evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

2018 Parity Law and Its Unmet 36% Quota — Guinea-Bissau

Guinea-Bissau · Bissau · See the Guinea-Bissau profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 80% 37/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Guinea-Bissau's 2018 Parity Law mandates a 36% minimum for women on candidate lists and in appointed bodies, but the 2023 elections returned only 9.8% women (10 of ~102 seats) — down from 13.7% in 2019 — showing a quota without an enforcement mechanism can fail to move outcomes.

13.7 %
Women's seats, 2019 election
9.8 %
Women's seats, 2023 election
2018 Parity Law and Its Unmet 36% Quota — Guinea-Bissau

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Assembleia Nacional Popular da Guiné-Bissau
Period
2018–2023
Keywords
electoral law, gender quotas, political representation, enforcement gaps

Context

Guinea-Bissau's Parliament unanimously passed a Parity Law on 2 August 2018, setting a minimum 36% quota for women on candidate lists for legislative and local elections and in key appointments — but without a compliance or sanctions mechanism.

Results

In the March 2019 legislative election, women won 14 of ~102 seats (13.7%). In the June 2023 election, held under the same law, women's representation fell further to 10 seats (9.8%).

Conclusions

Independent election monitors attribute the shortfall to the law's lack of a compliance mechanism — unlike Cabo Verde's funding-conditionality model — compounded by the country's recurrent political instability.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k)
Time to results
Short (< 1 year)
Staffing & skills
Assembleia Nacional Popular administrative staff

Conditions for success

  • a binding sanctions/funding-conditionality mechanism, as used in Cabo Verde

Common failure modes

  • law sets a target with no consequence for non-compliant parties
  • recurrent political instability complicates enforcement

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful