Gender quotas disrupt traditional political recruitment practices by compelling political parties to select more female candidates. Several hypotheses have been put forward regarding the impact of quotas beyond the simple feminisation of legislatures. One hypothesis argues that women elected through quotas will be female mirrors of their male counterparts, coming from elite and privileged backgrounds that do not reflect the diversity of society. An alternative hypothesis argues that quotas will open up the recruitment process beyond the “usual suspects”, providing opportunities for candidates without traditional political career paths, and encouraging parties to reflect more broadly on the need for diversity within the political class. A third, and related, hypothesis is that quotas will permit women to enter politics without first obtaining the requisite qualifications and/or experience, resulting in a deterioration in the quality of representation. As a result, women entering politics through gender quotas face an “equality/difference” dilemma, whereby they are expected to enhance descriptive representation and embody political renewal, while still demonstrating their ability to meet traditional, elitist criteria. The incompatibility of these demands creates a double bind for “quota women”.
This paper explores the extent to which men and women deputies in France are comparable in terms of their political backgrounds and career trajectories. The data cover the past three elections (2002, 2007 and 2012) to determine whether women follow different paths into politics, whether they are more similar to female citizens or to their (mostly elite) male counterparts, and whether this has changed as the result of a quota. Quantitative multivariate analysis is complemented by interviews with more than 50 deputies of both sexes regarding their political pathways. The paper concludes with a discussion of whether traditional or more diverse backgrounds are more favourable for effective representation of society as a whole.
