In this second assignment, we will focus on political parties and the strategies they have adopted to improve the representation of women. We will focus our essay on these different types of quotas. We centred our research on the theory of PIPPA NORRIS and we have used her paper "Breaking the Barriers: Positive Discrimination Policies about WOMEN". It offered direction, structure, and methodology for analysing our subject.

We will focus on The Netherlands and France. The Netherlands was the obvious choice since we studied this system already. We compare with France because it is in most statistics the country with the lowest female participation. Even more, these two countries have adopted the system of quota, in different ways and we think that it can be interesting to compare the two results of these countries. (In France, the Socialist party uses party quota and in The Netherlands, the PvdA, Groen Link and the CDA use candidate quotas.) Finally, both countries have a centralized system.

Using the comparative method, we will proceed in a strategic sense. First, we will explain Pippa Norris’ theory about positive discrimination policies. Then, we will show how each country implements their respective quota system. After that, we will explain why this particular system was adopted or not focusing on the party’s ideology, organization, and culture. In the fifth section, we will see the consequences of these strategies. Does adoption of the quota system secure equal representation? Are there huge differences between the two country’s parties? Finally, we will make a conclusion and offer our own personal viewpoints. Is it effective or not? What is the solution?

While writing this essay, we have consulted both the first assignment about France and The Netherlands, but we have found several additional resources on the comparative theory, France and The Netherlands. You will find additional informative statistics but some were not current at the point of writing this paper concerning the last French election.

Women today are confronted with a problem of the low representation in the political field. Progress in female empowerment in elected office or inside the parties is very slow in many established democracies such as France. At the beginning of the 21st century, the policy makers and the political scientists wondered which kind of policy and reforms would be the best for equality representation.

In many countries, we can see they have experienced a decisive political policy by the way of "positive discrimination strategies" (PIPPA NORRIS) implemented via party regulations or electoral laws. In that sense, we can observe by changing the rules for political recruitment have often (but not always) opened the door for women.

For this comparison study, we have chosen to focus our essay on the theory of Pippa Norris to understand what is the best policy to improve the representation and to see if we can apply this theory to parties in both France and The Netherlands. The study of Pippa Norris has helped us to structure our essay and to understand the comparative method. In this part, we will first show different policies (always in the point of view of Pippa Norris). In the second part, we will explain her theory.

According to Pippa Norris, "three different types of recruitment policies are available to increase women’ s representation, reflecting different cultural values and beliefs":

First, she explains that there are the "Rhetorical strategies". It is like a policy of "symbolic fig leaf political correctness". This strategy focuses around the speech of the parties who claim they will to open the party to women; they want to widen their electoral appeal through altering their public profile. It is like a first step to more effective reforms.

Secondly, there are "the Affirmative action programmes": the goal of this policy is to "achieve fairness in the recruitment process, removing practical barriers that may disadvantage women or other groups"; it can be seen for example by the financial assistance or the advisory group targets. This strategy can also be applied to the party selectors (the advisory gender quotas for example).

Thirdly, there are "the positive discrimination strategies". Opposed to the others, these strategies set mandatory group quotas for the selection of candidates from certain social or political groups. This strategy can be applied in three different ways. First, the quotas can be set at different levels (15, 30…. percent).  Second, these quotas can be applied to different steps of the selection process (inside the party, the shortlists of parliamentary applicants… electoral lists…). Lastly, binding quotas can be implemented "either by law or by internal party rules". The strongest version would be legal measures specifying in the constitution that a high proportion of all parliamentary seats should be reserved for women.

In fact, "positive discrimination aims to achieve equality of outcome or results". "The process discriminates positively in favour of certain individuals on the basis of characteristics seen as common to their group". We can observe that this strategy is implemented with a lot of variance via laws or internal party. (Reserved seats, legal gender quotas in Party lists, Party rules). It will be the first part of our essay. Moreover, this strategy is adopted according the ideology, the structure and the organization of the party; in fact, in this essay, we will try to understand why the left parties than by the right party adopt the strategy more.

Finally, this essay will end by a conclusion and a discussion about the quotas and this strategy: is it the best for the representation of women? What are the results to the comparison between France and Netherlands?

