Democratization, Women's Movements, and Gender-Equitable
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Democratization, Women’s Movements, and Gender-Equitable States: A Framework for Comparison Jocelyn Viterna Kathleen M. Fallon Harvard University McGill University There is a rich collection of case studies examining the relationship between democratization, women’s movements, and gendered state outcomes, but the variation across cases is still poorly understood. In response, this article develops a theoretically- grounded comparative framework to evaluate and explain cross-national variations in the gendered outcomes of democratic transitions. The framework highlights four theoretical factors—the context of the transition, the legacy of women’s previous mobilizations, political parties, and international influences—that together shape the political openings and ideologies available to women’s movements in transitional states. Applying the framework to four test cases, we conclude that women’s movements are most effective at targeting democratizing states when transitions are complete, when women’s movements develop cohesive coalitions, when the ideology behind the transition (rather than the ideology of the winning regime) aligns easily with feminist frames, and when women’s past activism legitimates present-day feminist demands. These findings challenge current conceptualizations of how democratic transitions affect gender in state institutions and provide a comparativeDelivered framework by for Ingenta evaluating to : variation across additional cases. Harvard University Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:09:15 ith the recent wave of democratization gendered state literature by asking what happens Wacross Eastern Europe, Latin America, to the political institutionalization of gender and sub-Saharan Africa, scholars have begun to when a state is transformed by democratic explore how democratic changes affect women. transition. Like other analyses of gender and the state There are strong theoretical reasons to antic- (Brush 2003; Eisenstein 1988; MacKinnon ipate that democratic transitions will create 1989; Orloff 1996; Pateman 1988), these stud- more gender equitable states. First, democrat- ies examine how states create and govern gen- ic transitions provide women (and men) with der relations among their citizens through new opportunities for political participation. institutions, laws, and legal discourses (Jaquette Second, new participatory opportunities typi- and Wolchick 1998; Stephen 1997; Waylen cally coincide with the negotiation and imple- 1994, 2000). Importantly, they extend previous mentation of new state institutions and policies. Authorship is reverse-alphabetical order; both suggestions from Brian Powell, Jason Beckfield, Clem authors contributed equally to this article. Direct all Brooks, Elaine Weiner, Sara Shostak, Wendy Cadge, correspondence to Jocelyn Viterna, Department of David Cunningham, and six anonymous reviewers. Sociology, Harvard University, 6th Floor William We also thank the women in Ghana and El Salvador James Hall, 33 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 for their time and knowledge. Viterna’s research was ([email protected]); or Kathleen M. Fallon, funded by the Social Science Research Council and the Department of Sociology, McGill University, Stephen Fulbright-Hays Foundation. Fallon’s research was Leacock Building, 855 Sherbrooke Street West, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Montreal QC H3A 2T7 Canada (kathleen. Research Council of Canada and Fonds Québécois de [email protected]). We are grateful for comments and las Recherche sur la Société et la Culture. AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2008, VOL. 73 (August:668–689) DEMOCRATIZATION AND GENDER-EQUITABLE STATES—–669 This provides activists with an extremely rare states do not typically adopt feminist changes opportunity to participate in the construction of without pressure from organized groups of a new state apparatus. Third, because many women (Gelb and Hart 1999; Gordon 1994; democratization movements are populated by Lyclama a Nijehol, Vargas, and Wieringa 1998; women’s mobilizations (Jaquette 1994), and Seidman 1999), we place women’s movements because feminist movements often grow out of at the center of our framework, and we use other types of women’s mobilizing (Kaplan social movement theory to conceptualize the 1992; Molyneux 1985; Shayne 2004), we would relationship between the framework’s explana- expect feminist activism to be especially high tory factors (elaborated below). We then apply during such transitional moments. the framework to four states in transition that Paradoxically, however, most scholars con- have witnessed quite divergent outcomes: South clude that democratization has done little to Africa, Argentina, Ghana, and