If the object of implementing quotas is to achieve gender equality, then by increasing the number of female representatives’ numbers, quotas are successful because quotas have been seen as one way to dilute male privilege. [1] However, if the objective is to achieve a feminist agenda, and to decrease gender gaps in other areas such as health, education, labor force etc, then quotas are only a starting point for reform.

Previous research indicates that an increase in the number of female representatives alone will not make a significant difference in policy initiatives and political goals. According to Pupavac, when Bosnia implemented a party-list quota of 30%, the mechanism was successful in increasing the number of women in parliament and creating greater gender balance in Bosnian politics, but not in the broader social context affecting ordinary women.[2] Her research concluded that “Quota measures risk ossifying representation, institutionalizing the position of quota representatives and insulating them from the need to galvanize popular support and address the core concerns of their constituencies.”[3]

Scholars also question the efficacy of implementing quotas in political systems that lack political power or legitimacy.[4] For most of its post-independence, Sudan has been under authoritarian or semi-authoritarian rule, led by alternating military dictatorships and elected rule by Islamists. In authoritarian regimes like Sudan, the role of the legislature is often diminished and marginalized to a body with “rubber-stamping” authority. Therefore, it is unknown whether reserved seat quotas can have a significant impact at all.[5]

While the quota system implemented in Sudan will guarantee a minimum number of women in politics, implementing quotas is not enough. Quotas are simply a starting point. In order for women to become more effective, women should: