By Alisha Saxena
The Global Gender Gap Report 2020 ranked Iceland as the “most gender-equal country in the world for the 11th year in a row,” based on factors of economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment. Of the four categories, the report identifies that political empowerment requires the most global improvement, with only 25% of the gap having been closed. Though Iceland has not completely closed their gender gap, their score of 70% is an indication that they have been the most successful in increasing the presence of women across parliament, ministries, and heads of state. It is important to note that Western Europe is a region that is home to some of the countries with the highest rates of gender parity, including countries like Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden; after conducting public surveys, the Pew Research Center found that gender equity was catalyzed by the regime change which was triggered by the fall of communism. Citizens of the area believe that it increased women’s rights, egalitarian marriages, and that it dissolved an overwhelming belief in traditional gender constructs such as the domestic woman. Yet, one of the shortcomings of the report by the World Economic Forum is its failure to explain the means by which Iceland has been able to close a great percentage of its gender gap. Given their unusually consistent, outstanding performance in the political empowerment category compared to the rest of the world, this article will first explore the reasons why gender parity needs to be a priority for the international community, and will then explain some of the methods which Iceland has utilized to achieve gender parity in government.
At the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women: Action for Equality, Development, and Peace, the 1995 Beijing Platform for Women was ratified by the 189 countries in attendance. Not only did this progressive charter acknowledge the lack of women in governmental spaces, but it also served as an official commitment by all countries to achieve at least a 30% threshold of female representation. Besides an official commitment, why is gender parity crucial for the future of governments? UN Women notes that women’s representation in government can diversify the policies which are pursued in government; for instance, in Norway, there was a direct relationship between the presence of women and the pursuance of childcare coverage. The Council on Foreign Relations also identified that women are more likely to: find common ground, advocate for policies supporting education and health, and provide stability.
If there are significant benefits to electing women in government, then what is preventing countries from achieving fair representation? The Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance observed that besides “political, socio-economic, and psychological reasons that create obstacles for women entering politics, one important variable influencing the likelihood of women being elected to the national legislature is the electoral system used in a country”. Sure enough, once Iceland tackled this barrier, they made strides in progressing towards gender parity; reflecting the results of their most recent election in 2017, the state is currently led by Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir, and has attained 47% women in their local legislatures, 40% women in ministerial positions, and 38% women in national legislatures. Furthermore, females achieved a greater age diversity than their male counterparts, as seen for instance by the fact that three women between the ages of 21-30 were elected compared to zero men. So, how did they do it?
Prior to 1995, Iceland was the only country of all the Nordic countries to have less than 30% female representation. Every election, women’s representation increased due to three key factors: improved district design and constitutional amendments, extensive mobilizing and the establishment of a Women’s Alliance, and the use of party and legislated gender quotas, where a certain percentage of women were required to be recruited for political candidacy and where a specific percentage of seats in the legislature were allocated specifically for women. Though Iceland has enforced multi-tier proportional representation since 1959, they made adjustments in district design and assembly size that more accurately reflected the regions, as actively migrating populations changed the demographics of the previous regions. Furthermore, Iceland passed a constitutional amendment in 1984 to reduce the voting age to 18 years, which possibly contributed to a more progressive voter base. Furthermore, Icelandic women were observed to have extensively mobilized in the 1980s and 1990s to get more women nominated by traditional political parties, creating their own political party called the Women’s Alliance.
Though Iceland has not had to enforce legislated quotas, their political parties hold themselves accountable to utilize voluntary gender quotas of a minimum of 40%, with one party utilizing a 50% minimum. Given the history of Icelandic women engaging in grassroots organizing as a mechanism to achieve gender parity, these voluntary quotas come as no surprise. Though voluntary party quotas have been a controversial practice, as some view it as an unsustainable fast-track to achieving women’s representation, the Venice Commission notes that countries which implemented this strategy achieved higher rates of parliamentary representation; they also noted the contagion effect can play a role, where merely getting one party to adopt this practice may encourage others to do the same, and even exceed the gender thresholds of other parties, in order to maintain a competitive advantage or to prevent a political disadvantage.
It can be difficult to say that this same combination can work in other countries: civic engagement is greatly impacted by cultural differences, social hierarchies, voter disenfranchisement, political parties, corruption, amongst a variety of factors. Iceland themselves still has a 30% gap in political empowerment to close, so even they need to utilize certain rhetoric and electoral reforms, like ranked-choice voting, as a method of improving their gender parity. In my mind, reforms like gender quotas will make no impact if, for example, fair elections are not guaranteed in a particular country. Fair elections with low disenfranchisement are a minimum requirement for achieving gender parity. Once that hurdle is passed, then comes district
design and electoral system reform, which, at a minimum, includes: multi-member districts, ranked-choice voting, or proportional representation is likely to bolster women’s representation, and more importantly, women’s representation from underrepresented communities in governmental spaces. Finally, with these established systems in place, one can look to voluntary gender quotas in political parties and verbal commitments to gender parity in appointed leadership as a way to greatly close the gap. While all of these changes are taking place, citizens must be civically engaged, and more importantly, must understand the importance of gender parity and the legitimacy of the undue burdens which currently exist for female candidates seeking elected office. Though the journey will be tough, our individual voices and community power can help create seismic shifts to catalyze the process. It’s time to start a movement.
Alisha Saxena is a senior studying Political Science and Public Law at the University of California, San Diego.