The strategy of quotas can have three forms:

1. The reserved seats in parliament which is the most strongest one and the one which guarantee the inclusion of women in office but it can be seen as a reduction of the choice of the electorate and unfair

2. The legal gender quotas in Party lists specify that party’s list of parliamentary candidates should contain a certain proportion of women and the law can regulate the position of female candidates throughout the party list ("zippering").

3. The Party rules which are the most common mechanism; rather than state, quotas are implemented by internal party rules and procedures. The impact of these strategies has often increased women’ s representation significantly.

In France, no one has ever used the first strategy and only one party has used the third one (The Socialist party: PS). The second one is seen in the new Law of Parity.

To improve the representation of women, The Socialists (PS party) have created a quota rule to impose women on the electoral lists or on the party itself (10 percent in 1974, 20 percent in 1981, and 30 per cent in 1991). In fact, in the 1970s, PS feminists, such as Marie Therese Eyquem, Colette Audry and Yvette Roudy who had been in the Mouvement Democratique ET Feminin (MDF) defined the agenda for this strategy. The plan was a quota for women in the party organisation and structures at all levels. However, this quota has not been totally respected: in 1993, 21,4 per cent of women were on the directing comity, 18 per cent on the executive board and 7, 7 per cent on the national secretary (the real branches of executive power). "The debate over the level of this quotas has of course been bypassed by the reality of party practice". (Gender and Party Politics). We can say that out of all political parties in France, the PS has devoted the most attention to women’s rights issues on it campaign platforms. Moreover, the socialists in 1981, wit the impulsion of F. Mitterand (socialist President) have proposed and made a maximum rule of 75 per cent of the same sex people on the voting list. This rule concerned the 3500 inhabitants towns. But the Constitutional Council censored this rule because it was against the "principle of Equality behind the law guaranteed by the Declaration of Rights of 1789.

The party of the Right, The RPR ( Rassemblement pour la Republique) has never used such techniques. In fact, this party has never promoted the role of the women even today when the President of this party is Madame Michele Alliot-Marie. The Green party ("Les Verts") is seen as the most democratic party for women. In fact, it has the highest rate of women membership but does not want to elaborate some strategies like the quota rules. According to the Green Party, the system of quotas is non-democratic. "The women are the half the humanity and not a minority which should be integrated "(Le Monde, le 10 JUIN 1990). The Communist party (PC) has never used strategies of quota but it has presented itself as the party with most female candidates and deputies. In fact, only the socialist party has used quotas.

The law of parity is seen such as "the French exception" (Washington Post). "The constitutional amendment designed to increase the number of women holding elective office is arousing passions in France, a country normally not as progressive on matters of feminism and sexuality" (Washington post). Indeed, for several years, the idea of quota is taken again with another concept: parity. Now, sex parity is a base of the democracy like the right of voting or the separation of power. This idea has become a law inside the French Constitution (the strongest in fact). The battle of parity was supported by The European authorities and in 1993, the 577 MANIFESTO appeared in the daily newspaper "Le Monde", signed by as many women as men and demanding that the elected assemblies be similarly made up of equal numbers of men and women. Parties approved the initiative and in the 1994 European elections, six party lists (primarily on the left or green) were equally representative. In 1997 during the election campaign, L. JOSPIN, the current Prime minister, promised that the principle of parity would be enshrined in the constitution. Almost immediately, in 1998, a draft law was put before the National Assembly; it no longer included the word parity (at the request of the President of the Republic, J.CHIRAC) but proposed that the following sentence be added to Article 3 of the Constitution: " the law favours equal access of women and men to elected office and elective posts." After a hard battle between the National Assembly and the Senate on the text, Parliament was to meet in Congress at Versailles on June 28^th, 1999 to amend the French Constitution accordingly. This amendment struggled through difficult times and violent opposition. Finally, the law has been adopted and went into effect on the 30^th March 2000.

The Parity principle is applicable to the list system. The law requires an equal representation of women and men on the list with a margin of one in case of odd numbers. This measure concerns the following elections: municipal, European Parliament and Senate (under the proportional system) elections. Finally, the law provides financial penalties for political parties that do not respect the parity principle. With this new law, the structures in the political parties should change in creating more feminist power within them and syndicates to be the principal places of the militant feminism

.

