Vancouver Institute Lectures

Democratization: Questions for the year 2000 Pateman, Carole Nov 9, 1996

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


12708-at_2000_Pateman.mp3 [ 86.47MB ]
12708-VI-Pateman.pdf [ 173.16kB ]
JSON: 12708-1.0102780.json
JSON-LD: 12708-1.0102780-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 12708-1.0102780-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 12708-1.0102780-rdf.json
Turtle: 12708-1.0102780-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 12708-1.0102780-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 12708-1.0102780-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

354  Carole Pateman  355  DEMOCRATIZATION: QUESTIONS FOR THE YEAR 2000 Professor Carole Pateman Department of Political Science UCLA Cecil and Ida Green Lecture November 9, 1996 Biographical Note: Born in Sussex and educated at Oxford, Professor Pateman has built an outstanding intellectual reputation in the areas of modern political theory and feminist theory. The first woman to be elected as President of the International Political Science Association, she has held academic appointments at the University of Sydney, Stanford and Princeton. Professor Pateman is considered an excellent public speaker and is the author of several books, including The Sexual Contract, and The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism and Political Theory.  It is a very great honour to have been invited to The Vancouver Institute. I am sure that most of your speakers must comment on the remarkable fact that Vancouver is a city where, on a Saturday evening, we can find a huge audience like this for a lecture series. There must be very few places, if any, where that is still true, and I think that is an enormous tribute to the culture and citizens of Vancouver. I want to say something this evening about democracy and democratization, and raise some questions, as we move towards the 21st century. We now hear a great deal about democracy, in the sense of a certain set of institutions: constitutional government, civil and political rights, and what are called today free and fair elections. These institutions are more popular than at any time in history and are being prescribed for peoples and countries around the world. We also hear a lot about democratization — the process through which these institutions are being established. Certainly, there are more countries now than ever before with competitive elections and some guarantees of civil and political rights. In 1993, 107 out of 186 countries, on one count at least, had some form of democratic institutions and elections. Between two-  356  thirds and three-quarters of the world’s population now live in countries with a relatively democratic electoral system. Opposition parties have been legalized in 31 countries since 1990. This is a remarkable change in a short period. But to have free and fair elections requires an electorate; it needs citizens. Democratization is not only a process through which institutions are established, it is also a process through which subjects, people who are merely governed, become citizens — people who can participate in politics and take some part in governing. We also tend to think of democratization as a transition from authoritarian rule, military rule, or totalitarian systems — a move towards new institutions and new liberties. And we tend to think of it as a process happening abroad. But one thing I would like you to do this evening is also to think about the next century of democracy at home, and ask: do we require more democratization at home? Is democratization completed yet at home? Or have we still got some way to go? That is one important question for the next century. But there is also another more basic question. And that is: why is democratization important? Why do we care so much about free and fair elections? What is it about democracy that so commends itself to us not only here at home, but also for all countries around the world? If we think about history, we see that there have been enormous struggles in the past over democratization, to establish the rights and liberties of citizenship, including, most basically, universal suffrage. We have seen in the last few years pictures of people walking for many miles, and standing in long lines for many hours, to cast their very first vote. What is it that makes voting so important? Of course, it is a way of making an orderly change of government, and that is very important because, as the saying goes, “ballots are always better than bullets.” But is it just an orderly change of government? There are ways of replacing one government by another which do not necessarily involve elections. To see what is important about democracy, we need to go back to another transition — a long time ago in the old world — from a world of hierarchy, tradition, and status, to a new world of equality, rights, citizenship, and democracy. We should consider some ideas that were central to  Carole Pateman  357  that transition two to three centuries ago, and see how those ideas are at the centre of democracy and democratization. From around the 17th and 18th centuries, a set of very revolutionary ideas began to become widely accepted and gain general currency. They do not sound all that revolutionary these days because we are so used to them, but they have some extremely important implications. The ideas were that men are