Democratic Practices in Operating Procedures

Scholars maintain that the level of parties‟ institutionalization (e.g., party-age,

organizational structure, internal rules, membership, operating procedures and practices, links to society) influences female parliamentary representation.² Guided by this scholarship, I look at parties that employ democratic practices in the transfer of leadership and decision-making to find out whether these practices influence female party membership and enhance their leadership prospects. Democratic practices imply granting equal opportunity to all members to compete for any position and at any level. ³ I expect that parties employing democratic procedures enhance female membership and leadership more than parties that do not employ these procedures (hypothesis H2); and examine whether my informants also find this. In order, though, to assess whether this theory finds support among the party leaders, female members and activists included in my survey, I analyze their responses to the question “Do you find that democratic procedures enhance women’s membership and leadership chances?”

A female activist and political scientist in a civil-confessional party that sees itself as democratic lists democratic procedures and other elements of import to women‟s leadership:

First and foremost, secularism is at the top of the list since once religion (Christianity or Islam) enters into the formula it is automatically associated with patriarchy, which is the major barrier to women‟s leadership. Second, institutionalization, and the presence of

1 For a conceptualization of pluralism in party membership and democratic procedures, refer to chapter One.

2 See, Lovenduski and Norris 1995, Kittilson 1997, Tessler 2002, among others.

3 For detailed theoretical justification, see chapter One. For instance, Basu suggests that, “In general, the stronger democratic institutions and practices are, the greater the opportunities this affords to women to achieve representation through the party system.” (2005: 34). Thus, more in-depth research is needed to study how different operating procedures within parties influence women‟s leadership (See also, Fish 2002, Donno and Russett 2004, Norris and Lovenduski 1993, Basu 2005, and Deeb 2006, among others).

explicit, clear, transparent, replicable rules which allow for accountability are critical.

Third, democratic procedures that include competitive elections, consultative decision-making, and meritocratic promotion system are free of gender bias or nepotism.

In this connection, a female activist in a pre-war secular, leftist, democratic and pluralist party critically remarks that,

Parties marked by democratic deficits and in which the consultative process in decision-making is weak do not work well for women‟s leadership. This is mainly because women are not given equal opportunities in recruitment, selection, promotion, and nomination to office.

Another respondent, a former female MP candidate from an Islamist party asserts that, Men block women from leadership positions, especially in religious parties. If

democracy is practiced instead of being proclaimed, women would have had a greater chance of assuming leadership. In effect, the democratic deficit in Islamist parties is the reason why women do not share in decision-making and are not present in their

leadership bodies.⁴

These statements indicate that democratic practices are recognized by respondents as factors of import for women‟s leadership. These politicians and activists, who are also scholars, are reporting from their own vantage points. They are both in top leadership positions, which is reassuring because it substantiates my theoretical expectations.

Information from party by-laws, supported by party administrators, provides data on the process of leadership transition and on the composition of membership by religious affiliation (plural or otherwise). However, in the case of decision-making, information is based solely on statements of party leaders and female activists. In the following paragraphs, I examine

separately transfer of leadership and decision-making practices in the inner working of political parties.

1. Transfer of leadership

4 In effect, interviews conducted with women in many religious parties had to be cleared by party leadership, which reflects democratic deficits and authoritarianism permeating some of these parties. They control women -- but also men -- and decisions are centralized within the hierarchical party structure, despite the claim of shoura and consultative process.

One indicator of democratic practices is the smooth, peaceful and competitive process by which leadership is transferred among party elites. In this context, Tessler notes that, “

Institutional and process considerations call attention to the need for mechanisms that make political leaders accountable to those they govern, including free, competitive, and regular elections.” (2002: 337).