With the last municipal election, (March 2001), we will see in another part that the parity law has not changed a lot of things in a term of representation.

On the National level, there is no true "legal framework for the promotion of women in political decision-making" (db-decision.de). The government was able to not make a statement or be forced to a make ruling on this issue as they simply decided to follow according to the "European regulation(s) on discrimination against women" (db-decision.de) in and around 1992. The country has had a difficult time coming to a consensus on this issue since there are several parties with none holding a large parliamentary majority.

The government of the Netherlands says, "It cannot and may not force or even ask the political parties to increase their number of women". (db-decision.de). Therefore, they cannot make laws forcing the parties to implement quotas or other mandatory rulings to parties. They have a piece of legislation signed and enacted but it merely sets a "recommendation to the political party to increase women’s representation" (db-decision.de). They simply recommend a quota to the parties. Nationally, the government is apprehensive about setting any mandates because in the Dutch political system. "It is the political party (that) has a monopoly on the recruitment of cabinet officers as well as the recruitment and selection of candidates" (Leijenaar 205). This party unanimity is an important and valued part of Dutch politics.

The government has a simple goal. They want to see the percentage of female participation rise five percent "in all decision-making bodies" (db-decision.de), until there is an even split between the genders. The government still believes they are unable to interfere in party politics so they will not mandate parties to follow these "recommendations". The parties have to power to choose for themselves. The national body does offer some incentives for quota system mainly financial support. The government will subsidize "parties to organize activities to increase the number or women in electoral bodies" (Leijenaar 226). Nearly all of the parties accepted this money and worked to use it for gender equality policies either by hiring a private consultant to help them formulate their own affirmative action policies. The three largest parties also used their portion of the government stipend to propel the situation of current female members. They set up training for women interested in furthering their political careers, they fund a day care, and two have set up "shadow council members" where a women thinking of taking a step into political office can spend time with a current decision-maker (Leijenaar 226-227).

There are several differences between these two countries. Quotas in The Netherlands, although not enforced by the government, are embraced and encouraged. The big difference we can observe between the two countries is that in The Netherlands quotas are permitted and accepted by the law and the public opinion. On the contrary in France, quotas are not legal anymore since 1982. Now, the Parity rule in France plays the role of the quota rule and that is why we have decided to include this rule in the positive discrimination strategy.

The comparison between the quota system in The Netherlands and the law parity in France exists first from the viewpoint of the sources: the first one comes from the government and the second one comes from the Constitution. It means that the principle of equality is on the same level than the principle of Life for example and it is now a supreme value of the French State. In The Netherlands, the Quota rule is " a step but not the end of the process"(R. DUIRY); Secondly, the difference is on the object of the rule: in Netherlands, it is only a recommendation (no binding effect): the party that would follow the recommendation has some financial compensation. After, the parties organize itself: they decide the number of the women they want and so on… The law parity has a binding effect and the parties have no choice. They must follow the rule forced by the state, even if they have some sanctions (financials ones for example). Finally, the difference is on the adoption of the rule: in Netherlands, the parties are free to do what ever they want in terms of quota. On the contrary, in France, the parties are bound.

The common point of these two rules is of course the goal: to improve the percentage of the women in politics.

The parties in France: Comparing the PS, RPR and the Green parties in France:

In a compare of the three parties of women proportion it is wise to compare the political culture, organization and ideology. Through we can find some reason why some parties are more open to women than others.

Socialist party (PS): The PS has been known for many years as a party that has a big concern towards women. Even the party has a quota (30%) rule has the number of women in executive, legislative organs, national and department secretaries been during the years 1978 – 1990 under the number which was set in the quota rule. "Existing quotas have never been respected within the party, either at the national or the local level. Furthermore, the party has neither set up any oversight mechanism to enforce this positive action strategy, nor sanctioned non-respect." (Pippa Norris, Page 103)

RPR: The membership statistics show that they are not really interested in women participation in their own party. During the years 1978 – 1990 the women proportion has been always over 40%. They self say that they have never had any formal quotas for internal offices for women. The has taken the position that increased representation of women within the party structure would occur naturally as a function of the progress of women in society. (P. Norris, Page 107) In general the approach of the RPR on women’s issues has been to support ways, which encourage women to have more children and also allow them to work outside the home!!! For the party the women represent family, children and housework. "Women, even emancipated, must first take care of their families." (RPR, in P. Norris)

Green: The Green party is the most Democratic Party for women in France. It has the highest rate of women but it does not use any kind of quota rule.

