GENDER, PARTIES, AND INSTITUTIONS

Feminist scholars of party politics have begun to shift their focus from “women in” to “gender and” political parties (see, e.g., Bjarnegård Reference Bjarnegård2013; Hinojosa Reference Hinojosa2012; Kenny Reference Kenny2013; Lovenduski Reference Lovenduski2005). In doing so, many of these scholars have drawn on the insights of feminist institutionalism, a variant of new institutional theory that seeks “to include women as actors in political processes, to ‘gender’ institutionalism, and to move the research agenda towards questions about the interplay between gender and the operation and effect of political institutions” (Mackay, Kenny, and Chappell Reference Mackay, Kenny and Chappell2010, 574). We understand gender here as a constitutive element of social relations based on perceived differences between women and men, and as a way of signifying and naturalizing relationships of power and hierarchy (cf. Scott Reference Scott1986). Feminist institutionalism (FI) is centrally concerned with the analysis of power: institutions, in this view, are not gender-neutral, but rather reflect and reinforce power inequalities (Kenny Reference Kenny2007). FI scholars conceptualize institutions as the “rules of the game,” which provide a structure of incentives and disincentives to political actors and express norms of appropriate and inappropriate behavior (Lowndes Reference Lowndes2014). They have also sought to evaluate how discourse shapes and is shaped by institutions, highlighting the complex and gendered interplay between “interrelations of institutional arrangements, actor constellations and political discourse” (Kulawik Reference Kulawik2009, 267; see also Kantola Reference Kantola2006).

Political parties, as gendered organizations, play an important role in shaping the extent to which women (and, indeed, which women) are included or excluded from the political process (Lovenduski Reference Lovenduski2005). Much of the work on gender and party politics has focused on formal regulations and party rules, demonstrating, for example, how formal rule changes such as electoral system reform and the adoption of gender quotas can alter established party practices, leading to increases in women's political presence (see, e.g., Dahlerup Reference Dahlerup2006). Yet research in the field also points to the importance of comparing the content of formal rules with actual practices (Bjarnegård and Kenny Reference Bjarnegård and Kenny2016; Bjarnegård and Zetterberg Reference Bjarnegård and Zetterberg2016). Formal rule changes tend to have a larger impact on parties that are also “rule followers” (Bjarnegård and Zetterberg Reference Bjarnegård and Zetterberg2016), but they may have very little effect on parties that are more informalized; thus, we can never assess formal rules on their own. More recent scholarship has sought to investigate more explicitly both the specific influence of informal institutions and the interplay between formal and informal rules.

Rather than look at formal and informal rules as separate and contrasting elements of the institutional landscape, an FI approach highlights the need to consider a continuum from highly formal to informal, with many places in between (Bjarnegård and Kenny Reference Bjarnegård and Kenny2015; Kenny Reference Kenny2013). On the one hand, informal practices may reinforce change, ensuring that formal rules are actually complied with. Informal networks and relationships can also be mobilized in favor of women, to push for party and policy change (see, e.g., Piscopo Reference Piscopo2016). Yet, on the other hand, informal practices can often conflict with or override formal rule changes or exist alongside formal arrangements as a parallel institutional framework (Helmke and Levitsky Reference Helmke and Levitsky2006). And when formal rules are not actively maintained or enforced, political actors can mobilize informal practices to resist formal rule changes (such as gender quotas) that clash with their interests (Bjarnegård and Kenny Reference Bjarnegård and Kenny2015; Hinojosa Reference Hinojosa2012).