Data on transfer of leadership cover the term in office and periodicity of elections, nominations to office, competitiveness and contestation, as well as by-laws ensuring transparency and smoothness of the process.Information from party by-laws and party

administrators is used to evaluate the composition of membership by religious affiliation (plural or otherwise) and the process of leadership transitions. Information gathered from these sources shows that only five out of the 18 relevant parties pursue democratic process in leadership transitions. More precisely, in the three pre-war secular a-religious (Communist, Syrian Social and Baath) and two of the Sunni-dominated religious extremist parties (Islamic Group and Islamic Action), leadership is transferred in accordance with due democratic process via periodic and competitive elections as stipulated in the by-laws. Leadership in the other parties is

personalized. In civil-confessional and in most religious parties, the same leaders are voted again and again into office, violating or amending the by-laws in the process. In these cases, no one dares to run against the current leader. The same leaders are either automatically renewed or they continue to lead by acclamation. More often than not, leadership in these parties is simply

inherited as a family heirloom or as head of a religious sect. Party leaders are generally the feudal lords (Zai‟m, political boss or patron, charismatic leader) of the district where the party

initially formed. In most of these cases, party leadership is but a reflection of the prevalence of confessional identity over democratic process in leadership transitions.⁵

How does democratic process in leadership transitions affect women‟s chances in advancement and promotion to leadership? Responses of some female interviewees in post-war civil-confessional parties point to a gap between de jure by-laws and de facto practices. Even in parties that claim pursuit of due democratic process in leadership transfers – as in holding regular elections and open nominations for others to compete -- there is built-in gender-bias and/or fear of rocking the establishment, or both. In other words, women are afraid of antagonizing the current leader by running against him. For example, a female activist in a civil-confessional party justifies that, “Women have not managed to build alliances and are not supported by the party‟s rules and by-laws. It may be against the conventional wisdom to run for the top post.”

This female activist implies that women have (a) to build alliances with men in the party to secure their support if they run for top position(s); and (b) that the party by-laws must include special measures to ensure that women are guaranteed opportunity in this process. To

corroborate her statement, the only female Secretary-General in a post-war civil-confessional party states that,

I have a dream to lead the party one day. But, I know that I will have limited support not because I am a woman, but because the party unanimously elected the son of the

assassinated founder of the party as the leader. He is young, driven, and performing well.

However, in order to influence decision-making, women should be visible and impose their presence.

This supports the argument of Anne Phillips‟ (1995) that “…the only way that institutions will change is through the politics of their (women’s) presence (in Duerst-Lahti, 2006:10). Opinions of other interlocutors differ from this female activist. For instance, a female activist in a

5 For instance, the by-laws of a war-origin religious conservative but not extremist party were amended to re-elect the current leader, who took office after the assassination of his predecessor.

confessional party remarks that, “There is no need to run against our leader, especially since he is young, liberal, modern, tolerant and above all charismatic. Continuity in leadership outweighs change.” She does not feel right about rocking a boat, which is on track. However, she is aware that nothing should prevent women from competing for top position(s) since democratic

procedures in the party are in place. Therefore, this may be a matter of personal choice by women but not a failure of democratic process.

In contrast, a female party activist in a pre-war secular party musters her courage to run against the current male leader. In so doing, she is making a statement that competition is open to all and that democratic process in the party is not a failure. She stresses that, “I am determined to run for leadership of the party, although I have slim chances of winning. But, I want to make a statement. Women constitute a good proportion of the party‟s membership and they deserve more representation in leadership positions.” Indeed, she ran in party elections during summer 2010 and she is now vice president of the Communist Party. Another case in point is that in a post-war civil-confessional party, a female was elected as president of the party and ran the party for eleven years until her husband was released from prison in the post-war period. Although this demonstrates that the transition process did not block a female candidate, this episode may still count as an instance of a within-family leadership transition, rather than as a transparent and rule-guided process. However, when she was interviewed, she sang the praises of democratic process in the party and how she ran the party for eleven years and the difficulties she faced as a woman until she imposed her presence „a-la-Phillips‟.