Socialist party (PS): The Socialist Party is the only party in France, which uses a quota rule inside the party. With that they try to achieve equality between men and women inside the party. Unfortunately this quota rule has not affected the proportion of women in different organs or secretaries. As mentioned before in part 1 the numbers have all the time been under the 30 per cent marginal. Candidate selection in the PS is, in principle, highly decentralized, with the section or sections in any particular constituency choosing their own candidate by secret ballots. The departmental party organization ratifies these nominations, which are then transmitted to the national headquarters. (P. Norris, Page 104) This organization has an important power that it can use to change candidate nominations. These powers have been used in 1978 and 1981 to promote women as candidates. Out of all parties in France it has been the PS that has devoted the most attention to women’s rights issues on its campaign platforms. On the other hand it’s sad to see that the idea of total and true equality is not in the heart of the party. "As long as the party hierarchy felt that promoting gender-orientated issues in their party platform was electoral rewarding, certain demands of the PS feminists would be included on the party platform." (P. Norris, Page 106)

RPR: Interesting is, that there has been since 1978 always more than 40 per cent of women in the RPR. Still the proportion of women in executive, legislative organs and national and department secretaries has been much lower than in the PS. Also most of the women were placed in sectors, which were traditionally assigned to women, such as the family, the elderly, women’s activity and daily life. It is also important to mention the influence on the proportion of women of the ex party leader Michèle Barzach. (The party leader right now is also a woman, but I can’t tell you her influence of the proportion of women in the party) The party has never used any formal quotas for internal offices for women. It has taken the position that the representation of women would occur naturally as a function of the progress of women in society. Candidate selection is rather centralized. The party does not have any positive action strategy to advance women as candidates. The lack of emphasis on promoting women as candidates was reflected in the party’s candidate lists for the 1986 legislative elections. (P. Norris, page 108) Out of 388 candidates, only three women of 40 were in list positions where they could be elected. (All three were elected). The situation didn’t change as the general secretary of the party Jacques Toubon said in 1986: "The choice of a woman is not made because she is a woman, but because she is a good candidate. That is true democracy, anything else is sexism". The idea was absolutely correct, but it needs the equal representation on party lists too!

Green: Internal party leaders of the Green Party are elected proportionally, during elections by list in France (municipal, regional, European).

PS: The Socialist Party in France has its ideological background in the idea of Socialism. The basic idea is to neither achieve a system where individualism and egoist behavior does not exist. The goal is to create a global unity and a harmonic relation between humans in a political-social society. There, humans are all equal among others. Socialism tries to find solutions for problems and challenges, which are created in a modern industrial society. It tries to secure the public welfare, social equality and harmony towards individuals. The issue of women is also important for the party. They try to achieve equality for men and women. Through the quota rule they want to raise the proportion of women.

RPR: The predecessor of the RPR was the Party of Charles de Gaulle. The idea was to build up a strong France with stable institutions, well-organized public finances, expanded economy and a social consent, which should make a continuous and powerful foreign politics possible. The result of conservative ideologies mixed with de Gaulle’s ideas is the RPR. Conservatism divides the bourgeois society into opponents and supporter of the progressive society. Catholic influence marks the RPR clearly. Even the woman is in front of the law equal does the party still have the opinion that women’s first job is to take care of their families.