WEP provides an interesting case through which to interrogate the gendered dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in party politics and evaluate the design of a new party from the ground up. As Kimberly Cowell-Meyers (Reference Cowell-Meyers2016, 4) highlights, women's parties are defined by their “explicit agenda to advance the volume and range of women's voices in politics.” Emerging in contexts where women were unevenly empowered, these new parties attempt to distinguish themselves from distrusted mainstream parties in a number of ways: including, often emphasizing a nonpartisan ideology; adopting nonhierarchical and decentralized power structures; and implementing feminist modes of organizing and consciousness-raising tactics (Cowell-Meyers Reference Cowell-Meyers2011, Reference Cowell-Meyers2016; Dominelli and Jonsdottir Reference Dominelli and Jonsdottir1998; Evans and Kenny Reference Evans and Kenny2019; Zaborsky Reference Zaborszky1987). Yet both party politics and gender scholars have raised “the question of what constitutes ‘newness’ and what qualifies as ‘new’” (Barnea and Rahat Reference Barnea and Rahat2010, 304). Political organizations and institutions are rarely created de novo; rather, they are “nested” within dense institutional environments, including gender regimes (cf. Mackay Reference Mackay2014). New party organizations are likely to be shaped by both the past as well as ongoing interactions with the existing party system; similarly, old parties are never static, incorporating new elements and reforming structures and rules (Barnea and Rahat Reference Barnea and Rahat2010). Institutional and organizational innovation, then, is often a case of bounded change within an existing system, which can both open up but also foreclose opportunities for new paths and ways of working.

By investigating the extent to which WEP has built a “different” kind of party, we contribute to the burgeoning literature on women's parties as a means through which to increase the access and inclusion of marginalized groups (Cowell-Meyers Reference Cowell-Meyers2016, Reference Cowell-Meyers2017, Reference Cowell-Meyers2019; Evans and Kenny Reference Evans and Kenny2019). Moreover, while this growing body of work has often focused on the demand side of the story around why women's parties emerge, we add an important dimension to this research by focusing on women's parties as organizational actors, focusing on the “inner life” of political parties and the design and implementation of formal and informal rules on the ground. By highlighting the importance of attending to the ways in which new parties are enacted in gendered ways by gendered actors using formal and informal rules and practices, this article therefore contributes to the big questions with regard to party organizations and the party and political system, highlighting both general and gendered challenges to effecting change.

WEP: DISCURSIVELY DIFFERENT?

Political parties are not singular organizations—they are, as Richard Katz and Peter Mair (Reference Katz and Mair2009) noted, akin to political systems, nested within wider institutional configurations and composed of different “faces” or aspects. One significant litmus test for “newness” is the party's label and ideology; both are important ways that parties can distinguish themselves from the political status quo as they present themselves to the electorate (Barnea and Rahat Reference Barnea and Rahat2010). In terms of its label, WEP initially attracted some criticism from within the feminist community for calling themselves a “women's party” rather than a “feminist party.”Footnote ⁷ While the majority of our interviewees identified as feminists and felt that WEP was a feminist party, other members openly objected to this in party meetings and events and preferred the “women's party” label: “I guess initially there was a bit of effort not to use the word because it's just so laden with lots of stuff.” However, party leader Sophie Walker and party cofounder Catherine Mayer repeatedly self-identified as feminist during speeches and public interviews, and the party has subsequently described itself as the “UK's first feminist political party” on its website.Footnote ⁸

Despite contestations over the party's label, the clearest difference between WEP and other U.K. parties is ideology. WEP's claim that it was “borne out of a demand for a different kind of politics”Footnote ⁹ was echoed by party interviewees, who regularly invoked the rhetoric of difference: “People are tired of the way in which parties carry on, they want something new and something different and we are really speaking to that.” Women's parties are not women's wings or branches of established political parties, they are “self-conscious and explicit constructions around gender” that seek to disrupt male-dominated institutions and structures of political power (Cowell-Meyers Reference Cowell-Meyers2016, 5; see also Dominelli and Jonsdottir Reference Dominelli and Jonsdottir1988). As with other women's parties, then, female dominance is not seen as problem for WEP but rather as a given. Formally, WEP allows both men and women to join the party and to stand as candidates and does not use gender quotas. However, in practice, the overwhelming majority of its candidates have been women. In 2016, for example, the party ran 26 candidates in the devolved and London elections, only one of whom was a man (occupying the fourth of six positions on the party's regional list in Glasgow).

