An Investigation into Democratic Definition and Gender Inclusion in Democracy
In a broad sense, democracy puts the power in the hands of the citizenry to choose their representatives through elections. But elections aren't the be-all-end-all of democracy. Much more is needed to create and protect the power of the people. True democracy also requires the rule of law, civil liberties, government accountability, and a free press. Elections can be manipulated by the powers that be through political violence, voting coercion, and voter suppression. Because of this, elections by themselves do not define democracy. So, what does define democracy, and by what grounds can it be determined when and if a state can and should be classified as such? There are differences in opinion among experts. Here are three key layers of consideration for democracy criteria: 1) the basic criteria of modern-day, large-scale democracy; 2) the extended, or ideal, criteria; and 3) criteria for stability, or the warning signs of democratic erosion; signs that criteria are not being adequately met. We can identify a democracy by examining the scope of power of the citizenry and how their expectations align with the institutions put in place to represent them.
While democracies can look and function differently across different states, such as the United States and Western Europe, for example, there are basic modern criteria for democracy that are generally accepted. Due to structural differences, such as a written versus unwritten constitution, a president versus a prime minister, or congress versus parliament, citizens' expectations may differ in some regards but still contain the same foundational basics. It is important to also note that democratic criteria have not remained static throughout history and the democratic ideals of today look different from those of the past. Robert A. Dahl, a political theorist and political science professor at Yale, stated that modern democratic institutions are "historically unique" and refers to this as "polyarchal democracy" (2005, 191). He also highlights that all polyarchal democracies thus far have actually fallen short under one criterion or another; but generally, large-scale democracy requires six key features: "elected officials; free, fair, and frequent elections; freedom of expression; alternative sources of information; associational autonomy; and inclusive citizenship" (Dahl 2005, 187-188). These features more or less make up the basic criteria for modern-day, large-scale democracy.
Larry Diamond, a professor of sociology and political science at Stanford University, extends the criteria for democracy to include additional features. In a similar vein to Dahl, Diamond points to the importance of inclusive citizenship to also mean tolerance and equality and alternative sources of information to include freedom of the press and accountability. But he takes it a step further and also illustrates the importance of "horizontal accountability" as a criterion for a strong democracy, free from corruption (Diamond 2015). Horizontal accountability means independent agencies; to include human rights, counter corruption, a supreme audit agency, national electoral, civil service, a central bank, prosecutors, and courts; all independent from the head of state (Diamond 2015). These additional criteria are important because, as Diamond points out, there is a growing global trend toward increased authoritarian rule and a "regression in levels of freedom," or democratic recession (Diamond 2015). The trending decline in and failure of democratic ideals and institutions are important, and a loss of trust is often a key contributing factor.
Loss of trust impedes democratic institutions and progress and is sometimes coined as a democracy deficit. In essence, a democracy deficit describes a gap between citizens' vision and expectations for governance and the pursuits and achievements of the government (Lenard and Simeon 2012, 24). In short, it means in the people's eyes, democratic governance is falling short. This deficit leads to a loss of trust and can be surface level, meaning it fluctuates with changes in elected officials, or it can seep deeper into the institutional fabric of democracy, eroding the very foundation itself. This can lead to grave consequences when it comes to democratic stability.
Democracy is about much more than holding elections and "must contain core democratic institutions—free press, equal political rights for citizens, free and fair electoral system, independent courts, and so forth—that will act as the foundation for the development and proliferation of democratic values and practices" (Haddad 2013, 105). There are different layers of criteria, and democracy looks a little different across states. This is because democracy is meant to put power in the hands of the people, and not all people and cultures hold the same ideals and expectations. But certain criteria are generally agreed upon and certain warning signs to watch out for. Further, historically, each democracy has fallen short in various criteria, and the criteria of modern-day look different from past expectations. One might ask, is a "democracy" that doesn't give women and/or minorities the right to vote still a democracy? The point is that democratic criteria are, to some degree, fluid, yet it retains certain core principles.