Green: The goal of the Green party in France is to promote a different method of conducting politics. The Green constitute an ecological force independent from the traditional parties; an organization open to discussions and to the common battles with the everyday forces that drive today's society (environmentalists, regionalists, the third and fourth world, feminists, the right to housing, against unemployment and exclusion...) (http://www.verts.imaginet.fr/history.html)

Politics in the Netherlands is comprised of mainly consensus building. The majority of the country’s voters and parties sit in the middle or just too the left. There are a few small right parties but their support is not large enough to succeed in this multi-party system. Not one party in the Netherlands holds an overwhelming majority at any level of government. This makes consensus building more difficult even though there is an overwhelming majority of politicians from the middle to the left side. Furthermore, citizens generally do not belong to a specific political party so the party numbers are small compared to the number of active voters. Parties are responsible for themselves with the promotion of women in decision-making and the choice of implementing any type of quota. Only five parties however, have implemented some form of quota in their own procedures. We will look at three different parties that lie at different places on the political right-left continuum, although most parties are considered moderate or left of the center.

Political Culture:

CDA- Generally, this party carries a moderate position on several issues. The same goes for how woman are viewed in their organization. Of their 90,000 plus membership only about 23 percent are women and at the national level, only 16 percent hold executive office (Leijenaar 212, 214). Furthermore, the women in this party do not fully support quotas. In a 1986 study, when quota law was being debated in the Netherlands often, of the 23 percent of women in the CDA, on 36 percent approved a quota method as improving the number of women representatives (Leijenaar 225).

PvDA- When the current party formed, they wanted to build a progressive polity to break all social and economic lines that were set in Dutch society. "This group wanted party policy to reflect the new social and cultural realities and emphasized the need for greater democracy and a critical attitude to NATO and American policies." (www.pvda.nl). Over 40 percent of their membership is female. Furthermore, at the national level in the party women hold around 32 percent of executive party offices.

D66- The D-66 are truly progressive in every way. They firmly believe in the equality of everyone and that everyone deserves the same luxury in life. They do not, however, support a quota. They believe in "supporting free and fair democratic elections" and they believe quota rules disturb this belief (www.d66.nl). Overall, their culture is gender friendly. In fact, the D-66 has highest percentage of female membership along with the Green party.

Political Organization:

CDA: The CDA (Christen Democratisch Appel) is the largest party in the Netherlands as it has over 90,000 members. Only twenty-five percent of these members of this moderate party are women and there is no specific quota number set, although they do have an active quota system (www.cda.nl). Recruitment of electoral candidates occurs when local branches of the party to suggest 5 names of candidates. An executive organ of the party will discuss and approve or disapprove the list that has formed nationally. Then the completed list returns to the local party organization for a vote of approval (Leijenaar 219).

PvDA: The Partij van de Arbeid (PvDA) is one of the largest parties in the Netherlands with forty percent of its over 60,000 members female. They do implement a stiff quota at least for the national parliamentarian elections. On the list of 50 candidates, 25 of them are female. The list does not always zipper exactly but the distribution concerning list placement is quite even (www.pvda.nl). The PvDA, the Dutch Labor Party, is the descendant of the Social Democratic Labor Party originally founded in 1894. Now the PvDA is a "democratic organization" with several different party decision making bodies. At the local level, small organizations are set up to provide local stimulation in municipality laws and elections. Furthermore, they recruit and nominate members for the national party congress. The congress sets major party platform and policy changes as well as creates the National election ballots (Leijenaar 219-220).

D-66: Another left wing party, the Democrats-66 are a very liberal party but vow to work "with the more conservative liberal parties" (www.d66.nl). It was formed in the late 60’s with the merger of a progressive and a socialist party. Their numbers are quite average for a left wing party as their membership is approximately 40 percent. At their highest level, 32 percent of the executive board(s) are female (Leijenaar 214, 216). This group has a slightly different recruitment system for elections. Any official party member can apply to run for any office. When all of the applications are in, a total list in compiled and is sent to the members of the party. Voters must "arrange the first twenty names".

Political Ideology

CDA: The CDA is the only successful party on the right side. This is because, it can barely be considered on the right side of moderate. Overall, they still believe in social welfare and equality, but not as strongly as the other, more numerous liberal parties. Furthermore, the party owes its heritage to several different religious political groups and finds some of its more conservative values in this part of its past.

