Gender Quotas: The Wrong Answer to the Wrong Question

A women’s—or ‘gender’—quota for parliament? That is the latest drumbeat from Germany’s unpopular coalition government. The Social Democrats (junior coalition partner and currently polling at around 15%) say they would “fight” for this idea. They have now demanded a “zipper system” for the upcoming mayoral and communal elections in Berlin: for every male candidate, there must be a female candidate too. A campaign calling itself #ParitätJetzt (Parity Now) has won the support of prominent parliamentarians across the mainstream political spectrum.

It doesn’t take much to see through the shallowness and disingenuousness of these campaigns. The campaigners present themselves as fighting a brave battle against the tide—much like the suffragettes of the early 20th century:

“Even after more than 100 years of women’s suffrage, only a third of our parliamentarians in the German Bundestag are female. This is where major political decisions are made that shape our society and influence our future—as majority decisions made by men,” their campaign page states.

But women’s quotas are neither radical nor new. They have been common practice in German politics for decades, with all mainstream parties committing to them—some, like the SPD and the Greens, as far back as the 1980s.

More importantly, the idea that women need quotas to gain a voice in politics is pure nonsense. It is true that the current parliament includes fewer women than the previous one—a reduction of 2.9%—but this is not the result of discrimination, which, on the basis of gender, is illegal. The claim that important political decisions are still made “by men,” as the campaign insinuates, does not stand up to scrutiny.

There is, in fact, no high political office that has not been held by a woman in Germany in recent years. Women have served—and continue to serve—as Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary, Minister for Justice, and Speaker of the Bundestag, among others. The current cabinet includes eight women out of eighteen ministers. Even the highest office of all was successfully held by a woman for an impressive sixteen years: Angela Merkel’s chancellorship, which ran from 2005 to 2021, was the second longest in German history; Helmut Kohl surpassed her only by a matter of weeks.

To pretend that nothing has changed since the age of the suffragettes, and that women remain perpetual victims, is an insult both to today’s generation and to those who fought for our freedoms before us.

Then there is the way the quota is justified as a necessary step to strengthen representative democracy. “We are fighting for change and equal participation of women in politics, because democracy needs us ALL,” the campaign page states. An essay by an NGO supporting the quota speaks of a “diversity problem” that weakens democracy: “Because democracy is only as strong as the diversity of the voices represented in it.”

What is presented here in the language of democracy is, in essence, a serious attack on it. Decisions about who may stand for parliament should be based on ability. Hard competition for the trust and favour of voters should ensure that the best candidates rise to the top—not those who happen to have the ‘correct’ gender.

As journalist Jasper von Altenbockum writes in FAZ, democracy becomes “representative” through the delegation of power to elected members of parliament. Whether those members are male or female should be left to the voters to decide.

The campaign for gender parity is a demand imposed entirely from above by lobbyists and party functionaries who lack genuinely innovative ideas. In truth, a parliamentary quota for women is likely to rank near the bottom of most voters’—including most women voters’—priorities. The issues people actually care about are the economic crisis, job security, the cost of living, educational standards, public safety, and migration levels, to name a few.

The hollow claim that a quota would enhance democratic representation is all the more glaring in light of a far more significant representation gap in German politics: the systematic exclusion of the right-populist AfD. Despite being the second strongest party in parliament, the AfD has been shut out of any meaningful power through the mainstream parties’ so-called firewall policy. It has been kept out of government through elaborate coalition arrangements—even in Thuringia, where it received the largest share of votes. In parliament, it has been denied vice-presidential positions, committee chairmanships, and seats on parliamentary oversight panels.

But that is not a representation gap those campaigning for a quota wish to discuss. The grand rhetoric about democracy is, in reality, little more than a desperate bid to please their own class of voters. Political commentators had long hoped that women would prove more resistant to populism than men—and indeed, while 24% of men voted for the AfD in the 2025 election, only 18% of women did. The reverse gap applies to the SPD, which was supported by only 15% of men but 18% of women. With no better ideas for appealing to their female voters, the party has now dusted off the old quota proposal.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with political parties seeking to address women’s concerns. But doing so through a patronising, undemocratic quota will only deepen the SPD’s problems. Women do sometimes have different concerns from men, but they are far from a homogeneous bloc. In reality, differences among women run along lines of class, income, and education—meaning many women have more in common with men of similar backgrounds than with the narrow category of women driving the quota agenda. 

That’s why the campaign for gender quotas has also sharpened the condemnation of women who fail to vote as expected. “Female voters are jeopardising feminist achievements,” complained one campaigner after the 2025 election saw a significant rise in votes for both the AfD and the conservatives.

One issue that genuinely matters to many women across demographic lines is safety in public spaces—something successive governments have neglected, and even downplayed, for far too long. (In 2020, then-SPD leader Saskia Esken preferred to talk about racism in the police force rather than public safety). A representative study by the opinion research institute Civey in October 2025 found that 55% of women feel unsafe in public. Sexual assault concerns were significantly higher among women (38%) than men (8%), a feeling the survey linked to anxieties about certain forms of mass migration reshaping the character of shared spaces such as train stations and parks.

Another significant clash with women’s interests is the mainstream parties’ embrace of transgender ideology. It is remarkable that the very parties calling for a gender quota are also those that have most energetically pushed for Germany’s self-determination law—a law that has allowed men to enter previously women-only spaces, including women’s shelters, toilets, and sports facilities. Women who have objected have been vilified as far-right or faced legal action. One such case—a 29-year-old man who demanded access to a women’s gym and sued the female owner, with the backing of the Federal Government’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner—remains pending.

Rooted in identity politics, the quota may well end up placing more men, not fewer, in positions designated for women. It is already clear that calls for “representation” based on identity will not stop at women. Progressive campaigners have been eager to point out that other ‘minorities’— including ‘transgender’ people— are also under-represented in parliament. Hence the enthusiasm for figures like Maja Tegeler, a man identifying as a woman, who became the Left Party’s spokesperson on gender equality and feminism in Bremen. 

Most women will not be fooled by the confusion being sown. These parties are not promoting women’s interests—they are promoting their own ideologies. The waning support of the mainstream parties, even among women, shows that they understand female voters no better than male ones. It is a troubling sign—one that demands a response—that in their desperation, they are now calling for legislation that would undermine genuine democratic representation still further.