The party has also tried to adopt an intersectional feminist praxis, seeing this as a key point of differentiation from traditional male-dominated parties: “I don't want to be like those male political parties who are speaking for women.” Initially, however, there were few formal rules around intersectionality, an issue that we will return to in the next section. According to London interviewees, the central party was keen to ensure the selection of a diverse range of candidates for the London Assembly elections in May 2016, with central HQ instructing the London branches to nominate three people for the list, at least one of whom should be a black or ethnic minority candidate. However, in the time period under study, the party did not have any formal rules on the books with regard to intersectional representation. Moreover, while the party's first leader, Sophie Walker, repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of intersectional feminist politics during her tenure—for example, using her first speech to party conference in 2016 to highlight the party's commitment to women of color, disabled women, and the LGBT community—she subsequently resigned from the party in January 2019, citing her frustration with the limits of her own work to “ensure that women of colour, working class women and disabled women see themselves reflected in [WEP] and know they can lead this movement.”Footnote ¹⁰

While all women's parties use their party label to designate themselves as representatives of women, some are more preoccupied with inclusion and representation than radical transformation (Cowell-Meyers Reference Cowell-Meyers2016). In the case of WEP, the party initially assumed a nonpartisan label—a political strategy commonly adopted by women's parties to have an impact across the political spectrum (Cowell-Meyers Reference Cowell-Meyers2011). The party's nonpartisan stance is formally entrenched in its core policy document, first published in 2015, which describes WEP as a “focused mainstream party” that “will never take a party line on issues outside our remit” (Women's Equality Party 2015). Formal guidance for candidates seeking selection also stated that WEP candidates were “nonpartisan” and “free to express” their own personal views on issues beyond the party's “core goals and policies—driving women's equality up the political agenda” (Women's Equality Party 2016b).

In practice, however, the party leans left. Research on women and politics overwhelmingly suggests that left parties are more likely to promote women's descriptive and substantive representation because they espouse egalitarian ideologies that are centered on equality of outcome (Caul Reference Caul1999; Lühiste and Kenny Reference Lühiste and Kenny2016). Parties of the right, on the other hand, promote an “equality of opportunity” approach that is centered on a gender-neutral understanding of political power or that emphasizes a more traditional view of women's roles. Yet while WEP's left-of-center policy positions perhaps help differentiate it further from traditional male-dominated parties, the party has largely adopted a liberal feminist perspective centrally focused on equality, rather than wider structural change—although it did adopt more radical positions on the controversial issue of prostitution, with a commitment to the Nordic model (Evans and Kenny Reference Evans and Kenny2019).

In its first formal policy document, the party outlined six core objectives around issues of equal representation, pay, parenting and caregiving, education, treatment in the media, and an end to violence against women (Women's Equality Party 2015). The party does not have an economic policy or foreign policy. Therefore, in focusing on representation and equality rather than radical transformation, the party has failed to convincingly differentiate itself from established mainstream parties in the United Kingdom, which, as previously highlighted, have become increasingly “feminized” in terms of formal and informal commitments to advancing women's descriptive and substantive representation, and have shifted toward a more liberal feminist position (Childs Reference Childs2008; Kenny Reference Kenny and Allen2018). It also means that the party's liberal gender frame is further disconnected from the dominant ideologies of the U.K. women's movement (Evans Reference Evans2015, Reference Evans2016).

WEP has also strategically employed discursive tactics used by male-dominated parties, in particular drawing on existing discourses around “anti-politics” to differentiate itself from mainstream “politics as usual.” Anti-politics refers to “negative sentiment towards the activities and institutions of formal politics” (Clarke et al. Reference Clarke, Jennings, Moss and Stoker2018, 17). Anti-politics should not simply be conflated with skepticism or apathy; rather, it describes an active negativity targeted toward politicians and parties in general. It has been increasingly associated with support for populist parties, which have sought to capitalize on anti-political sentiment by arguing that they represent “the people” against “elite” politicians and parties. In the United Kingdom, these discursive strategies have been employed most obviously by the United Kingdom Independence Party, a far-right Euroskeptic political party that has sought to channel the frustrations of the so-called left behind (Ford and Goodwin Reference Ford and Goodwin2014; Jennings, Stoker, and Twyman Reference Jennings, Stoker and Twyman2016).