PvDA: This Dutch Labor Party’s platform is quite liberal in economic, environment and equality friendly ideology. Ideologically, this labor party is pro education and health care. They believe that taxes should be fair and justly rationed in the welfare state. Furthermore, they believe in employment, social security, and emancipation for every citizen of the Netherlands. (www.pvda.nl)

D-66: This progressive, liberal party puts "the (emphasis) on people: free, involved, equal and responsible". They "strive for a democratic, durable and open society, in which individual freedom is as self-evident as social cohesion; a society in which citizens want to and can take responsibility for themselves and their environment; a society in which work, personal development, free time and care can be combined well" (www.d66.nl). Furthermore, they want to see advances in all stand points of life from personal technology to healthcare.

Political culture is just the base point in the issue of quotas. It is evident that in the parties that have adopted some sort of quota, or have tried to accept some form of quotas, women are viewed more important in their respective political cultures. This does not prove that just because women are held in high regard that a quota system will be created. The Green Party in France has a high percentage of women but still has not adopted any party quota system as well as the D-66 in The Netherlands.

According to Pippa Norris, "attitudes towards quotas are strongly influenced by party cultures. Whether quotas are implemented depends upon the type of party organization." We agree with this assumption. Quota systems and female representation can be highly influenced by the type of recruitment a group uses. This is where France and The Netherlands differ. They are both centralized but France is informal and The Netherlands formal (controlled by the party). When the party structure is more responsible for choosing candidates, they can work to bring more women into the process. They can recruit, train, and list a woman with all of their support. If the party is not in favor of such bold pro-gender balance elections, then the closed recruitment can be a huge obstacle to overcome. If women cannot even get on the ballot, they cannot get into office.

Therefore, their organization is gender equal if their ideology is the same. The measure of a party is in its platform. This manifesto tells the world what the members stand for. If they state the support toward gender equality in most parts of their platform, they will act that way in the political arena. From Norris’ research, "social democratic parties are far more likely to believe intervention in the recruitment process is necessary and appropriate, hence positive discrimination is justified to bring about short-term change. Parties on the right will likely rely in the belief that women should be encouraged to stand, and party members should be encouraged to select them, but the recruitment process has to involve fair and open competition" (Gender and Party Politics, 320). As we compare these two countries, we cannot apply this theory directly to all of the parties but it does fit well, especially in France. The Netherlands, and the parties in the Netherlands, is a much more left minded country shows it in the parties that control.

There are no rules in party politics. If we compare the internal treatment and the external platforms of the two parties we will see, that the PS has a positive strategy to promote women in the party. The RPR has always refused, on principle, to consider such strategy. The Green Party neither uses the quota rule but it is considered as the most democratic for women. The Socialists have used the women’s rights issues as an important electoral carrot. At the same time the RPR has treated the women as mothers. Even though the critic exists in both parties has the critic in my point of view been more aggressive in the RPR. There are still significant internal problems in the French parties. Pippa Norris says in her article "Breaking the Barriers: Positive Discrimination Policies for Women" that positive discrimination operates most effectively in organizations where the selection process is rule-bound and decentralized." Still has the proportion in the PS not raised even it is the only party which uses the quota system. Even the political parties say they care about women in politics, it is still a long way to go for real equality. Not only in France but also in the whole world.

The results of the POLICY in FRANCE

In France, only the PS (The Socialist party) has used the quotas and we have seen before that it was not really respected. But, the interest of this essay is to see if the quotas have helped the party to be more democratic. In fact, if we compare The PS and The RPR, we can see that the PS is not more open to the women than the RPR, even if The PS had some quotas in its party,

