Abstract: Elections are a form of direct democracy, serving as a mechanism through which the will, aspirations, and sovereign power of the people are expressed in building the State in general and state power institutions at both central and local levels in particular. Through elections, the people exercise their democratic rights by nominating themselves, proposing candidates, or selecting qualified representatives to act on their behalf in exercising state power and managing public affairs.

Given the crucial roles of the National Assembly and People's Councils, electoral candidates are required to meet specific legal standards. These include loyalty to the nation and the people; good moral character; appropriate educational and professional qualifications; strong political will to fight against corruption and wastefulness; sufficient health, experience, and reputation to fulfill their duties; and the ability to maintain close contact with the public and gain their trust.

To select qualified candidates, the nomination and introduction process must follow strict procedures, ensuring democracy, scientific criteria, and particularly, representativeness. In order to guarantee representation of diverse social groups, electoral laws may stipulate candidate structures by social group composition. For minorities or vulnerable groups, the law may introduce a “quota” mechanism—setting a required number or proportion of candidates within the nomination list. Groups typically covered by such quotas include women, ethnic minorities, and persons with disabilities.

Keywords: Electoral quota, Elections, Persons with disabilities, Candidate

I. The Concept and Significance of Electoral Quotas for Candidates with Disabilities

Human rights norms (standards)[1] represent the minimum requirements of rights, reflecting the most fundamental values recognized in core international human rights treaties. Accordingly, all civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights of every individual must be respected, protected, and effectively realized. The development process must be ensured without discrimination against any group, guaranteeing that all groups and individuals in society are able to participate in decision-making as well as benefit from development.

For the community of persons with disabilities, political participation is an important way to improve their ability to integrate into society and to create better conditions for development. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) emphasizes the rights to vote and to stand for election for persons with disabilities; however, in many countries, very few persons with disabilities have become politicians or even candidates in elections. Therefore, the establishment of quotas for candidates can enhance access to political decision-making processes, empower persons with disabilities to become leaders in their communities,[2] and strengthen the sharing of their values with society at large. The introduction of quotas aims to increase the representation of marginalized groups, promote their formal participation in political processes, and broaden their access to decision-making.

Basically, a quota can be understood as a fixed number or percentage of individuals belonging to a marginalized group who are guaranteed participation or provided with enhanced access to positions within an institution or organization. If quotas are established in law, candidate lists must comply with the quota requirements before official elections take place.

While electoral quotas for women have become relatively common, quotas for persons with disabilities remain a new and less-discussed topic. Efforts to promote the political participation of persons with disabilities have also been more limited compared to similar measures for women.[3] Alongside significant benefits, the implementation of quotas may also entail challenges, particularly due to prevailing biases that perceive such representatives as less capable of exercising power or holding authority on an equal footing with other members. As a result, even when elected, these representatives may still have to continue struggling to claim or exercise their rights.

In addition, in order to operate a quota system, many questions must be addressed regarding how quotas for persons with disabilities should be implemented. These processes typically involve multiple stages, depending on different electoral systems and different quota models. For example, in the pre-election stage, a range of issues must be clarified: Who qualifies as a person with a disability (is there a distinction between physical and mental disabilities in this context)? Must candidates display visible signs of disability? Should candidates be required to represent different types of disabilities? And once the final list of candidates has been established, how can states ensure that the minimum number of candidates with disabilities are actually elected?[4]

In addition to its significance in terms of empowerment and affirming the equal status of the community of persons with disabilities alongside other communities, the perspective in favor of introducing quotas for vulnerable groups is further reinforced by the following arguments:

- Granting quotas to these groups does not constitute discrimination; rather, it is a means to reduce the barriers that hinder their opportunities to participate in political life.

- While the introduction of quotas may generate certain conflicts, such tensions are only temporary and will not persist indefinitely.

- The experiences of representatives from vulnerable groups in general, and of persons with disabilities in particular, help to ensure diversity in discussions and decision-making processes on policies that have far-reaching impacts on society.

