“A Fly in the Ointment”: The Barriers to Portuguese Female Political Participation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an intriguing study that examines the barriers to women's political participation within the Portuguese context. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with eight women elites from various political spheres, the authors aim to explore different obstacles to women's involvement, focusing on media bias as well as cultural and patriarchal norms. Overall, the paper is well-written, demonstrating a strong understanding of the Portuguese context. However, aside from the qualitative methodology—of which I am not an expert—there are several issues, particularly with framing and theoretical contribution, that need to be addressed before the paper is suitable for publication. In the following sections, I will elaborate on these weaknesses and offer suggestions for revisions in future iterations of this project.

My first major worry about this paper is that the author(s) lack attention when using concepts like political participation and representation. Specifically, much of the paper, including the title, is quite misleading to the reader. As the title suggests, the authors argue that the focus of the paper is on barriers to female political participation; however, upon reading, it becomes clear that the paper is entirely about women's descriptive representation (the low number of women across a spectrum of political spheres, ranging from political parties to national assemblies and other governmental organisations).

(1) The first recommendation is for the paper to identify from the outset whether the issue at hand is about barriers to women's political participation; if this is the case, then a definition of political participation is necessary. Furthermore, if the focus is on political participation and the authors concur that it is on barriers to women's political participation, they must also define what they mean by low women's political participation. Recent comparative work (i.e., Dalton, 2017) would be helpful for the authors to clarify what political participation entails. Along this line, and based on their conceptualisation of political participation, the authors should explain the gap in political participation between men and women, which can be described as the substantial differences that exist between men and women in their political engagement. If the authors choose this angle, they need to explore the barriers to women's political participation.

(2) However, upon careful reading of the article, it seems the focus is on women's descriptive representation, not political participation. Specifically, the paper sets out to explain barriers to women's low representation in different political spheres. If this is the case, then the authors should avoid using the terms political participation and representation interchangeably. Overall, the article would greatly benefit from better framing, starting with the introduction, by clearly outlining whether the focus is on barriers to women's political participation or barriers to women's low descriptive representation.

Second, and again considering the article's focus on barriers to low women's representation, I would like the author to develop a new section demonstrating the relevance of having more women across different organisations in the political sphere. In particular, why does having more women in representation within the Portuguese context matter? A good way to handle this is to echo the normative importance of having more women in places of power that connect to comparative debates about the quality of representative democracy. Overall, such a discussion sets the tone for why these matters and why we should study barriers to women's descriptive representation.

Third, an issue with the paper is that the authors do not offer much theoretical contribution in their discussion of barriers to women's descriptive representation. In sections 2 and 3, the authors focus on barriers that centre on patriarchal norms, while section 3 focuses on affirmative actions like gender quotas. However, there is room for improvement in terms of synthesising this section and presenting a more comprehensive account that would enhance the author(s)' theoretical contribution. To improve this section, I recommend the authors create a section titled Theoretical Framework – Barriers to Women’s Descriptive Representation and focus on three key barriers, namely cultural and patriarchal norms, media bias, and affirmative measures. Moreover, the authors should clearly state their expectations on how these three IVs undermine women’s descriptive representation.

Additionally, much of the discussion in this section should integrate comparative literature, not just work or studies that have been done within the Portuguese context. For example, section 2, titled Female Underrepresentation in the Portuguese Political Arena, focuses on cultural and patriarchal norms that undermine women's descriptive representation. The authors should engage with international scholarship (i.e., Shvedova, 2005; Inglehart and Norris, 2003) and then connect antecedent examples from the Portuguese case to how patriarchal norms undermine women's descriptive representation. Furthermore, in section 3, where the authors focus on affirmative action such as gender quotas, I find it surprising that they do not mention party quotas and what other types of quotas exist in Portugues (data from International IDEA could provide exploratory information https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/gender-quotas-database/database). But even so, I strongly recommend that the authors should also engage with comparative work on quotas and women's representation/participation (see, Kittilson and Schwindt-Bayer, 2012; Krook, 2010; Ballington, 2005; Dahlerup, 2005; Rosen, 2017). In their discussion of affirmative action, the author(s) should connect this body of studies to the Portuguese case as they did in section 3. Finally, still under the theoretical contribution, the authors should separate the role of media from sections 2 and 3 and then discuss at length how media bias could undermine women's descriptive representation in government organisations.