El Salvador. We improve women’s political influence within the conclude that the combined presence of four state, even when women were active in the tran- specific characteristics—a complete transition, sition process. With democratization in Eastern a cohesive coalition within the women’s move- Europe, for example, women’s political partic- ment, a transitional ideology that aligns easily ipation dropped precipitously, maternity leave with feminist frames, and a legacy of women’s policies were curtailed, women’s legislative quo- activism that legitimates present-day feminist tas were dismantled, funding for childcare cen- demands—creates an especially positive context ters decreased, and abortion rights were within which women’s mobilizations can effec- threatened (Einhorn 1993; Haney 1994; Roman tively target democratizing states. These find- 2001; Watson 1993). Similarly, in the develop- ings, generated from cross-national comparison, ing world, democratization brought a reassertion extend current case-based conceptualizations of traditional gender expectations (Jaquette of how democratic transitions affect the gen- 1994; Rai 1996), waning women’sDelivered mobiliza- by Ingentadered state.to : They also question existing under- tions (Craske 1998), and, in many nations,Harvard Universitystandings of the importance of left party declines in women’s parliamentaryWed, representa- 26 Nov 2008ideologies, 15:09:15 “gender-bending” activism, and tion and formal political power (Bystydzienski international influences. and Sekhon 1999; Fisher 1993; Jaquette and This article forwards sociological under- Wolchik 1998; Waylen 1994). standings of gender, democratization, and mobi- We concur that democratization often fails to lization in three ways. First, by identifying and improve gender equity within states, yet schol- explaining cross-national variation in the gen- arly emphasis on democracy’s failure within dered outcomes of democratization, we chal- cases obscures the fact that gendered outcomes lenge and extend the existing case-based of democratic transitions may be quite variable scholarship that generally suggests democrati- across cases. This paucity of systematic cross- zation has failed women. Second, we offer a national comparisons leaves open the question comparative framework through which a deep- of whether and why some democratic transitions er understanding of the gendered processes of result in more “women-friendly” states than democratization can be developed, especially others. Are there particular configurations of with extension to additional cases. And finally, transitional contexts and social mobilizations our conjunctural explanation of why some that are especially likely to create feminist women’s movements are more successful than changes? Or, conversely, are the democratic others, given the shared context of democrati- ideals upon which new state institutions are zation, provides new ways for thinking about modeled imbued with patriarchal ideologies divergent mobilization outcomes. and organizational structures that generate con- sistently masculine state outcomes, regardless BUILDING A COMPARATIVE of variation in mobilization characteristics or FRAMEWORK OF THE transition processes? GENDERED STATE Using insights from existing case studies, we develop in this article a theoretically-grounded Drawing from existing literature, we first con- comparative framework for evaluating gendered struct a comparative framework that helps cap- variation across democratizing states. Because ture and explain gender variation across 670—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW democratic transitions.1 The conception of states Of course, women’s movements also have as inherently masculine structures is at the foun- agency, and their successes are determined in dation of our framework (Brush 2003; Orloff part by how they frame and pursue movement 1996; Parpart and Staudt 1989; Waylen 1998). goals. We therefore examine the strategies and Undergirding this is the assumption that states frames of women’s movements during moments will not typically adopt feminist changes with- of democratic transitions. Strategies are the out pressure from organized groups of women actions a movement uses to present its goals to (Gelb and Hart 1999; Gordon 1994; Lyclama a an intended audience (e.g., lobbying or protests) Nijehol et al. 1998; Seidman 1999).2 We iden- and frames are the descriptive structures a move- tify four political factors that are often cited as ment uses to articulate its goals (Benford and critical for understanding the presence and effec- Snow 2000; Snow et al. 1986). tiveness of women’s movements in new democ- racies: (1) the democratic transition itself, (2) the FOUR FACTORS INFLUENCING THE legacy of previous women’s mobilizations, (3) EFFECTIVENESS OF WOMEN’S MOVEMENTS the actions and ideologies