Nevertheless, opposing viewpoints argue that the introduction of quotas may undermine democracy, as voters are not granted full autonomy to choose the representatives who can most effectively act on their behalf—particularly in cases where candidates are appointed. Some even go further, emphasizing that quotas may be used as a tool of discrimination against candidates who are not part of the quota group. At the same time, quotas do not necessarily guarantee the effectiveness of political activities,[5] which may be affected by the limited capacity of candidates elected primarily because they fall within a quota, rather than on the basis of their actual qualifications.

It must be affirmed that the use of quotas is not necessarily the best option in every situation; however, in the context of certain countries, this approach may create new opportunities for broader public political participation. The full political participation of vulnerable groups, including persons with disabilities, not only benefits the individuals themselves but also carries significant meaning for their families, communities, and the national interest as a whole.

II. Types of Electoral Quotas for Candidates with Disabilities

Given the diversity of social and cultural contexts, the determination of quotas must also be appropriate, and three main types of quotas often appear: reserved seats, candidate quotas, and (voluntary) political party quotas.[6] Each type of quota carries its own specific requirements.

Reserved seats: This type of quota requires certain seats to be “set aside” within the elected body. Such quotas may be stipulated in the constitution or in statutes enacted by the national legislature. Accordingly, the provision directly mandates that a specified number of seats in parliament or other representative bodies be allocated to members of disadvantaged groups. These seats may be filled either through nomination or election. This mechanism can directly increase the representation ratio of vulnerable groups in legislative bodies and help reduce the burden of campaigning for candidates who have fewer opportunities to reach the public during elections. However, this mechanism also limits the public’s ability to observe and assess candidates’ qualifications, and it may easily give rise to conflicts with other criteria or other candidates during the electoral process.

Candidate quotas: This type of quota requires that the final list of candidates submitted for election must contain a certain proportion of candidates representing the targeted community groups (such as women, ethnic minorities, or persons with disabilities). These quotas are often mandatory and explicitly stipulated in electoral law. In some cases, they may also require that candidates from vulnerable groups be placed in specific positions on the electoral list. For instance, women or candidates with disabilities may be required to occupy the second position on the list. Such placement requirements can make it easier for candidates from vulnerable groups to be elected, as they prevent political parties from relegating them to the bottom of the list, where their chances of winning would otherwise be diminished. However, because the requirement to place such candidates in certain positions (usually near the top of the list) significantly increases their likelihood of victory, these placement rules are sometimes referred to as “double quotas.”[7] The use of this mechanism addresses the shortcomings of fixed reserved seats, ensuring that candidates must still strive to demonstrate their qualifications before the electorate. Nonetheless, in order to increase the likelihood of securing representation for the target group in elected bodies, the overall number of candidates must also be raised. This, however, may pose difficulties in identifying sufficient suitable candidates, particularly in certain localities.

Voluntary political party quotas: When political parties agree to include a certain number of individuals from a disadvantaged group on their party’s candidate list before submitting it to the national election commission, this is regarded as a voluntary quota adopted by political parties. Such arrangements are typically not provided for in constitutions or statutes, which means that in practice, some parties in a given country may choose to follow quota recommendations while others may not. Even in this form, quotas can be classified into two categories: aspirants quotas (which set a target percentage of aspirants, though this percentage does not necessarily translate into the final party nomination list) and candidate quotas (where the party’s preliminary nomination list must include a certain proportion of candidates with disabilities. Note that this refers to intra-party candidate quotas prior to submission to the election commission, and differs from the candidate quota described earlier, which applies to the official electoral list). This type of quota has the advantage of leveraging political parties’ resources to identify candidates, thereby expanding both the scope and the number of eligible candidates in areas of interest to the party. Nevertheless, the voluntary nature of such quotas constitutes the greatest obstacle to ensuring that candidates with disabilities ultimately appear on the final list of candidates for election or among those elected.

Whether established through the constitution, legislation, or voluntary party agreements, quotas are ultimately determined by those who control the decision-making process. For proponents of quotas, it is crucial to consider which type of quota would be most suitable for the given context, and what percentage, number of “seats,” or positions on the list would be ideal. In addition, a further question arises as to how effective such quotas will be at different stages of the electoral process.