Nevertheless, impressions gained from responses of party leaders and female activists indicate that democratic procedures in leadership transitions are viewed as a factor explaining women‟s prospects and that sometimes the absence of open competition for party leadership has

deterred women from seeking top posts. Are women involved in the decision-making process?

The following section addresses this issue to see whether women‟s involvement or lack of it can explain party behaviour towards their chances for leadership.

2. Decision-making process

Political parties may have a centralized or decentralized system of decision-making.

Scholars suggest that, “It may make a difference whether the party is centralized, whether it has close connections with interest organizations of various kinds, and how large its membership is.”

(Lane and Ersson, 1987:96) However, Kittilson (1997) maintains that centralization – seen as decisions taken centrally but not necessarily by top elites only -- is better for women‟s

leadership. Other scholars argue – and I share their views-- that decentralization in decision-making works better for women‟s leadership because it involves consultation, allows

contestation and freedom of expression.⁶ I refer to centralization or decentralization in decision-making as the „how‟ and „by whom‟ not as to „where‟ decisions are taken within the parties‟

organizational structure. In other words, if this process is centralized in the hands of a few elites at the top or decentralized via a consultative process in which women are involved. In the previous section, parties are categorized as democratic or not, on the basis of the process of how

6 The United Nations provides guidelines for policy-makers in democratizing and conflict-stricken areas to empower women and promote leadership in political parties. This checklist includes the following queries: “(1) Have the constitution, manifesto, policies and structures of each political party incorporated gender equality and women‟s empowerment objectives to ensure equal representation and participation of women and men in decision-making at all levels? (2) Do the procedures to select candidates for decision-decision-making positions within the party structures, as well as nomination to presidential, parliamentary, provincial and local government positions, allow for gender equality between women and men? Are the party leadership and nomination structures democratic,

transparent, gender balanced and gender sensitive? (3) Do the political parties have programmes to ensure an increased number of women in party decision-making structures at all levels and for the nomination to parliamentary provincial and local councils so that a minimum target of at least 30% of women in such bodies is achieved? (4) Do political parties include commitments to promote gender equality as a priority issue in their manifestos and

campaign platforms? (5) Do political parties have awareness raising, training and capacity building programmes, specifically for women members, aimed at enhancing their capacities and competences? (6) Have the political parties set norms and standards aimed at promoting the position of women …?” (United Nations Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women (OSAGI), Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), “Women and Electoral Resource Guide: Enhancing Women’s Participation in Electoral Processes in Post-conflict Countries” (New York: United Nations), 2004:. 3. See, Lovenduski and Norris 1993.

leadership is transferred. I also examine the process – decentralized or centralized-- by which decisions are taken within the inner workings of parties; and whether women see that this affects their leadership prospects. Both of these indicators of democratic procedures are coded for quantitative testing.

Responses of interviewees describing whether the process of decision-making is centralized or decentralized and whether women are involved provides data on the inner workings of the 18 relevant parties in this respect. Twelve out of the 18 relevant parties pursue decentralized decision-making in which women are involved. These include all four secular parties (Communist, Syrian Social and Baath, and Tajaddod), and eight of the nine

civil-confessional parties (except National Liberals). However, all five parties with religious platforms do not involve women in the decision-making process.⁷

The following discussion relates to democratic procedures, especially how few elites in some parties continue to hold the decision-making powers within their hands, although this may favor women‟s leadership. For example, a female activist in a civil-confessional party reports that, “The party leader wanted more women in leadership positions. So, he encouraged those who are qualified to run for executive office. I ran but when I did not win, he appointed me to the council.” Another case in point is the one-time appointment of six women to leadership

positions by the leader of a religious but tolerant party, just before elections. This was hailed by the media, but feminists and political observers are skeptical that such a step will not be

sustained since it did not follow due process and is not institutionalized. The leader of a pre-war secular party criticizes such decisions in that, “This was only to improve the image in the public