born free, that men are born equal to each other, and are born with reason or rationality. For an individual to be born, or to be naturally, free and equal to another, was a very revolutionary idea, if you think about it. If each individual (or each man as it said in the original formulations) is free and equal to all others, then none of the old arguments for hierarchy, for government — that is, for the rule of one person, or group over another — any longer hold good. If you are born free and equal, then you are self-governing, and there is only one way to justify government while maintaining that status. None of the old justifications obtain, whether claims from custom, tradition, or certain natural attributes; there is only one way that government can be justified and be legitimate — citizens must agree or consent to it. Hence the importance of the consent of the governed; it is a way of maintaining your status as self-governing individuals. No one is born to govern; all must consent to be governed. One of the most important ways in which consent can be given is, of course, by electing governments. And if you are going to be self-governing and consent to be governed, then you need certain rights to maintain your status. Ideas about self-government and natural rights were revolutionary because they raised questions about all forms of government, from the household to the state, and not only about “government” as we normally think of it in Victoria, Ottawa, or Washington. Agreement and consent mean that individuals are not mere subjects of government, but citizens who have equal political standing. Thus the logical conclusion of this body of ideas is a democratic electoral system and democratic institutions and government, in which everyone is an equal citizen and has the necessary rights and liberties. This helps to explain some of the importance of democracy, but it also opens up another huge range of questions.  358  Let us go back to the pictures of people taking so much trouble to cast their first ballot. There they are in their best clothes, spending so much time in long lines – so let us think about the suffrage. The vote is a symbol or emblem that you are a self-governing citizen — someone who is recognized as having an equal place and has rights. But, of course, it is not just a symbol. The vote is also a political resource, a resource that is available equally to everyone: one person, one vote. And, since it is a political resource, you can use the vote to do things — to help create a political system, to achieve political changes, and to create the kind of world that you want to live in. In other words, it is an important weapon in the process of democratization. But just because the vote is both a symbol and a political resource, democratization has been a very, very long process; much longer than we sometimes think. We tend to forget how recently democracy has become accepted as the form of political system and government that we should have around the world. Not until after the Second World War was democracy widely accepted as an ideal. Up until that point, there were many people and movements that were very suspicious of democracy, and sometimes explicitly opposed to it. All kinds of fears were expressed about what would happen if all adults became citizens and exercised their rights. Fears were expressed quite routinely that democracy would lead to mob rule and the expropriation of property. Fears were also expressed that it would lead to the end of a proper order between the sexes and the breakdown of the family. If you learn about democracy at school or university, you might hear about the fears that were expressed about the expropriation of property, class warfare and so on. You do not hear so much about the fears that were expressed about what might happen if women got the vote, and I am going to come to votes for women in a moment. And it is only in the last few years that there has been global enthusiasm about democracy, and it has become part even of international economic and aid policies. But right from the very beginning, although the ideal of selfgovernment was expressed in universal language — natural rights, all “men” are born free, consent of the governed — the history of  Carole Pateman  359  democracy and democratization has been a matter of exclusion as well as inclusion. Often this is glossed over and we read of a gradual expansion of the franchise, and the gradual bringing in to citizenship of more and more sections of the population in a nice smooth, if lengthy, process. That picture is misleading because, from the beginning, the crucial question was who actually counted as someone who fell under the heading of “all men are born free,” or the rights of “man.” Who was qualified to exercise those rights, who was capable of participating, who was capable of using the political resource of the vote? These questions, and the fears that they embodied, are one major reason why it has taken so long to establish democracy, and why democratization is still underway. Even in what we regard as the old established democracies, it has taken a great deal longer to establish universal suffrage than we are sometimes led to believe. For example, the United States is often presented as the first democracy, but in practice it has only been since the 1960s and the civil rights movement that all black people could freely exercise the franchise. The first