In order to identify the most appropriate type of quota, it is essential to determine and adequately assess the difficulties that persons with disabilities may encounter at different stages of the electoral process.[8] From there, each stage must be further evaluated in light of specific influencing factors—such as cultural context, prevailing trends, and methods of organization or operation—which will ultimately determine the choice of quota category.

First, it is necessary to consider an overview of the capacity of persons with disabilities to interact with the wider community. Such interaction in various aspects of social life and in the political sphere may be assessed through factors such as the general perception of the competence of persons with disabilities; their access to information (particularly information on policies, laws, and elections, as well as access to legal interpretations); and the availability of infrastructure systems that meet the needs of persons with disabilities (such as documentation systems, equipment, and facilities). If the overall assessment of the context indicates positive signs, advocacy for quotas may not be urgent at the national level but may still be necessary within smaller scopes, such as within political parties, organizations, or enterprises. Conversely, clearer regulations, including those on quotas, will be necessary to promote and enhance the capacity of persons with disabilities to engage in social life.

More directly related to elections, the consideration of quotas may be focused on two stages: the selection of potential candidates and the election campaign.

During the candidate selection stage, obstacles faced by persons with disabilities may include general external barriers similar to those outlined above, particularly for independent candidates. However, the primary scope of concern lies in the internal candidate selection processes of political parties. Important factors that may influence this stage include: the timeframe for candidate evaluation, internal application procedures, financial limitations, and the party’s perceptions or expectations as reflected in its policy strategies and campaign platforms. Potential barriers may include excessively short evaluation and application periods, the lack of sufficiently diverse application materials tailored for specific groups (such as persons with disabilities or racial and linguistic minorities), restrictions allowing applications for only a few designated positions, or requirements to submit applications at locations far from where candidates reside. Financially, candidates with disabilities may face additional burdens related to hiring support (for mobility, document collection, communication, or legal consultation), while they often already struggle with limited income to meet daily living expenses. At this stage, party expectations of finding “outstanding” candidates can also become a hindrance if candidates with disabilities have had fewer opportunities to participate in collective activities and demonstrate their qualifications. Introducing quotas at this stage may be coupled with financial support and the establishment of clear criteria for candidate competence, thereby helping to alleviate pressures on candidates with disabilities.

Once a candidate’s name has successfully appeared on the electoral list, the subsequent campaign stage continues to present numerous challenges for all candidates. For candidates with disabilities, the requirement to travel to multiple locations for campaigning poses both physical and financial challenges compared to other candidates. From an economic perspective, for instance, reports from Uganda indicate that campaign costs may range from USD 43,000 to USD 143,000, while in Nigeria they may reach approximately USD 700,000.[9] This process may prove counterproductive—like a double-edged sword—if candidates with disabilities attempt to demonstrate themselves in the same way as other candidates. In such cases, quotas can provide for support either from political parties or from the electoral commission in arranging programs and campaign activities tailored to these candidates.

III. Regulations on Quotas for Candidates with Disabilities in the Electoral Laws of Selected Countries and Reference Values for Vietnam

The application of various forms of electoral quotas is not a new issue in many countries. The types of quotas adopted are determined by multiple factors, most notably the political will of the ruling forces.

During the drafting process of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2004, the coalition of Eastern European regional organizations proposed that member states be required to establish reserved seat quotas in representative bodies at both the central and local levels.[10] However, this proposal was not incorporated into Article 29 of the Convention.[11]

In 2020, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published the Indicator Framework for the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Accordingly, the list of indicators guiding the implementation of Article 29 (The right to participate in political and public life) includes recommended measures to promote: the participation of persons with disabilities in the activities and governance of political parties; the candidacy of persons with disabilities; the election of candidates with disabilities; and the holding of public office and civil service positions by persons with disabilities. To implement these recommended measures, states may need to: raise awareness and undertake other promotional actions regarding the contributions of persons with disabilities in political and public life; introduce measures to support electoral campaigns (such as priority access to media outlets and encouraging media engagement with candidates with disabilities); establish mandatory quotas requiring that persons with disabilities be included on candidate lists of political parties and party alliances; apply preferential public funding for candidates or party lists that include persons with disabilities; provide for reserved seat quotas for persons with disabilities in parliament; or require mandatory quotas for persons with disabilities in civil service positions in the public sector.[12]

