Gender and Authoritarian Politics: A Comparative Perspective

Session Submission Type: Virtual Full Paper Panel

Session Description

While the past decade has witnessed increased scholarly attention to the political processes and outcomes of political institutions functioning under authoritarianism in different parts of the world (see for example: Malesky and Shuler 2010; Miller 2014; Truex 2016; Manion 2015), our knowledge continues to be limited when it comes to the intersection of gender and authoritarian politics. This shortcoming is rather problematic given the sharp rise in non-democratic regimes across the globe. ‘Partly free’ and ‘not free’ countries are not only increasing in number but also make up the majority of world political regimes (Freedom House, 2019). To bridge this important gap, the proposed panel brings together scholars conducting cutting edge research relating to the intersection of gender and authoritarianism in comparative perspective. Employing a variety of methods and theoretical approaches combined with extensive fieldwork, the proposed papers cover topics ranging from gender equality reforms and autocrats’ consolidation of power; public attitudes toward gender equality reforms adopted by autocrats in Morocco; comparative analyses of the processes pertaining to the adoption of far-reaching constitutional and legislative rights in Africa; and the legislative behavior of female politicians in three Autocratic Arab parliaments.

Bjarnegård and Zetterberg propose a research agenda to better understand how the introduction of gender equality reforms may contribute to consolidating the power of autocrats. They argue that while all autocrats can use gender equality policies to appease threats, the gendered toolbox is somewhat enlarged for electoral authoritarian regimes. They attribute this to the fact that electoral authoritarian regimes have opened up for (somewhat) competitive elections which, in turn, enable them to adopt gender equality reforms pertaining to the electoral arena. Relying on original public opinion and experimental data from Morocco, Barnett aims to explicate the consequences of state enforced gender equality reforms and the conditions under which such reforms may cause a shift in societal norms towards women’s roles in the public sphere. Tripp investigates variations in the adoption of women’s rights across regimes in Africa. Using a wealth of qualitative and interview data sources, she contrasts the autocratic countries of Mauritania, Uganda and Zimbabwe with more democratic countries of Botswana and Namibia when it comes to the adoption of women’s rights as a tool to garner internal and external legitimacy. Finally, Shalaby’s paper analyzes parliamentary data from Morocco, Jordan and Kuwait to better understand the policy priorities and preferences of female legislators. She argues that variations in institutional arrangements across autocratic regimes play an important role in shaping female legislative behavior. It demonstrates that female politicians in autocratic settings are bounded, and even constrained, by the existing rules within these institutions and calls to attention the need for more in-depth studies on the variations of female politicians’ roles across autocratic contexts (vis-à-vis democratic and autocratic regimes).

Sub Unit

• Division 31: Women, Gender, and Politics Research

Individual Presentations

• Gender Equality Reforms and Autocrats’ Consolidation of Power: A Research Agenda - Elin Bjarnegard, Uppsala University; Par Zetterberg, Uppsala University

• Responses to Women’s Rights Under Authoritarianism: Survey Evidence from Morocco - Carolyn Barnett, Princeton University

• Why Autocracies in Africa Adopt Women’s Rights? - Aili Mari Tripp, University of Wisconsin, Madison

• Discerning Descriptive and Substantive Representation Under Authoritarianism - Marwa Shalaby, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Chair

• Ellen M. Lust University of Gothenburg

Discussants

• Bozena Christina Welborne Smith College

• Daniela Donno University of Cyprus