Gendered governance

It is important also to reflect upon the extent to which gender bias exists within governance as this will play an important role in maintaining, expanding or curbing any cultural or systemic inequalities. The ability for women to gain control over resources may be stymied through legislative processes such as the controlling of access to suffrage or political rights, whereas the access to resources by women is often limited by their ability to determine economic independence. Regime types interact with concepts of women’s political, social and economic rights differently and it is important to acknowledge any potential connection between authoritarianism and gendered governance.

Non-democratic (autocratic and totalitarian) states are often charged with using oppressive methods to subjugate citizens and repress dissent to control political institutions and ensure power and control. It is also common that elites tend to have even greater influence in autocracies and the policies implemented benefit these elites rather than the majority (see Acemoglue and Robinson (2006:17). As such the system and depth of re-distribution benefits

55

a minority rather than a majority. This in itself is interesting as it highlights a difference in preferences between democratic and democratic regimes. The preference for non-democratic regimes is also to retain control over political institutions and thus power, however non-democratic regimes are not answerable to an electorate and as such utilise different mechanism to attain and retain power.

A limited form of “political pluralism” (See Linz: 1970:255) may develop within authoritarian/totalitarian regimes which allows an elite to possess political influence. In autocratic regimes, support for the regime may come from a small but powerful group, perhaps consisting of various family members of those who have taken power or high ranking military officers. Wealth, influence and power will be distributed in an effort to sustain the regime and retain power or collusive arrangements between the business, bureaucratic and political classes will be common. The primary aim and preference of the regime is to retain control over the political institutions and power, while preventing or undermining any dissent or development of potential political challengers. As such, establishing collusive relationships with non-regime officials, facilitates an exchange system. The elite and regime supporters act as informal monitors of dissent and instruments of control, and in exchange they receive wealth and limited power. This contributes to greater socio-economic inequality in the state and a higher concentration of power.

This is important in the context of gender equality as limited political pluralism may result in the creation of powerful support organisations that can help to repress alternative or rival political agendas (See Brumberg, 2000:58, Linz, 1970:255). This is often illustrated through interaction between the strong state and religion. Religion is an important mechanism at play which has the power and ability to enforce a form of oppression specifically upon women.

The partnership between the State and religion brings further complexity to the construction of gender inequality in authoritarian regimes. In the case of Spain great power and influence afforded to the Catholic Church by Franco where Catholicism was made the state religion. In this case the regime and the Catholic Church both shared a conservative view of gendered roles and what the role of women should be. This influence contributed to a ban on contraception, abortion and divorce, issues very important to women (See Brooker, 2000:26 and Morcillo, 2000:214). Across the Middle East religious leaders within Arab states hold significant influence and power and in many cases state and religious oppression are intertwined. In authoritarian states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran religious law holds precedent with Shari’a Law (Islamic Law) determining legislation (see Brumberg, 2002:59).

While this in itself may not be problematic, and obviously depends upon the interpretation and application of Shari’a Law, there are many examples highlighted by academics and international organisations such as UNICEF or Sweeney (2004:23) that illustrate that these laws are discriminatory against women highlighting that women’s rights are most likely violated under a combination of autocratic rule and a powerful religion.

56

Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 illustrate the relationship between regime type and women’s political, economic and social rights. From the graphs it is clear that there is a positive relationship between women’s political, economic and social rights and countries with higher measures of democratic governance.¹⁸

Figure 4.1 Relationship between regime type and women’s political rights

18 The graphs illustrated in Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 were produced using data from the HumanRightsData.com datasets on women’s political, economic and social rights and the Polity IV dataset. Regressions were conducted on the full list of countries used in this dissertation for the years 1990 to 2011. See appendix 9:47 for the full list of countries used in this study.

-10 -5 0510

0 1 2 3

Women's Political Rights

Polity IV Fitted values

Polity IV and Women's Political Rights

57

Figure 4.2 Relationship between regime type and women’s economic rights

Figure 4.3 Relationship between regime type and women’s social rights

-10 -5 0510

0 1 2 3

Women's Economic Rights Polity IV Fitted values

Polity IV and Women's Economic Rights

-10 -5 0510

0 1 2 3

Women's social rights Polity IV Fitted values

Polity IV and Women's Social Rights

58

I reiterate that my choice to explore the socio-economic status of women by considering women’s labour force participation, education and maternal health care provides the most appropriate lens. It facilitates greater clarity, specifically enables a gendered focused analysis and importantly allows for the testing of my theoretical arguments.