At the national level, some countries have adopted reserved seat quotas for persons with disabilities in their parliaments. Under such provisions, the law stipulates a minimum number of legislators with disabilities, typically accounting for less than 2% of the total legislative seats. Since 1996, Uganda has allocated five seats (out of a total of 431) in its Parliament to persons with disabilities. The corresponding quota in Rwanda and Liberia (House of Representatives) is one seat.[13] In Kenya, the National Assembly reserves a general quota of 12 seats for representatives of youth, persons with disabilities, and workers, while the Senate reserves 2 seats specifically for persons with disabilities.[14] The allocation of seats for persons with disabilities in Kenya’s Senate is also mirrored in Zimbabwe and Afghanistan.[15]

In the case of Uganda, the country has the highest number of persons with disabilities represented in government worldwide—totaling 47,000 individuals across local, regional, and national levels. Members of Parliament with disabilities hold diverse positions across various committees. Their work in parliamentary sessions has also been facilitated by adjusted rules allowing for the use of guide dogs and sign language interpreters during meetings.[16]

In Kenya, in addition to the constitutional provision on reserved seat quotas, the Political Parties Act also establishes a Political Parties Fund. This fund is allocated to support the activities of political parties that meet prescribed requirements and is likewise used to promote the representation in Parliament and local representative bodies of vulnerable groups such as women, persons with disabilities, minorities, and youth.[17]

In addition to countries that establish direct electoral quotas, some others apply quotas solely in the field of employment in general (covering both the public and private sectors). For instance, the employment quota for persons with disabilities is 3% in Belgium, 6% in France, and 5% in Germany. In theory, the establishment of employment quotas for persons with disabilities could be expected to affect the number of politicians with disabilities and political appointees, since employment relations help build personal networks and may provide greater public visibility. However, there is no significant difference between countries that have employment quotas for persons with disabilities and those that do not. While national employment quotas do not appear to affect the proportion of politicians with disabilities or political appointees, the establishment of candidate quotas for persons with disabilities by political parties may achieve this objective. Precedents show that many voluntary quotas for women or ethnic minorities have been demonstrated to increase women’s political participation.[18]

In the case of Vietnam, there are currently no legal provisions establishing quotas for candidates with disabilities in elections to the National Assembly or People’s Councils. In the field of labor and employment, Vietnam has so far only adopted provisions encouraging the employment of persons with disabilities in production and business establishments, but has not yet introduced any mechanism to promote their recruitment into state agencies.

Nevertheless, Vietnam has already introduced quota provisions for women and representatives of ethnic minorities. The type of quota currently applied for female and ethnic minority candidates is a candidate quota (requiring that electoral lists submitted for voting contain a certain proportion of such candidates). This serves as a basis for Việt Nam to continue drawing on international experience and domestic practice in considering the possibility of adopting quotas for candidates with disabilities in future elections.

Drawing on the experience of other countries and in order to fulfill the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—of which Vietnam has been an official member since 2015—Vietnam should consider introducing a quota mechanism for persons with disabilities in elections at an early stage, with several orientations such as:

First, it is not necessary to select only one specific type of quota; rather, different forms of quotas may be combined, since each has particular significance at different stages of the electoral process. In the context of Việt Nam, priority may be given to considering the use of candidate quotas (as already applied for women and ethnic minorities). In addition, voluntary quotas may also be considered, given that Việt Nam has only one ruling political party, and thus internal party regulations could provide substantial value.

Second, in addition to establishing direct electoral quotas, Vietnam should also consider introducing quota provisions for recruitment in public- and private-sector agencies, units, and organizations. Expanding the scope of employment relationships for persons with disabilities not only enables them to participate more effectively in the overall development process but also helps improve public awareness. This, in turn, creates an effective stepping stone for their direct participation in formal political agendas. The experience of Uganda demonstrates that diversifying the allocation of employment positions (across different levels and within different departments of the same institution) helps to ensure broader and faster spillover effects. However, it is equally important to conduct regular evaluations to prevent situations where candidates are placed in positions merely for symbolic purposes—so that the public perceives a broad representation of different groups—commonly referred to as tokenism.