Fourth and finally, aside from issues of framing and theoretical contribution, I find that the paper lacks clarity in its discussion of the specific unit of analysis related to uncovering barriers to women's representation. While the authors mention the low representation of women in political parties, national assemblies, and various governmental organisations, the paper would benefit from a more focused examination of the specific types of governmental organisations they intend to explore in relation to the barriers to women's low descriptive representation. Moreover, providing a strong rationale for focusing on these particular institutions would enhance the paper's overall quality. Additionally, although qualitative methods are not my area of expertise, specifying the particular issues would strengthen the justification for why the eight women were chosen for the semi-structured interviews.

Reference:

Dahlerup D (2005) Increasing women’s political representation: New trends in gender quotas. In: Ballington J, Karam A (eds) Women in Parliament: Beyond Numbers (A Revised Edition). Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, pp. 141–174.

Dalton RJ (2017) The Participation Gap: Social Status and Political Inequality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Shvedova N (2005) Obstacles to women’s participation in parliament. In: Ballington J, Karam A (eds) Women in Parliament: Beyond Numbers (A Revised Edition). Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, pp. 33–82.

Rosen J (2017) Gender quotas for women in national politics: A comparative analysis across development thresholds. Social Science Research 66: 82–101.

Kittilson MC, Schwindt-Bayer L (2012) The Gendered Effects of Electoral Institutions: Political Engagement and Participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Krook ML (2010) Why are fewer women than men elected? Gender and the dynamics of candidate selection. Political Studies Review 8(2): 155–168.

 

Inglehart R, Norris P (2003) Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

• Concepts of political participation and representation;

 

While we do discuss political participation, we also address descriptive representation, as these concepts are interlinked in the discourse of our interviewees. Although these issues could be seen as barriers to descriptive representation, the women interviewed referred to them as obstacles that have prevented or continue to prevent them from engaging in political participation. Thus, we consider them barriers to female political participation. However, we have defined both terms as suggested to clarify our approach in the article.

 

• Develop a new section demonstrating the relevance of having more women across different organisations in the political sphere;

 

We have added a paragraph referring to this under the 2^nd section “Female underrepresentation in the Portuguese political arena”.

 

• Creating a new section and adding comparative literature regarding gender quotas;

 

Although we have included a reference to Mona Lena Krook as suggested, we wish to avoid consistently making comparisons in every section to counterbalance the hegemony of Anglo-Saxon comparisons, specifically with the UK and the United States. Regarding the creation of a new section, we consider that the theoretical framework follows a clear line of reasoning: patriarchal barriers to representation, the role of nonpartisan politics and how they intersect, and finally, quotas. While quotas are not the primary focus, it would be remiss not to mention them; hence, we do not delve deeply into them or discuss internal party quotas. Our perspective is that political participation should be understood holistically rather than solely in partisan terms.

 

• Specific unit of measurement / why the eight women were chosen for the semi-structured interviews;

 

We have added a paragraph following the list of interviewees to clarify that our focus is on political participation in its entirety. This includes the Assembly of the Republic, Municipal Councils, Parish Councils, internal party life, and independent collectives.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I believe this manuscript is relevant for the field and a needed contribution, however, it must be improved to be published.

 

The authors present evidence and discuss the barriers to female political participation in the Portuguese context through different questions they consider fundamental.

 

I have read the manuscript carefully and I suggest that major improvements are needed in, at least, four domains:

 

- General Concept: Although the authors state they are going to discuss barriers to female political participation in the Portuguese context, the specificities of the Portuguese case are not detailed and/or compared with other barriers that are referenced from other contexts. The title of the manuscript is not explained nor used as a clear line of reasoning, not mentioned anywhere but the title. There are other minor revisions needed regarding the concepts used, namely the definition of gender as an “idea” (pp. 2) or the meaning of “political habitus” or even what the authors mean by “state feminism” (pp. 3). Some additional corrections are needed: line 191 – Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo held the position for six months, not five; if the interviews were made before the March 2024 elections, it does not make sense to analyze data in relation to the new composition of the parliament, as the authors advance in the conclusions (pp.16). Gender equality has different agendas depending on the parties and the political sphere are not actively promoting it in the same way, which should be better acknowledged by the authors, especially in the discussion of findings.