In "Gender and party politics" we notice that the RPR had 41 % in 1978 and the PS only 22 % of women in its party. In 1986, the poll of Louis Harris placed the proportion of women members in the RPR at just 37 per cent and the PS claimed in 1989 that 28 % of its members were women. At any way, the quotas have changed nothing. It is true that The PS takes care about women but it is also true that the quotas have not a big effect. Despite the difference of the two parties, both have difficulties to integrate women in their parties. There are quite the same number of women in the two parties and a lack of women in high decision-making positions, and in both parties women are not satisfied with their situation. It is true that there have been little variations between parties of the left and the right in term of representation in the national parliament. " In general, a larger proportion of women is presented by electoral insignificant political parties and formation such as the Greens, the radical left and various extreme right-wing groups, while the major parties are more reluctant to present women as candidates" (Appleton, Mazur: 98). In 1993 the highest percentage of candidates of women was presented by extreme left (little chance to be elected). Also in 1997, the left (PS, PCF) presented about 20 per cent more female candidates than the right-wing parties RPR and UDF. It is curious to observe that in fact, the parties that do not have quotas are more represented than the PS, which has adopted the quotas. But, We can say that the policy of quotas must be controlled by a Council (like in The North Countries) because we know that the PS did not apply very well the quotas. The positive discrimination operates most effectively in organizations where the selection process is rule-bound and decentralized. Still has the proportion in the PS not raised even it is the only party which uses the quota system. Even the political parties say that they care about women in politics, it is still a long way to go for real equality. Not only in France but also in the whole world. That is why the parity takes all its sense. (Pippa Norris). Since1982, "the affirmative action" (John Rawls, A theory of principle) seems to be no longer possible, with the decision of the Constitutional Council. So, because the legislative way was compromised by the Jurisprudence of the Council, it was the constitutional one, which was the only one to be able to be adopted.

The law stipulates, "On each of the lists, the difference between the number of candidates of each sex may not be greater than one. Within each complete group of six candidates in the order of presentation of the list, there must be an equal number of candidates of both sexes". (LO 2000-43) The parity, "this so French subject" is confronted to a lot of international curiosities: is it an idea of Sylviane Agacinski, the wife of the current Prime minister, Lionel Jospin "this brainchild of her"(The Guardian)? Or is it an answer to the expulsion of the "jupettes", this famous "Black Tuesday" (Herald Tribune)? At any way, the parity has been used for the first time in the municipal election in March2001.Maybe it is too early to make an interpretation of this new law, but we can already observe the some results we have.

First, it is obvious that this law is a very useful one for the integration of women in politics; the fact is that now, the party must have the same percentage of women and men on the list; This law enters into force in the 3500 inhabitants town. At the end of the municipal election last week in France, we can observe that 50000 women are inside The 100000 Elect in the town, which have 3500 inhabitants. Of course, it is like a seism on the French Country, which is considered like one of the most conservative ones in Europe. " This law makes advancing our civilisation and it is a luck to be able to live that in this month of March 2001", said Robert Hue, the president of the PC Party (Communist Party).

But, we must relativize these findings because first, this law enters into force only in the 3500 inhabitants towns, which represent only the 1/3 of the 36000 towns in France. Then, the Municipal Councils are the most " democratic organs", in the sense that there were in 1995 21,8 per cent of elected women. So, maybe it is the sign that the political class does not perceive this instance like a real important stake. The effect of the municipal election is a "trompe l’oeil" because the things are worse if we look closer to the results. Indeed, even if the women are more important at the local level, they are only 7,5 per cent of them who are mayors and only a very few numbers of them who are a mayor of 50000 (or more) inhabitants towns. Finally, the parity law is effective only on the municipal, regional and European elections. (For the list elections) For the cantonal election, the women are only 6,6 per cent. For the legislative election, the law said that there would have some financial sanctions if there were not a certain percentage of women. In some words, the women are afraid to be again ejected to the real responsibilities because the law parity does not impose the parity inside the Municipal council.

"The real test will be in the next municipal elections of 2007, which will permit to verify if the parity has favoured the emergence of a new wave of Elect." (Pierre Giacometti, General

Director of IPSOS)

In a word, we can say that the law parity is a good step to the integration of women in politics but we should be prudent and wait for the next elections of 2007.

Evaluating the quota is a difficult task. It is hard to compare since none of the parties have the exact same policy. Furthermore, since the government does not mandate any type of quota by law, there is no incentive to stick with quota goals. Parties have the option to change their own minds at any time. The data does not show a large increase in women elected since the implementation of the "quotas". In fact, the number does not deviate from the constant rise in percentages of women since the 1950s. What we do understand is that political culture, organization, and culture helps to build these numbers. If the party did not believe that women should be elected, the quota system would not have been implemented in the first place. Overall, all the numbers show that gender equality is closer. The percentage of women in parliament, women in executive party positions, and women in parties has held a close to constant rise since the middle 1960s. These are the only qualitative numbers we have to work with. Without a government wide type of quota system it is impossible to see if they are helping. The parties that use the quota also have a long history of female leadership and promotion.