Third, the establishment of quotas for persons with disabilities, as well as for other specific groups, should be supplemented with more detailed provisions on standards and potential conflicts in order to avoid situations of “double quotas” or cases where it is impossible to choose between two candidates belonging to two separate quota groups.

Fourth, in order for the quota mechanism to be effectively implemented, more detailed budgetary categories should be established for election-related expenditures concerning special candidates such as persons with disabilities or candidates from ethnic minority groups. This is necessary because these groups have specific needs regarding transportation, interpretation of documents, and related support services.

Fifth, consideration should be given to introducing incentive measures and preferential policies for agencies, organizations, or localities that have candidates with disabilities during the electoral period. Such measures would help increase support from these very agencies, organizations, and localities (which may otherwise face reduced workforce capacity as candidates must devote time and effort to preparing for the election), while also enhancing public outreach and visibility.

IV. Conclusion

The application of electoral quotas for candidates with disabilities is a contemporary issue that has received limited attention in many countries, including Vietnam. While not a mandatory requirement, it is widely encouraged and offers a range of models from which to choose, thereby ensuring compatibility with national contexts. It can be observed that quota models are not mutually exclusive; rather, they may coexist and play complementary and reinforcing roles. Adopting quotas in elections generally does not impose significant additional costs, while yielding long-term benefits for society as well as for representative bodies themselves, given the diversity of contributions to policy discussions and decision-making. In practice, countries that have effectively implemented electoral quota models are not necessarily wealthy nations, suggesting that Vietnam need not be overly concerned about financial burdens. Moreover, promoting the political participation of persons with disabilities is one of the obligations that Vietnam must soon fulfill as a State Party to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The use of quotas is only one of several meaningful measures to promote the participation of persons with disabilities in the political life of the country. In addition, it is essential to develop strategies to enhance the quality of human resources within this group, since elected representatives must possess certain professional competencies and ensure continuity. However, personnel training and development planning must preserve competitiveness; it should avoid limiting the number of candidates to fewer than or equal to the demand, which may cause potential candidates to feel assured once included in the training plan, thereby merely “meeting the quota” without further motivation to improve their expertise and professional capacity. Accordingly, this study should continue to be supplemented and expanded toward examining training, planning, and capacity-building mechanisms applied both generally and specifically for vulnerable groups. Furthermore, future research should also focus on exploring the possibility of combining different quota mechanisms, as well as campaign and voter engagement processes for candidates with disabilities, in order to identify and analyze the advantages and limitations of such combined approaches.

References

1. United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006.

2. Carol Thomas, cited in: Sackey, E., Disability and political participation in Ghana: an alternative perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 17:4, 366–381. DOI: 10.1080/15017419.2014.941925, p. 377 (2015).

3. Elizabeth Evans & Stefanie Reher, Barriers to Elected Office for Disabled People, report published by the Government Equalities Office (UK) (2021).

4. Global Disability Rights Now, Utilizing Quotas to Increase Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities (2017), available at: https://miusa.globaldisabilityrightsnow.org/utilizing-quotas-increase-political-participation-persons-disabilities/ (accessed 14 February 2024).

5. Ilias Bantekas, Michael Ashley Stein & Dimitris Anastasiou, The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Commentary, Oxford Commentaries on International Law, p. 839 (2018). See also Draft Compilation of Proposals by the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, available at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/elementscomp.doc (accessed 23 March 2024).

6. International Foundation for Electoral Systems & National Democratic Institute, Equal Access: How to Include Persons with Disabilities in Elections and Political Processes, p. 53 (2021), available at: https://www.ifes.org/publications/equal-access-how-include-persons-disabilities-elections-and-political-processes (accessed 15 February 2024).

7. International IDEA, Gender Quotas Database, https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/gender-quotas-database/quotas (accessed 29 February 2024).

8. Mitzi Waltz & Alice Schippers, Politically disabled: barriers and facilitating factors affecting people with disabilities in political life within the European Union, Disability & Society, 36(4), 517–540, pp. 520, 527, 534 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1751075 (accessed 29 March 2024).