WEP has repeatedly used the “out-of-touch” trope to describe mainstream parties, a discursive tactic common among populist parties that frame themselves as “anti-political politicians” (Clarke et al. Reference Clarke, Jennings, Moss and Stoker2018). For instance, the membership section of WEP's website declares that the “politics that dominate the UK are unrepresentative, uninspiring and out of touch with everyday women's needs,”Footnote ¹¹ while leader Sophie Walker observed that “politics has become a word that means distant people.”Footnote ¹² Some interviewees further confirmed that they were directly “inspired” by the U.K. Independence Party's (UKIP's) strategy of appealing to the electorate: “if you look at UKIP and their message, I mean I obviously don't agree with them, but their message has worked really well and I think we can use that.” Meanwhile, another interviewee observed that “UKIP gets its message across and makes it clear that the mainstream parties are out of touch. We need to do that too, although you know, without the racism.” Yet, despite adopting similar tactics to UKIP, WEP has still managed to differentiate itself by adding a gendered dimension to anti-politics arguments. In other words, the party argues that it is not just politicians and parties that are out of touch, but that the political class is dominated by male politicians who are out of touch with women's interests and therefore unable to advance women's equality: “when I'm speaking to people, they get that something's gone wrong with our politics and that politicians don't seem to understand what people want anymore, and part of that is that it's men who are the ones dominating politics.”

WEP: ORGANIZATIONALLY DIFFERENT?

As new parties, women's parties are marked by a high degree of fluidity, both in terms of their support base as well as their organizational infrastructure. Newness can open up spaces for innovation and “doing things differently,” free from the general and gendered biases and vested interests that can be found in existing organizations and institutions. Yet these moments of opportunity are then followed by longer periods of institutionalization and uncertainty, as new structures, rules, and practices are either embedded and consolidated or amended, neglected, and discarded (cf. Mackay Reference Mackay2014). Moreover, as already highlighted, while women's parties are new entrants to the political system, they are not free-floating; they emerge from within and interact with wider institutional and party political environments, constraining the potential for institutional innovation and limiting possibilities for reform. New parties also face particular challenges in that they are not just electoral vehicles, they are organizational actors who have to “reconcile conflicting external and internal demands” (of which vote winning is only one) in order to survive in the long run (Bolleyer Reference Bolleyer2013, 3). These issues are particularly acute for “rooted” new parties emerging alongside social movements—such as women's parties or green parties—which must manage the relationship between party and movement actors and structures (Bolleyer Reference Bolleyer2013; Dominelli and Jonsdottir Reference Dominelli and Jonsdottir1988).

Angelo Panebianco (Reference Panebianco1988, 54) famously argued that “all parties must institutionalize to a certain extent to survive.” In other words, new parties need to build a viable organizational infrastructure where the “rules of the game” (both formal and informal) are routinized and regularized within the party (cf. Levitsky Reference Levitsky1998). Studies of women's political representation add an important gendered dimension to these dynamics, generally arguing that formally institutionalized and bureaucratized rules and processes are more women-friendly—that is, rules that are “detailed, explicit, standardized, implemented by party officials, and authorized in party documents” (Norris Reference Norris, Le Duc, Niemi and Norris1996, 202; see also Bjarnegård and Zetterberg Reference Bjarnegård and Zetterberg2016). Procedures that are rule-bound and formalized are easier for political outsiders and traditionally underrepresented groups to identify and understand and provide more grounds to appeal if political actors feel unjustly treated. Informalized or patronage-based party organizations, in contrast, are characterized by the lack of formal party rules, or rules that are written down but not implemented. These kinds of party organizations are generally less open to women and other marginalized groups, as power tends to be passed on through networks to insiders, who are usually men from majority groups (Bjarnegård Reference Bjarnegård2013).