country with universal suffrage was New Zealand in 1893. A century later an election was held in South Africa in 1994, for the first time on the basis of universal suffrage. And even today, we still hear doubts expressed whether one half of humankind is really capable or qualified to take part in politics and government. I want to pay particular attention to the other half of humankind tonight — to women. It is often thought that if you pay special attention to women, then you are somehow being biased, merely expressing a special, partial interest. It is often forgotten that women are half the population. Actually, in some places they are a little more than half, in other places they are less than half, and I am going to come back to that demographic fact. But what is important always to keep in mind is that men still monopolize most of the authoritative social and political positions, and also have a very disproportionate share of resources. Figures 1a-1d illustrate men’s advantage (1994 data). Men form the greater part of the economically active population and earn the lion’s share of the income. We will see later that figures for paid employment do not reflect the amount  360  1a  35%  30%  25%  20%  15%  10%  5%  0%  developed countries All developing countries  Latin America & Caribbean  Latin America & Caribbean  Seats in S.E. Asia & Pacific  Parliament  Sub-Saharan Africa  South Asia  Cabinets  M en W om en  Arab States  Municipal Councillors  Arab States  National National Parliamentarians  Least developed countries  Cabinet Ministers  South Asia  income  90%  Least  Earned  OECD  80%  Pacific  W omen’s shar e of the labour for ce  S.E. Asia &  70%  Africa  60%  active Sub-Saharan  50%  population  40%  European Union  30%  Economically  20%  East Asia  0%  OECD  10%  Nordic Countries  100%  1b  45%  40%  35%  30%  25%  20%  15%  5%  10%  0%  1c East Asia  Carole Pateman  361  FACING PAGE: FIGURES 1a-1c. Based on data (1994) in United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report 1995, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.  of work that is actually performed. 90% of seats in parliaments around the world are filled by men, and men are 94% of national cabinets, where most of the crucial decisions are made. If you take both halves of humankind into account, the history of democratization looks rather different from the picture typically presented. In the standard way of talking about electoral institutions, the extension of the franchise involves certain landmarks and certain dates. For example, 1789, the French Revolution and the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen; 1832, the first Reform Act in Britain, which extended the franchise to members of the middle classes, and the 15th Amendment in the USA, ratified in 1870, which enfranchised the newly freed slaves. These are indeed landmarks, but what you are not usually told is that they are double landmarks. They represent the extension of citizenship for men, but they also represent the exclusion of women. In 1789, the rights of man and the citizen were proclaimed but, by 1793, the French revolutionaries had denied the franchise to women. In 1832, for the first time in Britain, legislation excluded women from the vote; the Reform Act referred to male persons. Similarly, the 15th Amendment only enfranchised freed male slaves, not former women slaves. So the famous landmarks are not quite what they seem. In no country have women ever won the vote before men. In some places they have been enfranchised at the same time, but it has often taken a much longer struggle for women to get the vote than men. Women were admitted to a national electorate for the first time in 1893 (in New Zealand). Table 1 provides a small selection of dates to give you a sense of how long women’s suffrage has taken. You can see that this is not merely a matter of developed and undeveloped countries, or western and non-western countries; even in Switzerland, one of the richest and most advanced countries in the world, it was not until 1971 that women got the national vote (and  362  FIGURE 1d. Based on data in United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report 1995, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. 95.0%  90.0%  85.0%  80.0%  75.0%  70.0%  65.0%  60.0%  Women’s wages as % of men’s 55.0%  50.0%  45.0%  40.0%  Carole Pateman  363  364  TABLE 1: Women’s Suffrage: Selected Chronology 1893 1902 1918 1920 1928 1948  1971 1975  1984 1994  New Zealand Australia Canada USA United Kingdom Belgium Burma Israel South Korea Switzerland Mozambique Papua New Guinea Portugal Jordan Liechtenstein South Africa  Source: Appendix of "Suffrage & Beyond: International Feminist Perspectives," edited by Caroline Daley, Melanie Nolan (New Zealand: Auckland University Press) 1994.  only in 1989 in one canton). It took 60 years of campaigning in the USA and Britain, from the 1860s until 1920 and 1928, for women to win the vote. In Kuwait, for example, women are still disenfranchised. Women’s citizenship thus has a very different history from men’s. And now that women are enfranchised in most countries, many problems remain about their political participation and standing. In the United States, we still do not have an Equal Rights Amendment; that was defeated in the state legislatures in 1982. As we have seen, legislatures are male-dominated, and women have a great deal of difficulty in getting elected in any numbers. In Australia, for example, women won the right to stand for election in 1902, when they got the vote, but it took until 1943 for the first women to be elected to the national parliament. The Nordic countries are the exception; the proportion of women in parliaments is now around 30 to 40%. In contrast, in some countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the proportion of women in elected office has actually fallen since democratization and multi-party, free elections were introduced.  