7 The situation in these religious parties does not support the findings of Mervat Hatem (1994) in her research on Islamist parties in Egypt that there is no difference between liberal and Islamist parties with respect to women‟s leadership. But, it somewhat supports Fish‟s argument if extended from political regimes to political parties, since one sees less women in leadership positions in these parties. Although other studies show that some Islamist parties have women at their helm in Pakistan, Bangladesh or Malaysia (Basu 2005), as well as in Morocco or Algeria (Charrad 1998). See, also detailed discussion on authoritarianism in religious parties in chapter One.

eye in view of forthcoming elections. If the party is committed to empowering women, the rules and by-laws should be amended, and an internal quota for women introduced after consultations.

This will enhance women‟s share in leadership bodies.” Despite the fact that the share of women in leadership increased, the leader‟s action was taken unilaterally without due democratic process of consultation and outside of party by-laws. This is what Clark refers to as „strategic

maneuverings‟ to advance women for purposes other than empowering them and for discrete objectives (Schwedler and Clark, 2003: 303).

Such decisions do not augur well for women‟s leadership, since these decisions are not transformed into explicit or replicable rules, and do not allow for accountability (Lovenduski and Norris 1993: 215). Similar criticisms of what scholars refer to as „benevolent autocracy‟ are expressed by political observers highlighting the risks to democratic procedures of such unilateral decision-making.⁸ In comparison and for purposes of demonstrating how decentralized and transparent decision-making favors women‟s advancement, the leader of a pre-war secular party reports that,

The legislative body of the communist party proposed to nominate at least one woman in each electoral list of the party. Towards this end, and after thorough consultation, the by-laws were amended to ensure adequate representation of the youth and women.

In order to find out whether women are involved in the decision-making process and in which parties they are more likely to do so, I asked party officials the question “Are women involved in the decision-making process within the party?” A female deputy officer of public relations department in a conservative religious party states as a matter of fact that, “In our

8 Scholars note that, “…, if party leaders are sympathetic to the need to promote gender equality, for example if they want to appeal to women voters, then they have considerable power to do so. Through patronage party leaders can improve the position of women in party lists or place them in good constituencies. As a result under the system of „benevolent autocracy‟ women can be promoted relatively quickly although without institutional safeguards the gains can be quickly reversed. … Since the process is not rule-governed, changing the rules will not change the outcomes. (Lovenduski & Norris, 1993: 323)

society, men take decisions alone without taking women‟s opinion. So, why should you expect this to be different in political parties?” Also, the head of another women‟s wing in a religious extremist party remarks that,

As women, we do not deal with politics but leave this to men in the party. They are the political decision-makers. Women do not share in political decision-making. We are happy providing social services and religious advocacy. There is no coordination at all with men in the party, except maybe during elections when we receive our assignments.

We are essential to amass women‟s votes, which men cannot do in conservative religious communities.

Further, the head of the women‟s wing in a religious extremist party reports that, “Women do not share in the decision-making process and are not members in leadership bodies. They convey demands to the leader by phone or in writing without imposing them or contesting his decisions.

He is the decision-maker.” A similar attestation is given by a female in another religious extremist party who states that, “Women are not consulted on nominations or any political decisions. But, our most valuable contribution is in elections. If our opinion is solicited, we communicate our views in writing to the leadership or to the decision-making committee.” The resolve to communicate by „remote control‟ and without direct consultation or contestation reflects the centralization of decision-making process in these religious extremist parties. In most of these parties, as a female official explains, “The leader consults with us on women‟s issues,

He is the decision-maker.” A similar attestation is given by a female in another religious extremist party who states that, “Women are not consulted on nominations or any political decisions. But, our most valuable contribution is in elections. If our opinion is solicited, we communicate our views in writing to the leadership or to the decision-making committee.” The resolve to communicate by „remote control‟ and without direct consultation or contestation reflects the centralization of decision-making process in these religious extremist parties. In most of these parties, as a female official explains, “The leader consults with us on women‟s issues,