresswoman 2018-2021, Morelos, in Freidenberg and Gilas 2020). I was sent to a losing district. However, I worked for 4 years in civil society with social development projects in education and nutrition. In the same way, I spoke with local political, academic (allies) and social leaders in that district to look for a space. (Interview #21, Congresswoman 2015-2018, Sonora).

Another obstacle that women face has to do with the religious stance of the parties and their ties to conservative churches, even though in Mexico, confessional parties are prohibited. In the 2020–2021 election campaigns, the Solidarity Encounter Party (Partido Encuentro Solidario, PES) presented strong arguments against women’s rights and autonomy. Since the PES is an openly evangelical Pentecostal party, it has included “gender ideology” in a crusade of its political agenda and under the slogan: “For life and the family.” The PES goes against the principle of nondiscrimination and the recognition of plurality as a fundamental pillar of democracy. This position is not exclusive to conservative evangelical groups but is also part of intransigent Catholic sectors (fundamentalists). In both cases, there is a common agenda against the rights won by women.11

 “Via commercials, the Internet, and placating speeches, he displays an anti-rights attitude; an aggressive stance against homoparental adoption, against egalitarian marriages and against abortion. Above all, it has criminalized women who choose abortion”. In Bernardo Barranco. “Género y política en las elecciones 2021”, published in La Jornada Newspaper, May 26, 2021. Available at: https://www.jornada.com.mx/notas/2021/05/26/politica/genero-y-politica-en-las-elecciones2021/[Accessed June 15, 2021, 10:45 a.m.].

11

4.5  Resistance to Women’s Descriptive Representation

109

4.5.2  Money Ceilings The absence of resources from public financing constitutes an obstacle for women, especially during pre-campaign or electoral campaigns for elected office (Zaremberg 2009; Huerta García and Magar Meurs 2006). The barriers are found in access to resources for electoral campaigns (financial, radio, and television time, delivery of propaganda, support from the party apparatus in electoral mobilization, among others); in the difficulties in accessing corporate networks to obtain donors and to invest time in events or other proselytizing activities for their campaigns. As is the case at the federal level, women are less likely than men to raise money for their campaigns and participate in the networks of contacts that provide resources for campaigning. According to an online poll conducted as part of the #ObservatorioReformas, women receive less money for their campaigns than their male counterparts within the party. Eighty-five percent of all respondents were women. Almost 50% indicated that there are gender gaps in the distribution of party funding; that they have less access to funding networks; that they have to rely on their own resources or help from family members to support their campaigns; and that they also have to take care of care tasks at the level of their personal networks.12 The demands of caring for the domestic sphere (either because of the time dedicated to it or the financing of these tasks) superimposed with the party or political activity is a substantial obstacle for women who want to pursue a political career. Night-time activities reflect the incompatibility of taking on the responsibilities of caring for the family and the sick with political activity (Zaremberg 2009). This lack of access to financing is what discourages many women from participating in politics, especially in countries where the financing system is based mainly on private donations or where, while parties receive public funding, the rules for distributing this money are unclear, lack transparency, or are used according to sexist criteria. These practices are also related to the informality of decision-making processes within parties, which are more the result of discretionary allocations of public funds than formal, bureaucratized processes (Freidenberg and Levitsky 2006). Campaign activities also represent additional expenses for women candidates, as they have to invest funds to have a team of makeup artists and stylists to accompany them at all times.13 When men look tired on the campaign trail, it is often assumed that they are giving their all for the election, which is how they manage their administration. However, when women candidates look tired, they are perceived as weak  In the digital survey of 225 female candidates from various Latin American countries in 2018, 49.1% of the respondents stated that there are gender gaps in the allocation of funds within their party and almost 30% indicated that most of the money they used for their campaigns came from their own resources, even when the parties received resources via public funding to boost candidacies (Freidenberg and Muñoz-Pogossian 2022). 13  Personal interview with Virginia García Beaudoux. Political consultant and expert in electoral campaigns in Latin America. Consultation conducted via WhatsApp. Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 20, 2020 (in Muñoz-Pogossian and Freidenberg 2020). 12

110

4  Why Do Some State Congresses Have More Female Legislators than Others?

and careless, which is how they will run the government. The resources that the law allocates for women’s training and capacity building are also often not used for the purposes stated in the law. During the auditing of the resources made to the parties, it has been found that the resource intended for strengthening women’s leadership has been used to purchase aprons, the cleaning of party headquarters, or spirituality courses, among others (Estrada Ruíz 2018).14