Carole Pateman  365  The difficulty of women being included at all levels of the political process, on the same basis as men, is something that is often ignored in discussions of democratization. The enormously long — still continuing – struggle for women to be acknowledged as self-governing citizens and equal participants, raises broader questions about the conditions that are required if democratization is to be inclusive, rather than the preserve of certain sections of the population. What is the connection between a democratic electoral system and other social institutions? What social conditions are necessary for the operation of democracy and for democratization if all citizens are to have equal standing as members of their society? What kind of social structures and relationships are needed to ensure that everyone’s citizenship is of equal worth? And especially, what kind of relationship is required between men and women? Many such questions have been asked for a very long time (I looked at some of them in my book on participation and democratic theory). But the question about relations between men and women have not received much attention in investigations of democratization. That is not to say that they have not been asked. At least since the 1790s — the era of the declaration of the rights of “man” and the citizen — feminist political theorists have been drawing attention to the importance of the relationship between the public arena of politics and democracy and the private world of the household, family, marriage and relations between the sexes. In particular they have been concerned with three areas. The first is education. From the outset, education has been especially important in feminist argument. Feminists have had to combat the venerable tradition of misogynist claims about women’s intellectual inferiority, a tradition that is linked to assertions about women’s incapacity for public life, and the view that they should educated, if at all, to be wives and mothers. The latter view is no longer heard, at least in societies like Canada, but claims that women somehow naturally lack the capacities and qualities required to be active citizens, and particularly to act in a governmental capacity, have not entirely died away in the 1990s. Feminists still offer the same response today as they did in the past; they argue that there is no natural lack on  366  the part of women, rather they have been deprived of access to the education needed to develop the qualities and capacities required (and in many areas of the world still are: literacy rates have improved globally in recent years, but girls still lag behind boys) — and that men deliberately exclude women from authoritative positions in society. Second, feminists focused on economic independence. This raised the connection between public and private very directly because, for a very long time, the formal qualifications for the suffrage and citizenship were closely tied to economic independence – yet wives, it was held, should be the economic dependents of their husbands. It is thus not surprising that women’s movements have campaigned since the mid-nineteenth century for equal access to paid work, to the means of economic independence. Yet as we have seen (Figure 1), around the world, men still monopolize access to paid employment. The other side of feminist campaigns is to challenge the idea that women should be economically dependent upon their husbands, and to insist that they have a rightful place in the public world of politics or employment. The third area of feminist concern is the implications for citizenship and democracy of the relationship between husbands and wives in the private world of the home. This tradition of argument is exemplified in Mary Wollstonecraft’s, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, published in 1792. Wollstonecraft argues that if husbands are tyrants in private — and in 1792 they had considerably more legal powers over their wives than they have today — and wives are mere subordinates, then there is no basis for equal citizenship in the public world of politics. How, Wollstonecraft asks, is political equality possible if only husbands are held to be capable of self-government? How can two people, one a superior, the other an inferior, in private life, step out into the public world as self-governing citizens with equal rights? How can they just change, and forget their unequal private relationship, when they move from the household into the political world? Mary Wollstonecraft agreed with some of the most famous political philosophers that the family is the basis of the state. Where  Carole Pateman  367  she differed from them is in her argument that unless the relationship between the two adults who head that family — the husband and the wife, the mother and the father — is such that they interact as equals, then their private relationship