Both countries have shown a push towards gender equality in party politics and decision-making as a general body. Also in both countries, quantitative results are ambiguous. In France, the quota has shown modest increases but not necessarily great impacts. The law of parity will show better results but since this law was just introduced and used for the last election, the law is too new. As more results and statistics fall in from the election will be able to see the effects much clearer. We believe that law parity programs will be much more effective in the long run that party quota systems. Party quotas that are not necessarily supported by the state show us little.

First, we can say that in fact, representation of women in politics depends of the attitude and organization of the parties. The party keeps the initiative to place women or not on the list, in the sense that they could be elected. All the more, the mentality and the open-minded attitude is the most important one. The first thing we must do is to change the mentality at the political level and at the national level. There are a lot of problem to find some women that want to make politics because they are afraid by the misogynist attitude. Then, Pippa Norris says that the quotas are the solution for a well representation; she also says that the quotas make higher the statistics. It is partially true according to this essay; all the more, in my point of view, the quotas are not the final solution, it is only a step to find another policy. The quotas are in a sense discriminatory and non-democratic. It is true that the France has refused to adopt the quotas in a national level because it was non democratic. Finally, it is a difficult for a women to know that she was elected because of the quotas: where the legitimacy of his election? Which kind of moral authority they have? They are the women elected and they are not the elects of the women. All the more, I think that there is a restrictive meaning in the word of quotas, and maybe a pejorative one too. That is why maybe the new French exception is a way to transcend this problem.

Lovenduski, Joni and Norris, Pippa. Gender and Party Politics. Sage Publications. London: 1993.

(Gender and Party Politics: Andrew Appleton and Amy G. Mazur, chapter 5

Andrew Appleton and A.G. Mazur: Transformation or Modernization: the Rhetoric and Reality of Gender and Party Politics in France

Monique Leijenaar: A Battle for Power: Selecting Candidates in the Netherlands

Pippa Norris: Conclusions: Comparing Legislative Recruitment)

Breaking the Barriers : PIPPA NORRIS , chapter 10 in Has Liberalism Failed Women ? Parity, Quotas and Political Representation

A theory of principle John Rawls

La parité : Jean-Christophe Loviton

La souveraineté des femmes par le vote : Gérard Pinon

Rapport sur les projets de loi et les propositions de loi tendant a favoriser l’ égal accès des femmes et des hommes aux mandats électoraux et fonctions électives. ( Rapport 231 1999-2000) Guy Cabanel

Sylviane Agacinski Parity of the sexes

Le Monde :

21/1/99 : "Le Sénat veut bouleverser le projet sur la parité hommes femmes en Politique"

27 /1/99 : « la droite boude au Sénat la parité voulue par J. Chirac et L. Jospin »

Le monde : dossier et document : 4/99- hommes /femmes : loin de la parité

Le Monde diplomatique :

9/99 : « parité , je n’ écris pas ton nom » Serge HALIMI

First assignment of Henna Leppamaki, Ksenia Glebova, Judith Fischer : France

The Legal emancipation of french women: from the women’s suffrage to the parity law. F. Benjamin Pailler

Martin Rhodes, Paul Heywood and Vincent Wright (1997): Developments in West European Politics

Henry W. Ehrmann: Politics France

Joseph M. Colomer (1996): Political Institutions in Europe

Klaus von Beyme (1985): Political Parties in Western Democracies

Herder (1995): Staatslexikon, Band 6

Herder (1995): Staatslexikon, Band 2 und 3

Web addresses:

http://www.db-decision.de/

http://www.ipu.org/parline%2De/reports/2114.htm

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr

www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr

www.ccre.org

www.helsinki.fi

www.lemonde.dossier

www.senat.fr

www.ac-bordeaux.fr

www.d66.nl

www.pvda.nl

www.cda.nl