Has WEP done things differently in terms of how it organizes? Our research on the party presents a mixed picture. In the early days of the party's formation, few rules were on the books, and those that were formally codified were not necessarily followed or were inconsistently applied. For example, candidate selection operated differently in different sites: some candidate lists were voted on by party members, while other candidates were selected by the central party, with varying degrees of vetting. WEP therefore resembles a more traditional male-dominated party, in that it is highly informalized (Evans and Kenny Reference Evans and Kenny2019). However, informality in male-dominated parties is often institutionalized and routinized—for example, in clientelist parties in which behavior does not necessarily correspond to formal rules but nevertheless follows regularized patterns of behavior that are “well established and widely shared” among insiders (Levitsky Reference Levitsky1998, 88; see also Bjarnegård Reference Bjarnegård2013). WEP, in contrast, has been a party in flux, with few stable rules of the game, either formal or informal.

Similar findings have been reported in other studies of women's parties, which further highlight that these parties are often reluctant to formalize party rules, not only because they are new but also because they do not want to reinforce and entrench political hierarchies. Women's parties therefore tend to adopt a feminist approach to organizing, one characterized by nonhierarchical, decentralized, and consensus-based decision-making (Levin Reference Levin1999; Zaborsky Reference Zaborszky1987). Additionally, as organizationally new actors, they have had less time to build up followers and supporters who might stay loyal and need to also think about ways to sustain and grow their initial support, while also building a sense of belonging among their followers (Bolleyer Reference Bolleyer2013).

WEP has implemented a number of innovations on this front, though some have been more successful than others. At the entry level, for example, the party has introduced an “affiliate membership” category, open to members of other political parties sharing WEP's aims. Several activists and members saw this as a distinctive offer, citing the party's official nonpartisan stance and emphasis on collaborative ways of working: “it gets us beyond partisan approaches which is really important.” The party's commitment to collaborative and cross-party politics is also formally institutionalized in its mission statement, while subsequent iterations of its policy document have explicitly encouraged other political parties to work with WEP to deliver its policies, or “simply to steal them” (Women's Equality Party 2017). Yet the party's political inexperience has caused tensions with some of the main U.K. political parties, particularly on the left, most of which formally bar members from joining or supporting other parties (Evans and Kenny Reference Evans and Kenny2019). Indeed, in some reported instances, individuals have been expelled from their original parties for registering as WEP affiliate members.Footnote ¹³

WEP has also claimed to adopt an innovative approach with regards to policy development, with members invited to actively participate in the party's policy-making process. This was formally highlighted in the party's first policy statement, described as being “shaped by our members and supporters … working collaboratively with experts and policy-makers.” While consultation was initially facilitated via local branches (described by one party member as a “crowdsourcing” approach), members are also able to vote on or propose policy changes at party conference. The party's constitution—adopted at WEP's first conference in 2016—states that party conference is sovereign with regard to policy positions, excepting those decisions taken by the Steering Committee in between conferences. Involving members in party decision-making is not new in U.K. politics—the centrist Liberal Democrats, for example, have involved members in the policy-making process for many years (Evans Reference Evans2011). But including members in this way can help party leaders signal their commitment to openness and intraparty democracy and enhance their legitimacy. In practice, however, interviews and observations of WEP meetings and events demonstrated that this bottom-up approach was not straightforward. For example, interviewees highlighted that the party invited experts to write sections of policy documents, without grassroots involvement, while significant policy decisions (e.g., taking an initial position on Brexit) were decided by the party leadership without recourse to member consultation.

Meanwhile, some members and branch officials highlighted the difficulties of participating in party conference, citing the lack of political experience among members, as well as a sense of confusion regarding both the substance and implications of what members were being asked to vote on: “it was not always clear what we were voting for or how that might play out in different branches across the UK.” This perspective echoed our own observations of party conference, during which some delegates appeared unprepared for what they were being asked to consider. Recognizing that for many of their members the process was new and potentially confusing, conference chairs repeatedly assured members that they would “learn by doing.”

