Honor the Suffragists by Fighting for Women’s Rights

Today, more women than men vote in the United States. For example, in the 2016 election, 55 percent of American women voted; only 52 percent of men voted. Women voters are courted by both political parties and by candidates, and our voting behavior is constantly scrutinized. More women are also running for office than ever before. Currently, 24 percent of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 25 percent of U.S. Senators are women. Both major political parties have nominated women for either president or vice president. 

American women did not always have the right to vote. Women gained that right 99 years ago —  in 1920 — when the 19th Amendment was ratified. As we mark this anniversary, there are numerous programs and exhibits illustrating the struggle for women’s suffrage, which isn’t often taught in school or widely known. The fight spanned over 70 years, culminating in the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment. The struggle here in the U.S. took place as women across the globe also fought for their right to vote. Between 1918 and 1921, women gained the right to vote in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. 

Women in the U.S. began fighting for the right to vote in the mid-1800s, after passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, which granted African American men the right to vote. Make no mistake, the women who fought for suffrage were held back by legal barriers to their participation in public life as well as social norms about their role in society. Despite this, American women organized, marched, went to prison, committed civil disobedience, lobbied office holders and candidates at every level and in both political parties, and navigated complex political and legal terrain.  

And, they organized across the country, riding trains, sending telegrams, having no access to social media and cell phones. They were called names, castigated as agitators who would tear apart society and family, and their appearances often mocked. They dealt with the legacy of the Civil War and racism, which was often used by those opposing suffrage and at times, by those favoring it. 

From the time of the first bitter referendum in 1867 to ratification of the 19th Amendment, the suffragists undertook 480 petition and lobbying drives to get state legislatures to submit suffrage amendments to voters; 277 campaigns to get state party conventions to include women’s suffrage planks in their platforms; and, 56 state referendum campaigns. Women in the Western U.S. gained rights to vote before the rest of the country and in many places, women could vote for some, but not all, offices.  

The ratification of the 19th Amendment came down to one state (Tennessee) and the vote of Harry Burn (the youngest member of the Tennessee General Assembly, who changed his vote because of a note from his pro-suffrage mother). It’s an iconic and heartwarming story.

As I moderated a panel last month on this topic, the lesson I took away was that women’s suffrage was not inevitable, and neither is any social change. Change happens because citizens organize and fight for it. As Casey Cep recently wrote in the New Yorker:  “Apart from inaccuracy, one of the greatest flaws in any historical account is a sense of inevitability.  The idea that women were always going to get the right to vote in the U.S. ignores the reality that women only got that right in Switzerland in 1971 and Saudi Arabia in 2015. It also fails to explain why the right was granted to American women in 1920, as opposed to 1919 or 1918, or perhaps more pointedly in 1776.”

It is easy to look back and see women’s suffrage, and Harry Burn’s vote, or the passage of civil rights, or the election of women to office, as inevitable. They aren’t. They happen because committed individuals and organizations lay the groundwork, take risks, challenge norms, revise laws and policies, and work to convince others. The suffragists did just that, so that each of us can participate in American politics and public life. We owe it to them and their struggle to keep working towards a society where everyone can fully participate.

Ensuring Women’s Participation in Upcoming Afghan Elections

Afghanistan has two elections scheduled in the next six months: Parliamentary and district council elections on October 20, 2018 and the Presidential election on April 20, 2019. These elections, the first in almost five years, will be watched closely by Afghans and the international community. Women must have every opportunity to participate fully in every phase of the electoral process: as candidates, election administrators, observers, and voters.

In order to ensure high levels of participation and engagement, Afghan women must be at the table as election planning occurs. The Afghan government, international donors, and Afghan civil society must ensure that they weave women’s perspectives and input into the strategies and tactics they are using to drive maximum participation. Electoral and governmental authorities must take concrete steps to ensure that women and men are equal participants in the Afghan political process, and must address electoral-related violence. This is essential to the credibility and transparency of the electoral process and is especially important as the Taliban is asserting itself across the country and apparently engaged in negotiations with U.S. officials.

Women in Afghanistan have made substantial progress since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, but that progress is tenuous. Women have demonstrated their commitment to public life: in the 2014 presidential run-off, 2.4 million Afghan women voted (38 percent of all voters), the highest number in Afghanistan’s history. According to the Asia Foundation, over 78,000 women have been appointed to government positions since 2001. Currently, women hold twenty-eight percent of Parliamentary seats, several cabinet positions, and numerous judicial positions. However, Afghanistan remains an insecure and dangerous environment, which is difficult for all Afghans, but particularly for women and girls.

Across the globe, violence against women in the electoral process is a threat to electoral integrity. It affects women’s ability and interest in participation at every level of the political process. Women can be targeted because of their political affiliations, or because they are active in politics and public life, or exercising their right to vote, still often seen as places for men.

In past Afghan elections, there have been substantial reports of violence, and threats of violence, targeted at women voters and candidates. There have been continual challenges finding enough women willing to work at polling stations, as well as a lack of women “body searchers,” to ensure that individuals entering women’s polling places are indeed women and not armed. There have been numerous efforts to address these issues: from electoral hotlines to extra security for women candidates to decreased fees for women seeking to run. But, these issues remain prevalent as Afghanistan enters this upcoming set of elections.