4.5.3  S  exist Coverage, Double Standards, Gender Stereotypes, and Discrimination in Electoral Campaigns A widespread practice is to make women feel that they are not qualified or do not have the skills to exercise political leadership. This idea that they only got the candidacies thanks to the quota or parity. Implicit in this belief is the derogatory idea of “quota win,” which tries to make them feel that they are indebted if they receive a candidacy or do not have the proper merits to participate in politics and access a position of popular representation and that is why women should always be submissive and grateful for the opportunities they are given. Women face prejudices, double standards, gender stereotypes from party members, sexist media coverage, and even part of the electorate regarding their abilities and possibilities of electoral success. The main handicap for women is that “while men do not have to defend themselves as competent, women have to prove it and even justify it. The combination of a macho and patriarchal culture, together with misogyny (deeper than crude machismo), is a handicap for women.”15 The leadership does not consider women fit to lead and, much less, to win an election. Parties’ leaders make them feel they do not believe in women or will not mobilize the electorate. They pretend to put the apparatus and structure at their disposal but, in practice, do not give them resources for their campaigns and even discourage the militancy from supporting them in the electoral campaigns. [The main obstacle to accessing office is the] belittling of support for being a woman, since machismo is deeply rooted in the District I represent, as well as blackmail, manipulation, and control by men [...]. [Interview #4, Congresswoman 2018-2021, Veracruz].  “It has been detected that the 3% dedicated to women’s empowerment programs in the parties is not used for that purpose. When it is not used for this purpose, this resource is withdrawn from the parties or when it is not the same support for campaigns of men and women, the parties are subject to sanctions,” revealed in an interview Moises Yanez Lozano, Executive Vocal of the 03 District Board of the National Electoral Institute. In SPC News. “De “la panocha en las coyotas” a los mandiles: la violencia política contra las mujeres,” published June 23, 2019. Available at: https:// spcnoticias.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/de-la-panocha-en-las-coyotas-a-los-mandiles-la-violencia-politica-contra-las-mujeres/ [Accessed August 3, 2021, at 4:59  p.m.] [Accessed August 3, 2021, at 4:59 p.m.]. 15  Personal interview with Antoni Gutiérrez Rubí. Political consultant and expert in advising electoral campaigns in Latin America. Consultation via WhatsApp. Barcelona, Spain. July 20, 2020 (in Muñoz-Pogossian and Freidenberg 2020). 14

4.5  Resistance to Women’s Descriptive Representation

111

[There was a] belief that affirmative actions placed us in spaces without our right and capacity [...]. I overcame myself first with the firm belief that I can, I know, and I want to, and by forming a team with other women with the same belief and with progressive men who assume their co-responsibility in the construction of equality. [Interview #8, Congresswoman before 2012, Zacatecas]. [The worst thing has been…] That they did not believe in me, (that they gave me) few resources and that —in addition— they put me in a losing district [....] I looked for my work to speak for me, extra support and alternate structure to be able to carry out the whole process and with that win. [Interview #12, Congresswoman 2015-2018, Baja California Sur].

Most leadership and journalists’ coverage of women candidates continues to reproduce gender biases—stereotypical ideas about what women should, can, and must do—in public life (García Beaudoux 2017, 2018). The problem is that they are presented with a completely different set of standards than they employ when covering men. The same qualities are valued differently depending on whether it is a man or a woman: while leadership is associated with ideas of strength and courage, weakness or hysteria is the view of women exercising power. If a woman has solid convictions or autonomous leadership, then she is overlooked, ridiculed, evaluated in a biased way because she does not comply with the social expectations—which reproduce those same biases—of what a woman is expected to do. [...Even though the obstacles have diminished thanks to the legal provisions and affirmative actions in terms of gender parity, practices of gender-based political violence persist, Morelos during the last electoral process, there were several cases such as harassment on social networks, theft of tarpaulins, and advertising; robbery in a house and campaign house against a female candidate; theft of propaganda and threats to withdraw from the electoral race against a female candidate for congresswoman. A citizen filed a complaint against the Municipal President and those responsible for the refusal to issue the “Residence Certificate” to register as a candidate for Municipal President. A Facebook account was opened in which images were uploaded as well as denotative and slanderous expressions against a candidate for Municipal President. [Interview 2, in Freidenberg and Gilas 2020].