Thus, while WEP has criticized mainstream parties for being elite and out of touch, the party has continued to operate through a highly centralized and hierarchical organizational structure, often making strategic and policy decisions without the mandate of the membership. While the party's initial structure was highly informalized—with no equivalent of a national executive committee and most decisions taken by staff and leadership at central HQ—subsequent formal rule changes have served to further concentrate power in the hands of the leadership. WEP's first party conference in 2016 codified the role of two central and powerful committees: the Steering Committee (SC), as the party's main decision-making body between party conferences; and the Executive Committee (EC), responsible for operational decisions. The SC is composed of the party's leader, lifetime members (the party's cofounders) and appointees, elected representatives, and randomly selected members. It has significant powers enumerated in the party's constitution, including sole discretion over when and where to field election candidates; determining when and where to hold party conference, as well as the content of the conference agenda; and determining the timetable and process for party leadership elections (Women's Equality Party 2016a). There is considerable overlap in membership between the SC and the EC, which also includes the party's two cofounders, and additional members elected by the SC. In interviews, some activists—especially those who were new to political organizing and party politics—did not feel that this degree of centralization was problematic. Others were more critical of the party's power structures, comparing it with other more hierarchical mainstream parties: “I was a member of the Labour Party before I joined WEP and I feel like members there had a greater say, which isn't saying much.”

The party has introduced additional formal rule changes in response to these issues and criticisms. For example, the party has established a Policy Committee that is directly elected by simple majority vote at party conference, encompassing policy spokespeople and “movement builders” to shape the party's key policy areas. Some members, however, felt that policy was still being driven by staff at the center, with one member of the committee stating that she was given no freedom to help shape the policy area that she had been elected to lead. Others claimed that policy was still being driven by staff at central HQ, with the Policy Committee expected to promote these policies rather than lead on their development. The party has also introduced term limits for the party leader, although the party's first leadership election did not take place until March 2018, with Sophie Walker acting as appointed leader for the first three years of the party's existence. Although the election was not a close-run race—Walker won with more than 90% of the vote—the contest highlighted divisions within the party over power and decision-making structures, with Walker's opponent, Magda Devas, proposing a 10-point plan to enhance transparency and accountability within WEP's organizational structures.

The party has also responded to decentralizing pressures by creating regional “hubs” that “oversee and coordinate the functioning of local branches in their area.”Footnote ¹⁴ Yet there is no formal regional representation on the SC or the EC, and the hubs framework falls well short of a fully federal party structure, which was proposed by members of the Scottish branches in 2016 and subsequently defeated by a vote of the party conference. Moreover, despite WEP's espoused commitment to an intersectional feminist ideology (as discussed previously), this is not institutionalized in the party's infrastructure. Indeed, requests for a black women's caucus were initially denied by the party leadership (described as an “own goal” by one activist), and, in contrast to several other U.K. parties, WEP does not set aside reserved seats on its leadership organs for underrepresented or marginalized groups.

Despite these tensions, however, there is some evidence of feminist approaches to organizing—particularly at the branch level, although this remains informalized. As one interviewee expressed, “We keep having to go to HQ who just make decisions without consultation and we've just decided we're going to get on with things here locally.” While branch organizational structure has become more formalized after the adoption of the party's constitution, our initial observations of party meetings in the early days of the party's existence often saw members discussing issues in a horizontal and collective manner in the absence of official leaders. As one activist reflected, “Those first couple of meetings were so exciting, it really felt like we had found our people, we were talking about all the ways in which we could make women's lives better and how we could do something new and important.” Similarly, another activist recalled the “energy and enthusiasm” in those early months and how many members had told her that they “had never experienced anything like it.”

Local branch meetings have proven to be important sites for feminist discussion, with many engaging in consciousness-raising techniques to explore a range of issues from structural violence to educational inequality—a practice identified in other women's parties (Dominelli and Jonsdottir Reference Dominelli and Jonsdottir1988; Zaborszky Reference Zaborszky1987). We witnessed members reflecting on their own personal experiences, encouraging each other to share their stories, and situating their experiences within a wider feminist politics. Older members, especially those who had been active within second-wave feminism, spoke about how this reminded them of their previous activism, while an interview with a woman in her twenties revealed how “transformational” she had found some discussions. We observed similar dynamics at the first party conference in breakout discussions away from the main plenary voting sessions; for example, the start of the workshop on sexual harassment in universities was spent talking through the principles of a consensus-based model of discussion, explicitly drawing on techniques used by the Icelandic women's party.