What can be done?: The Afghan Independent Election Commission (IEC) must focus on recruiting women for positions throughout the electoral administration system — from headquarters to polling centers and local electoral bodies — and for both permanent and temporary positions. At the same time, registration and polling centers must be accessible, safe and secure to ensure the full participation of women voters. Voter registration processes must reach women throughout the country and ensure that the act of registering or voting does not put them in harm’s way. The IEC and other relevant government entities must ensure there is sufficient security staff at women’s polling centers. Women candidates, throughout the country, must feel safe as they campaign. Finally, international and domestic electoral observation missions deployed across Afghanistan must be gender-balanced to ensure that they are able to fully report on the elections and reflect the different experiences of men and women in the process. Finally, there must also be a way to capture the lessons learned from the October elections and use them in the lead-up to those in April.

As internet access and the use of social media (mostly Facebook) increases in Afghanistan, there must be special attention paid to how social media is being used to shame and threaten women who are activists and candidates, and to share false information. The Afghan government and the international community must take steps to address election-related violence which deters women from voting, working at polling stations, campaigning for office, and serving as elected officials.

Protecting the hard-won gains that women have made since 2001 is critical. This is also an opportunity to reaffirm support for women’s participation and take concrete steps to increase women’s ability to fully participate in these elections. The Afghan government, the international community, Afghan civil society, and Afghan citizens all have a role to play.

Women’s Political Underrepresentation in the United States

There is a fascinating new book out by Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox entitled “Women, Men & U.S. Politics: Ten Big Questions.” It covers topics that range from contemporary feminism to campaign finance to reproductive rights in the United States.

Of course, the chapter that caught my attention is “Falling Further Behind: Women’s Underrepresentation in U.S. Politics” which focuses on the question of why the U.S. ranks 100th globally for the number of women elected at the national level. As it lays out, Rwanda (61.3%), Bolivia (53.1%), Cuba (48.9%), Iceland (47.6%) and 90+ other countries have more women serving in their national legislature than does the United States (19.1%).

As I have traveled around the world, I have created my own theories about why this is the case and this book tends to back up my ideas. First, while quota laws have been shown to be the best tool used to increase women’s political participation, the U.S. “first past the post” rather than proportional representative system makes it very difficult to initiate a quota law for women. Not surprisingly, 15 of the top 20 countries for women’s representation have instituted some type of quota. Moreover, political parties in the U.S. are considered weak institutionally, as voters, rather than the parties create the candidate lists. So while candidates running for Congress do receive some help from their political party, they must also create their own political organizations, raise money, build coalitions, and deliver their own message both the primary and general elections. In other countries, a strong central committee of the party selects the candidates for  the party list and in what order they will appear. Finally, what is strong in the U.S. system is the power of incumbency. Overall, in the last 10 election cycles, 95 percent of the House incumbents who wanted to keep their posts were re-elected. In 2016, 394 of 435 incumbents from the House of Representatives chose not to run for reelection. Of those who ran, only 13 lost their races.  

If that isn’t daunting enough, Lawless and Rich discuss barriers that exist at the individual level for women seeking public office in the U.S. First, as they have documented for over a decade, there is a gap in the political ambition of women and men. “Deeply embedded patterns of traditional gender socialization make it far less likely, even today, for women to emerge as candidates.” Because of the attitudes and norms of men AND women about what is “appropriate” for women, men are considerably more likely than women to think about seeking elective office. The 16 percentage point gap existed in 2001 and continues today. Moreover, the “work-family” balance that Anne-Marie Slaughter and others have written about is even further out of whack for women thinking about running for office. Often women have jobs outside of the home that are necessary for their family’s income. Next, they are in charge of the household duties and are taking care of the majority of the childcare, cleaning, etc. at home. And now, we’re asking women to take on a “third shift” of politics – attending community meanings and fundraisers in order to run a viable campaign. For many women, there are just not enough hours in the day.  

Where I part with Lawless and Rich is in the conclusion of this chapter where they say “even an optimist would be hard-pressed” to see major increases in women’s representation in the U.S. in the near future. In addition to the outpouring of increased interest of women in running for office (SF article) I believe that here in the U.S. we may be thinking too narrowly about how to increase women’s political participation. While I can name a half dozen groups that are recruiting women to run for office, we aren’t working on the larger structural issues that keep the numbers low. We might not get constitutional amendments passed, but we can address factors that can change over time: the political parties, time use and attitudes about women’s leadership.

