Political gender gap: grab them by the money!

T he basic law is very clear here. Article 3 not only states “Men and women have equal rights” since 1949, but is directly followed by a requirement for action added in 1994: “The state promotes the actual implementation of equal rights for women and men and works towards eliminating existing disadvantages.” The addition was a consequence of the unification process with the GDR, during which constitutional adjustments were also agreed.

In the political and parliamentary sphere, however, equality is stagnating. The proportion of women in the Bundestag and state parliaments has remained at around a third for a long time, although the majority of those eligible to vote are female. Even regressions can be observed again and again. In the newly elected state parliament of Saxony-Anhalt, the proportion of women among representatives fell from an already low 28 percent to just 22 percent. But even before that, there were regressions in female representation in state elections, especially in the East.

The Saxony-Anhalt result is of course primarily due to the AfD, which managed to place two women among its 39 elected candidates. That's a good 5 percent of women. But the CDU only achieved 13 percent there. And before Saxony-Anhalt took over the red lantern when it came to the proportion of women in a state parliament, Bavaria, which had been governed conservatively for ages, carried it.

It is often argued that it only depends on the political positions and not whether a man or a woman represents them. Empirical political science says something different. More women in parliaments usually also means that more importance is given to issues that particularly affect women, such as care work, violence against women or female health.

A good historical example of the positive impact of women in political institutions is Rita Süssmuth. Although she belonged to the CDU, as a Catholic feminist she managed to anchor progressive gender and sexual policy approaches in the conservative camp with great persistence.

Since the ongoing political gender gap, like the economic one, will not resolve itself, countermeasures were discussed - and also in the form of legislative proposals and election objections. But quotation of electoral lists, the obvious instrument, has always failed due to legal objections. It went all the way to the Federal Constitutional Court, which gave a high priority to the parties' freedom of action, but at the same time gave the legislature broad scope for implementing Article 3 of the Basic Law.

Therefore, especially after the result in Saxony-Anhalt, as an example of similar developments elsewhere, it is appropriate to think again about possible policy options. Alternatives should be considered in which the relatively rigid instrument of fixed quotas could be replaced by a more flexible procedure.

Such a reorientation would also fit the pattern in the formation of public opinion. When it comes to equality, Germany is quite divided. A recent survey showed that about as many respondents were of the opinion that enough was being done as that there were still tasks to be done. But the number of people satisfied with the situation has increased compared to the survey a few years earlier.

This is driven by a certain masculinist turn among younger people. Far beyond Germany, Generation Z men are more convinced than baby boomers that equality is enough. However, the gender difference is still clearly reflected: While a majority of 55 percent of the male respondents consider the previous commitment to equality to be sufficient, the figure for women is only 36 percent. Obviously there is still dissatisfaction and therefore a need for action.

Where one could start in order to encourage parties to have a higher representation of women when nominating candidates for parliament in the future would be money. Germany is a country in which parties are less dependent on donations because they receive reimbursement for campaign costs. This regulation exists, among other things, to prevent elections from being too easily decided, i.e. bought, by major donors and lobby groups. The USA is a chilling example of the latter.

The resources made available by the state to finance parties are significant. For 2025 it was 225 million euros. My suggestion is that reimbursement for a party should in future be made dependent on the fact that at least half of the parliamentary seats it wins after an election are occupied by women. Otherwise the subsidy will be reduced proportionally.

Practical example: In Saxony-Anhalt, the 39-member AfD parliamentary group only has two female members. Taking into account the odd number, there would have to be 20 in order to be able to claim full party funding in the future. However, the AfD would lose almost 90 percent of its claims.

Reimbursing campaign costs based on the proportion of women leaves the parties with all rights to put forward candidates; it will only cost them dearly if they continue to rely on gender inequality. Voters are also likely to continue ticking largely male groups as they wish. But they are less likely to be lured with posters, online accounts or folk festivals with free beer.

The regulation does not have to be symmetrical either. Parliamentary groups with a surplus of women should remain unaffected by cuts. The disputes over anti-discrimination rules have shown that even unilateral measures can be legally acceptable.

Would such soft regulation even be successful? One can assume that. According to the parties' annual reports, around a third of their funding comes from the state. You don't like losing such a big chunk.