Gender norms and expectations are a big deal in politics. Well-established and budding democracies alike need to contend with gender dynamics and integrate local culture and customs concerning gender into the fabric of democratic institutions. But is gender equality a requirement of democracy? And if it is, can even well-established democracies such as the United States then be labeled a democracy before 1920, when women were granted the right to vote? If half the population has no say or power over the government that represents them, is it really a democracy? The following addresses three important areas concerning gender and democracy: 1) How gender plays into past democratic expectations; 2) How expectations for gender equality are changing in modern-day democracies; 3) A look at Japan and ways cultural expectations and gender integrate. Modern-day democratic ideals have expanded from those of the past and now require a delicate balance between the inclusion of culture and the inclusion of women.
Unfortunately, ideas of inclusion in democracy did not begin with women or minority groups in mind; they began with select groups of white, male property owners in mind. Fortunately, times have changed, as have equality and gender equality expectations and definitions of what inclusion means. As Dahl pointed out, "Until the twentieth century, universal suffrage was denied in both the theory and practice of democratic and republican government. More than any other single feature, universal suffrage distinguishes modern representative democracy from earlier forms of democracy" (2005, 189). The key term here is modern, and this means change doesn't come overnight; rather, it comes bit by bit on the heels of hard one battles.
Diamond is at the forefront of expanded criteria for democracy. He includes horizontal accountability and highlights human rights as extended democratic criteria (Diamond 2015). Gender equality and human rights often go hand in hand. But the battle over gender equality and inclusion rages on. Anne Phillips, in The Democracy Sourcebook, points out the well-known yet still shocking fact that women continue to be grossly misrepresented in politics, even in long-established democracies. She detailed that (as of her 2003 writing) female representation in British parliament stood at only 43 of 650 people and in the US House of Representatives, a paltry 28 of 435 people (2003, 354). Additionally, she notes that the battle for women's right to vote and their right to be elected are indeed connected. Women account for about half the population but have yet to be elected for the highest office in America.
Politics and gender in Japan are interesting to watch. Sherry Martin took a deeper look into the changes occurring in Japan's community concerning gender inclusion. She found that a typical Japanese woman didn't feel that her voice was heard or impactful on politicians and their political positions (Martin 2011, 124). But, Mary Haddad found some promising changes in women's roles in Japan when it comes to occupations and control over their own lives, albeit it comes at a cost–– "As these examples show, the political outcome of democracy on women's political power has been paradoxical—with democratization, Japanese women have expanded their individual access to positions of political power and power over their individual lives, but they have lessened their collective power. No longer are there regular, institutionalized methods for collecting women's collective thoughts about their needs." (Haddad 2013, 108)
How can there be equality when women are not equally represented in politics? How can there be equality when men are making the decisions for women, and women are systematically boxed into roles not conducive to strong contendership in political positions of power through laws made by men and cultural ideas that keep women in the home? Alabama's new abortion law was made by a bunch of white men determining what a woman can/can't do with her own body. How would men feel if the tables were turned and women made the laws about what rights a man holds to his own body? Modern-day democracy requires renewed definitions and community expectations about gender––and women need to be included.
#democracy #politics #democracydeficit #gender #equality #writing #writer
References:
Dahl, Robert A. 2005. “What Political Institutions Does Large-Scale Democracy Require?” Political Science Quarterly120 (2): 187–97.
Diamond, Larry. 2015. Oslo Freedom Forum. Reversing Democracy’s Decline. Accessed May 20, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4XrpYifeSg&feature=youtu.be.
Haddad, Mary A. in “The Everyday Life of the State: A State-in-Society Approach.” 2013. Accessed May 16, 2019. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=4e853bac-e4b8-4fbb-a1c5-9ba4ef7dfd81%40pdc-v-sessmgr05&vid=0&format=EK.
Lenard, Patti Tamara, and Richard Simeon. 2012. Imperfect Democracies: The Democratic Deficit in Canada and the United States. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=3412812.
Martin, Sherry L. 2011. Popular Democracy in Japan: How Gender and Community Are Changing Modern Electoral Politics. NY, United States: Cornell University Press.
Phillips, Anne. 2003. In The Democracy Sourcebook. Cambridge, United States: MIT Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=3338872.