9. OHCHR, Human Rights Indicators on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2020), available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/disabilities/sdg-crpd-resource-package (accessed 22 March 2024).

10. Roz Price, Strengthening Participation of People with Disabilities in Leadership Roles in Developing Countries, K4D Helpdesk. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies (2018).

11. Westminster Foundation for Democracy, The State of Political Inclusion of Persons with Disability (PWDs) within Political Parties in Kenya, p. 6 (2020), available at: https://www.wfd.org/what-we-do/resources/state-political-inclusion-persons-disabilities-within-political-parties-kenya (accessed 23 March 2024).

*Dr. Nguyễn Anh Đức – School of Law, Vietnam National University, Hanoi

[1] Universal human rights standards at the global level are enshrined in universal instruments such as: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966); the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), among others.

[2] Global Disability Rights Now, Utilizing Quotas to Increase Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities (2017), available at: https://miusa.globaldisabilityrightsnow.org/utilizing-quotas-increase-political-participation-persons-disabilities/ (accessed 14 February 2024).

[3] Elizabeth Evans & Stefanie Reher, Barriers to Elected Office for Disabled People, report published by the Government Equalities Office (UK), p. 27-28 (2021).

[4] International Foundation for Electoral Systems & National Democratic Institute, Equal Access: How to Include Persons with Disabilities in Elections and Political Processes, p. 53 (2014), available at: https://www.ifes.org/publications/equal-access-how-include-persons-disabilities-elections-and-political-processes (accessed 15 February 2024).

[5] Carol Thomas, cited in: Sackey, E., Disability and political participation in Ghana: an alternative perspective, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 17(4), 366–381 (2015), DOI: 10.1080/15017419.2014.941925, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2014.941925, p. 377.

[6] See: International IDEA, Gender Quotas Database, https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/gender-quotas-database/quotas (accessed 29 February 2024).

[7] See: Global Disability Rights Now, Utilizing Quotas to Increase Political Participation of Persons with Disabilities (2017), https://miusa.globaldisabilityrightsnow.org/utilizing-quotas-increase-political-participation-persons-disabilities/ (accessed 28 February 2024).

[8] See: Elizabeth Evans & Stefanie Reher, Barriers to Elected Office for Disabled People, report published by the Government Equalities Office (UK), p. 45-68 (2021).

[9] Westminster Foundation for Democracy, The State of Political Inclusion of Persons with Disability (PWDs) within Political Parties in Kenya, p. 6 (2020), available at: https://www.wfd.org/what-we-do/resources/state-political-inclusion-persons-disabilities-within-political-parties-kenya (accessed 23 March 2024).

[10] Ilias Bantekas, Michael Ashley Stein & Dimitris Anastasiou, The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Commentary, Oxford Commentaries on International Law, p. 839 (2018) Compilation of Proposals for Discussion by the Drafting Committee of the Convention available at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/elementscomp.doc (accessed 23/3/2024).

[11] United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006).

[12] OHCHR, Human Rights Indicators on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2020), available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/disabilities/sdg-crpd-resource-package (accessed 22/3/2024).

[13] Elizabeth Evans & Stefanie Reher, Barriers to Elected Office for Disabled People, report published by the Government Equalities Office (UK), p. 36 (2021).

[14] See the About the National Assembly page at: http://www.parliament.go.ke/the-national-assembly/about and the About the Senate page at: http://parliament.go.ke/index.php/the-senate/about (accessed 15 March 2024).

[15] Elizabeth Evans & Stefanie Reher, Barriers to Elected Office for Disabled People, report published by the Government Equalities Office (UK), p. 36 (2021).

[16] Roz Price, Strengthening Participation of People with Disabilities in Leadership Roles in Developing Countries, K4D Helpdesk. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies, p. 13 (2018).

[17] Westminster Foundation for Democracy, The State of Political Inclusion of Persons with Disability (PWDs) within Political parties in Kenya, p. 8-11 (2020).

[18] Mitzi Waltz và Alice Schippers, Politically disabled: barriers and facilitating factors affecting people with disabilities in political life within the European Union, Disability & Society, 36(4), 517–540, p. 520, 527, 534 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1751075, (truy cập ngày 29/3/2024).