Women who actively participate in politics at the local and state level suffer different types of violence ranging from mockery, attacks on social networks, informal impediments to register as candidates, electoral fraud, intimidation, pressure not to give them candidacies, the substitution of functions to threats, and physical attacks against them or their families.16 The stereotypes that are used against them are evidenced in declarations of party leaders in various entities that maintain that “there are no women (and even less) with leadership skills”; that “they are not qualified”;  In its investigation, Acción Feminista documented practices of harassment and sexual harassment towards women candidates in the electoral campaign and even symbolic violence, because the media practically ignored women candidates and manipulated the information. “There were municipalities with up to five women candidates and they always talked about the men; women were not seen by the media, or they said that the parties were obliged to include women as candidates and they did not handle the information as a right of parity, but as an imposition.” In Evaristo Torres. “Detectan que hubo violencia política hacia las mujeres en el pasado proceso electoral,” in La Unión, published December 7, 2018. Available at: https://www.launion.com.mx/morelos/zonasur/noticias/134446-detectan-que-hubo-violencia-politica-hacia-las-mujeres-en-el-pasado-proceso-electoral.htm [Accessed: September 12, 2019, 4:15 p.m.].

16

112

4  Why Do Some State Congresses Have More Female Legislators than Others?

“it is not their turn now, that their turn will come and that, in the meantime, they should be trained.” It is common to hear that they promote affirmative action measures because they alone cannot win elections. Some statements and expressions in the 2014–2015 electoral process campaigns have been shocking and reveal the discrimination and violence experienced by women candidates. For example, some billboards pointed out that “the pussy to the kitchen, not the government palace! To take care of children, to take care of the house”; “women are like shotguns, they should be loaded and in the corner.” There were also acts of physical violence (women candidates murdered, kidnapped, threatened, which even led them to resign in the middle of the electoral campaign for fear of reprisals). Behind these acts, there is explicit hate speech towards women for being women, and, with the implementation of the public policy of gender parity in the states, the levels of violence against women seeking public office increased.17 All this set of ideas also tends to affect women’s own evaluations of their leadership opportunities, affecting their self-esteem and generating what is often referred to as “concrete ceilings” (García Beaudoux 2017). These expressions transmit discriminatory criteria regarding women’s leadership, who are most of the time stigmatized as “somebody’s thing,” and when they are recognized as autonomous leaders, they are usually rejected as masculine, ambitious, intense, or unreliable. In this sense, the media promote a female figure without power, without the capacity to transform their community, social, or political reality (García Beaudoux 2017), and this coverage, which reproduces gender biases, is strengthened at the local level. Even though women are nominated on an equal footing, they continue to compete in unequal conditions.18 Not only is there little coverage of women candidates but also that coverage is sexist, stereotyped, associated with gender roles and tasks, placing women in roles that distance them from being prototypes that exercise power. Moreover, there is a specific association of topics and frames as if women  During the 2017–2018 electoral process, the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office for the Attention of Electoral Crimes (FEPADE) opened 6 investigation files for gender-based political violence and 41 attention numbers registered based on emergency calls received on 911. Meanwhile, the National Electoral Institute, heard in the period from September 8, 2017, to August 30, 2018, 31 matters of which 24 were related to gender-based political violence against women. In SPC News. “From “panocha en las coyotas” to mandiles: political violence against women,” published June 23, 2019. Available at: https://spcnoticias.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/de-la-panocha-en-las-coyotas-a-losmandiles-la-violencia-politica-contra-las-mujeres/ [Accessed August 3, 2021, 5:30 p.m.]. 18  In the 2020–2021 elections, more time was devoted to men’s campaigns than to women candidates’ campaigns: 63% versus 37%. The “Monitoring of Newscasts and the dissemination of their results during the campaign period”, conducted by UNAM-INE, found that women receive less coverage: 120 h, 5 min and 50 seconds, compared to 206 h, 38 min, 15 seconds for men, so that citizens have less chance of knowing them and their proposals and therefore vote for them. The Report reports that, in the period from April 4 to May 2, 2021, the time dedicated to the coverage of the campaigns of the federal legislative in radio and television news programs was 605 h, 31 min and 49 seconds. Central Electoral. Medios de comunicación han destinado 605 horas en radio y TV a la cobertura de las campañas federales, published May 12, 2021. Available at: https://centralelectoral.ine.mx/2021/05/12/medios-de-comunicacion-han-destinado-605-horas-en-radio-y-tv-a-lacobertura-de-las-campanas-federales/ [Accessed June 19, 2021, 12:00 noon]. 17

4.5  Resistance to Women’s Descriptive Representation

113

should promote particular agendas because they are women. These thematic frames link women to specific topics such as family, care, children, and even social issues, according to one of the leading Latin American consultants, Mario Riorda, which “places women in the affective, (as if) women represented (in a specific way) care, in its personal dimension but also its political dimension.”19 The most common questions women candidates face include whether they agree to sacrifice their family life to run the campaign, who takes care of their households in their absence, or their physique and appearance. They are also asked questions about how they got their candidacies, through which connections, assuming patrimonial, familial, or sexist relationships detract from their political careers. Many women who have decided to participate in politics and who have also had children and raised a family are socially stigmatized as to whether they can fulfill both responsibilities when, as the Coordinator of the Women’s Movement of Citizens’ Movement Party (Movimiento Ciudadano, MC), current federal congresswoman Jessica Ortega, argues, “the private should not be linked to the public.”20