 

- Content:  Along the manuscript there are many missing links between the topics covered by the authors (e.g. lines 73-82 and 83-87 where there is no connection between women academic advancements and political underrepresentation; or lines 109-114 and 115-125 that does not link explicitly the horizontal segregation in government areas and less political participation in local power). Topics are deepened without a coherent argumentation and different levels of political power (local, regional, central) are conflated in the discussion (e.g. line 169 “local politics is not uniform” – why?). Interviewee citations must be better discussed nor contextualized to show differences between the positions occupied and the political parties represented (some are not totally anonymized, e.g. interview 7, lines 531-538). In addition, we see often the blending of very different dimensions and contexts in the analysis of results and the literature review that do not allow to understand the specificities of the Portuguese case and what the interviewees add to this field of research. This contribution would be improved if the results were better organized, and these flaws revised.

 

- Structure: The way the manuscript is structured does not allow the readers to understand what are the main barriers and factors that persist in the female political participation in the Portuguese context. Historical milestones for the Portuguese female political participation must be better accounted. Overall, the manuscript needs to follow a logical argument (from past to present, from global issues to national ones or other) that allow us to capture better and clearly the novelty and significance of this contribution.

 

- References: Relying mostly on media references to discuss progress in female political participation (pp. 1-2) has the effect of showing what was seen as most visible and controversial, without contributing substantively to the discussion of the issue. National and international references must be distinguished in an appropriate and relevant way, to show what is similar and different for the Portuguese case (e.g. pp. 8). Also, if authors are discussing and diagnosing what barriers persist, they must be wary of the references used, which are outdated in the face of the changes that have taken place in the meantime (e.g. lines 479-488). Finally, use of references in the literature review and in the analysis of data should be more cross-linked.

 

 

I expect that my revision can add to a new version of this manuscript submitted to Social Sciences Journal. With the necessary corrections, it can become a strongest contribution.

 

Author Response

• General Concept;

 

We have added a paragraph using the title of the article as a line of reasoning in the ‘Conclusions’ section.

 

The concepts of ‘political habitus’ and ‘state feminism’ have been further explained, the latter mainly on the new added section “The role of nonpartisan politics”.

 

Maria de Loures Pintasilgo’s position duration has been corrected.

 

• Content;

 

Women academic advancements and political underrepresentation has been linked as suggested.

 

The citations cannot be further contextualized to reflect differences in the positions held or the political parties represented, as this would reveal identifying details and compromise the anonymity of the participants.

 

“(some are not totally anonymized, e.g. interview 7, lines 531-538)” - Lines 531-538 refer to interviewee 4, not interviewee 7. In this case, interviewee 4 was referring to a colleague who declined a position in the Assembly of the Republic due to pregnancy. This does not compromise the anonymity of interviewee 4. It is the colleague who may be identifiable, but this is beyond our responsibility, especially since many interviewees mentioned figures like Joacine Katar Moreira by name.

 

• Structure;

 

We consider that altering the structure of the article would modify its content. The article follows a logical progression: patriarchal barriers to representation, the role of nonpartisan politics and their intersections, and finally, quotas. Our approach is to integrate comparative literature on the Portuguese case with international cases where relevant, within each section.

 

• References;

 

To counter this critique, we could argue that the use of media references on pages 1-2 serves an essential purpose by capturing the public and societal perceptions of female political participation, which are critical to understanding the broader context of this issue in Portugal. Media coverage often highlights what the public perceives as barriers or advances, thereby providing a foundation for discussing the social and cultural dynamics influencing political participation. This approach contextualizes the political climate and gives insight into the challenges women face, as media often reflects public attitudes and institutional responses.

 

Furthermore, the integration of national and international references is selectively applied in our article, where we aim to draw meaningful parallels or contrasts with the Portuguese context only when directly relevant to the discussion. This measured approach allows us to maintain focus on the unique aspects of the Portuguese case while providing a grounded, comparative perspective in areas where broader insights enhance the argument.

 

Thank you once again for your comments and we look forward to hearing from you.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision has been done properly and the article is better, I have no further comments.