Democracies face the challenge of requiring competent yet representative leaders in order to effectively embody the will of the people. More than a hundred countries have electoral quotas for women and minorities to ensure representation; however, such efforts are being threatened globally under the guise of critiques alleging that quotas undermine meritocracy and candidate quality. 

To assess this assumption, Stanford Assistant Professor of Political Science Soledad Prillaman examined in a CDDRL research seminar the relationship between candidate quality and electoral affirmative action. Her co-authored study relies on data from India, where the largest of such policies is enacted, and local Gram Panchayat positions are proportionally reserved for women and lower caste individuals on a rotating basis. Using population, census, and survey data, Prillaman compared the quality of politicians by looking at their level of education and their relative education performance. 

Her findings reveal that politicians in general are positively selected, meaning that they are much better educated than the constituents they serve. While quota-elected politicians had lower average education levels than non-quota politicians, they were more positively selected — they were drawn from a higher tail of their group’s education distribution. This means that quota politicians are relatively better educated than non-quota politicians, suggesting that they are of no worse quality and maybe even higher quality.

To further bolster this claim — that quota politicians may be of higher quality than non-quota politicians — Prillaman shows that voters hold quota politicians to a higher education standard than non-quota politicians and that the lower levels of average education are largely due to inequality in access to education. 

The evidence provides little justification for the assumption that electoral quotas undermine meritocracy. Instead, inequality of opportunity underlies differences in levels of education, and overall quality can be higher because voters tend to hold minority candidates to higher standards. As affirmative action policies are under challenge across the globe, it is critical to remember that improving minority representation in our democratic systems does not require sacrificing candidate quality.