4.6  Models This section presents the various models for understanding which factors are most relevant in explaining women’s different levels of descriptive representation at the subnational level. The nature of the data analyzed poses different challenges and complications for modeling with traditional techniques. On the one hand, the two versions of the dependent variable are proportions for which the denominator may change from one legislature to another. On the other hand, the observations for each entity are likely correlated. Also, since each state’s number of legislatures is different, the database has an unbalanced panel structure. If these factors are not considered, they can affect the estimates and, particularly, the uncertainty around the estimates.21 Based on this diagnosis, we chose to use binomial models with logistic link function (also known as binomial logistic models) estimated through the {lme4} package of R. Although the most common use of models with the logistic link is when the response variable is dichotomous, with values of 0 and 1, it is also appropriate and recommended when the generating process of the response variable is binomial

 Personal interview with Mario Riorda. Political Consultant and President of the Latin American Association of Researchers in Electoral Campaigns (ALICE). Consultation conducted via WhatsApp. Buenos Aires, Argentina. July 20, 2020 (in Muñoz-Pogossian and Freidenberg 2020). 20  Personal interview with Jessica Ortega. National Coordinator of Women in Movement, Movimiento Ciudadano. Consultation conducted via WhatsApp, Mexico City, Mexico, July 19, 2020 (in Muñoz-Pogossian and Freidenberg 2020). 21  An additional potential problem is that the factors that explain the likelihood of a female candidate being elected may also explain changes in IFREG over time. Addressing this issue is beyond the scope of this research but is part of our future agenda. 19

114

4  Why Do Some State Congresses Have More Female Legislators than Others?

and, therefore, this is a proportion with values between 0 and 1 (Gelman and Hill 2006, 116; Chen et al. 2017).22 All the specifications were used to consider the observations of the 32 entities jointly to estimate the effect that each of the explanatory variables has on the expected value of the proportion of women legislators elected by each principle in all the entities (fixed effects), as well as the effect of IFREG on these proportions for each entity separately (random effects). Models 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 consider the effect of State GDP per capita, Urbanization, and Schooling when estimating both fixed and random effects. Table 4.3 presents eight different specifications of the model. In the first four, the dependent variable is the proportion of women legislators elected by the plurality principle, and in the last four, it is the proportion of women legislators elected by the proportional representation principle. Given that the denominator for calculating these proportions can change from one legislature to another in the same state, at the time of programming the models, the dependent variable was defined in terms of the number of women legislators (“successes”) and the number of men legislators (“failures”) elected by each principle in each legislature.23 All eight model specifications include IFREG MR or RP, respectively, as the primary explanatory variable (hypothesis 1). Models 2–4 and 6–8 also include the variable Age of the gender rule (hypothesis 2).24 In order to empirically analyze the validity of the two political–institutional hypotheses alongside the socioeconomic hypotheses, models 3, 4, 7, and 8 include a rescaled version of State GDP per capita

 According to Chen et al., “logistic regression, a common generalized linear model, is suitable for a binomial outcome, where the ratio is calculated as the ratio of the number of target events [e.g., successes] to the total number of trials, ‘ny of n’“(Chen et al. 2017: 2). 23  For example, in the 2006–2009 legislature of the Nuevo León congress, four female and 22 male legislators were elected by plurality. When specifying the models, we use the code cbind(n_ female_legislators, n_male_legislators) which allows R to calculate the corresponding proportion of “successes” (four female legislators) out of the total number of trials (26 legislators), which is equivalent to 0.15. 24  The correlation between IFREG and Age of the gender rule ranges between 0.712 and 0.844, depending on the version of IFREG considered (SMP or PR) and the coefficient used (Pearson, Spearman or Kendall). Based on the recommendations of Arceneaux and Huber (2007) and Gujarati and Porter (2010: 245–273), it was decided not to exclude the Age of the gender rule variable from the various models in which it is considered. As the authors just mentioned explain, if a model is correctly specified (as we believe is the case of ours) multicollinearity does not cause the estimators of the coefficients of the correlated variables to be biased, but rather that the estimates of these variables are less precise (i.e., the standard error of the estimates of the correlated variables is larger). While the inclusion of the Age of the gender rule variable does indeed increase the standard error of IFREG in models 2 to 4 and 6 to 8 in our paper, in these six models the IFREG coefficients remain statistically significant at at least 1% (p