First, although the role of political parties in the U.S. is not as strong as those in other countries, the Democratic and Republican parties here are not doing all they could do to recruit and support women candidates. Until they understand and value the role women can play in the party and in Congress, these outside groups will be on the outside looking in. When I worked to increase the number of women in politics in other countries as diverse as Kosovo and Zambia, no training program for female candidates was complete until we met with the (largely male) party leadership to talk about the benefits of women candidates on their party lists. Secondly, we must step out of the political sphere and address the issues of time use and public attitudes about women’s leadership. Both of these issues are not only keeping women out of Congress but also out of the Boardrooms and C-suites of companies across the country. According to Pew Research, the share of Fortune 500 chief executives who are female remains very small, reaching a record 5.4 percent in the first quarter of 2017 and women hold just 20.2 percent of the seats on boards of Fortune 500 companies – very similar to the political statistics. We need to change that social norms that exist that have women spending about six hours more than men doing household work and about three additional hours taking care of the children each week. And finally, we must help men and women, boys and girls in the U.S. see the value of women’s leadership. In a 2014 poll, 57 percent of respondents said that it made no difference to them if a female were elected president in their lifetimes.

What a shame that despite evidence that a diversity of views in decision-making roles can help drive innovation and a recent poll that showed that only 33 percent of likely U.S. voters now think the country is heading in the right direction, we in the United States are not willing to ask the big questions and increase women’s political representation in order to improve our communities and the everyday lives of our citizens.

Women’s Political Empowerment Benefits Democracy in the U.S. and Around the World

Last week there were two events held in Washington, DC and focused on women’s political participation: NDI’s Madeleine K. Albright event focusing abroad and the EMILY’s List’s national conference focusing on politics in the U.S. Although the events focused differently, I was struck by the similarities of issues highlighted.

Those attending both agreed that women’s meaningful participation in politics affects the range of policy issues seriously considered and the solutions proposed. As elected officials, women can impact the legislative body itself, the way issues are addressed, and public attitudes about women in leadership. Yet women remain underrepresented in almost every country and at every level of elective politics.

According to a recent report, just over 23 percent of the world’s parliamentarians are women. The United States ranks 100th; women comprise 19.3 percent of the House of Representatives and 21 percent of the U.S. Senate.  Based on progress to date, women in the U.S. are not likely reach political parity until 2121.

Why do women remain underrepresented in elected politics around the world?

Globally, women face similar challenges.

Attitudes and norms regarding the role of women in public life can dissuade a woman from running for office. In the United States, numerous polls from Gallup and Pew reflect that men and women believe that women and men are equally good political leaders. Around the world, public opinion towards women’s political leadership varies.  In a Pew Research Poll, researchers found that majorities in many countries including Mali (65 percent), the Palestinian territories (64 percent), and say that men make better political leaders than women.

Because of the low number of women in public office, there are disproportionately fewer role models for women. Studies in the U.S. and abroad show the positive impact role models can have. A recent U.S. study concluded that young women voters were more engaged when new, viable female candidates run. In a much-cited MIT study in India, the presence of long-serving female leaders in local government closed the gender gap in adolescent education.

Around the world, the threat of or actual physical and emotional violence is a tactic discouraging women from political participation. Women in politics around the world have experienced violence, including aggression, harassment, or threats of death, rape, or beatings, and that their experiences have implications for their ability and willingness to participate actively in public life.  This is true in the U.S. as well; in 2016, some supporters of the Republican nominee for President threatened to assassinate Hillary Clinton, “hang that b*tch,” or shoot her for treason.

Women often lack the same access to resources as men, specifically the funds that are necessary to run a campaign. While the gender gap in overall campaign finances may have closed in the U.S., differences remain in the types of donors who give to women, the level of contributions and the amount women contribute to their own campaigns. While the amount of funds a candidate needs to seek office in other countries is much smaller than in the U.S. because of political party support, there are still gaps in the amount of support received by women candidates, and in access to other resources, such as media time, materials and campaign staff assistance.

Beyond the social barriers to women’s political participation (or perhaps because of them), at the individual level, many women in both the U.S. and abroad lack the confidence or ambition to run.  A 2016 poll found that nearly half of the American men polled believed they are very or somewhat qualified to run for public office, while only about a quarter of women believed the same about themselves.

Outside of the political system itself, women thinking about running for office, like women in general, face the burden of a disproportionate portion of the home and caregiving responsibilities. Around the world, women spend two to ten times more time on unpaid care work than men. Time is a limited resource. Every minute more that a woman spends on unpaid work represents one minute less that she could be potentially active in public life.

While there is some overlap between the strategies used to support women running for office in the United States and abroad, there are also key differences. In the U.S., non-profit organizations and political action committees recruit and train women candidates and campaign staff. Because of the enormous need for campaign funds in the United States, some organizations also focus on raising money with and for women seeking public office. Largely, efforts in the U.S. are not focused on changing the political system, but to helping women succeed within it.

In the developing world, democracy programs, often funded by donor governments, work to recruit and train women candidates, however, there has also been an effort to pass and implement gender quota laws that set a minimum number (often 20-30 percent) of women that must appear on the party list for election to a legislative body. Over 130 countries around the world have some type of gender quota. Finally, in many countries, there are often media campaigns to change the public’s attitude about women in leadership and specifically in political office.

While neither conference in DC came up with all the answers, the message was clear: citizens and democracy itself benefit when there are more women in elected office and this important work must continue in the U.S. and around the world.

Contact Us

+1.202.262.9743 – Stephenie Foster
+1.202.744.0892 – Susan Markham
smash@smashstrategies.com

Sign-Up for Our Newsletter



© Smash Strategies 2017 | All Rights Reserved