Gender refers to the culturally and socially determined differences between men and women, the relationships between them, and their roles in the community at large. But in many societies, women are afforded a lower status than men, leading to a 'denial of rights' such as access to information, adequate nutrition, health services, education, finances, property, reproductive rights, family planning, etc to which they are entitled. Looking at governance structure - whether local or global - is useful as good governance policies (that has accessibility, accountability transparency and efficiency as its four pillars), also ensures that gender equality is built upon.
Gender has been conceptualized in various ways in the mainstream governance literature and critical feminist work. The relationship between the concepts of gender and governance can be viewed as governance of gender and gender governance. The governance of gender is related to the way in which the values that permeate governance reflect traditional gender regimes. On the other hand, gender governance concerns governance in policy areas that, in the first instance, directly deal with women's issues. Gender governance is about the attempts to change gender regimes by inserting new policies, procedures, and values through global and multilevel governance.
The participation of women and men in formal and informal decision-making structures varies greatly between countries, but is generally in favour of men. Institutional as well as cultural, economic and societal factors limit women’s opportunities and abilities to participate in decisionmaking.
Women’s low political representation is therefore often used as an indicator of gender inequality. Specifically, the ‘proportion of seats held by women in national parliament’ was chosen as one of three indicators to measure progress on MDG 3 on gender equality and women’s empowerment.
Women are underrepresented not only in the political sphere but also in decision-making within the private sector, at the village level and in civil society. At the local level, men usually dominate positions of power, including as religious and traditional leaders, local politicians and village elders.
Women’s representation and leadership tend to be confined to areas that are traditionally ‘feminine’ such as social welfare. Women’s representation in informal decision-making processes is often more common than their representation in formal positions and structures, but it tends to be hidden and therefore not as highly valued as it should be. In order to deepen democracy at the local, national and international level, it is important to ensure that women and men are able to participate on equal terms in both formal and informal decision-making structures.
Poor levels of participation and representation in decision-making bodies is exacerbated, for both men and women, by intersecting discriminations relating to ethnic group, socioeconomic status, religion, disability and sexual orientation.
Gender differences in formal representation can be attributed in large part to both institutional and societal constraints. The latter encompasses the social norms that make it more difficult for women to leave their traditionally domestic roles for more public roles outside of the home. Institutional constraints include barriers such as political systems that operate through rigid schedules that do not take into consideration women’s domestic responsibilities, and the type of electoral quotas used (if any).
There has been considerable international emphasis on ensuring a more equitable number of women and men in democratic institutions, through the introduction of quotas for women in many countries. There is increased acknowledgement, however, that quotas are not enough to ensure that women’s concerns are heard. Two reasons can be found for this. First, despite increased participation, women are still primarily a minority within patriarchal political systems, which means that it continues to be difficult for them to have their voices heard. Second, women politicians cannot be assumed to prioritise or even identify with the needs of other women. Class, race, religion, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation and disabilities are some of the many differences that can divide women.
Nonetheless, quotas can have an impact on society’s perceptions of women, with increasing acceptance of women as leaders reported in some instances (Beaman et al., 2009). There is growing recognition that combining quotas with skills development in leadership and capacity building can have a stronger impact and strengthen the opportunities for women’s voice.