undercuts, and forms no basis for, equality of citizenship rights and participation in the public world of politics. Her criticism also raises the question of the political meaning of masculinity and femininity — what it means to be a man or a woman. Does, for example, a really “masculine” man treat women as his equals? And if he does not, then how can women suddenly become his equals as citizens? If, throughout the rest of their lives, women are not treated as equals by men, then how can women become seen as people with equal rights in the political realm, or as people who are capable of making laws and governing? Thus, for at least for 200 years, feminists have been criticizing conventional arguments about democracy, including those embodied in some of the best known works of political theory. Democracy, it has been assumed, can be analysed and created without taking account of the character of relationships in private life, or the connection between the private and public worlds. The questions that feminists have been posing have largely been ignored, yet they too have been raising questions about the conditions for democracy and democratization. They have been investigating the interaction between political and social institutions and the private world of the household and relations between women and men more generally. Feminist arguments are still not given their due in most discussions of democracy and democratization, despite the fundamental importance of their insight that as long as women are not seen and treated as men’s equals in our everyday and private lives a major obstacle remains in the way of creating a genuinely democratic society. So here is another important question to think about as we move into the 21st century — the relationship between the public and the private, and how our most important private notions of ourselves as men and women have helped form our political institutions and are played out in our public lives. Another very important set of questions related to the connection between the public and private have now also begun to be  368  asked. In addition to democracy and democratization, we have heard a great deal about human rights in recent years. This debate, too, began in the 17th and 18th centuries, but then it was formulated in terms of natural rights. Today we use the language of human rights — the rights that everyone is held to have by virtue of being human. An area of criticism and questioning that has been pressed forcefully in the 1990s by feminist critics and political activists concerns the universality of human rights. They have been looking at the way in which human rights have been understood and implemented. Once again, what in principle are universal rights, applicable to all human beings, have been treated as “the rights of man,” the male sex, and have been taken much more seriously in the case of men than of women. Human rights have typically been seen in terms of the appalling things that happen to men at the hands of the state and governmental agencies, such as police forces, armies, security services and prison officials, or of guerrilla armies. Women are ill-treated by such agencies too, but often such violations of women’s human rights have not been treated as seriously, or received the same publicity. Sexual violation of women has not treated as an instance of torture. Moreover, consider an example, not just of human rights violations, but of the virtual elimination of women’s human rights that is taking place as we are gathered here. If the Taliban had turned on men rather than women, and had imprisoned all the men in Afghanistan inside their homes, expelled all the young boys from school, expelled all the men from workplaces, and imposed a severe dress code and code of conduct upon them, I suggest that we would have heard a much greater outcry than has been the case so far. One of the major difficulties that has stood in the way of the recognition that women as well as men have human rights is that violations of women’s rights take place as often — indeed, perhaps even more often — in the private sphere, rather than in the public world of states, police and armies. Yet it is the public sphere that has been seen as the location of human rights. Violations of women’s rights, and especially violence against women, by husbands and male kinfolk, and at the hands of men in general, are often thrust under the  Carole Pateman  369  carpet because these are held to be part of private, domestic arrangements, and so nothing to do with human rights. In the last few years this partial view of human rights has come under increasing criticism, and women’s human rights in general, together with the question of violence against women in particular, was finally put on the world political agenda at the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna. But again, to achieve changes in practice is a very slow process. Let me illustrate the problem of women’s human rights with a very basic example, and one that has now begun to receive some attention; that is, security of the person and the right to life. In the case of women, this goes far beyond the matter of overt, physical violence. It is also an issue of access to food and medical care, and of the social value of little girls. In some areas of the world, the preference for boys is so great and so little value is placed upon females, and their deprivations, including lack of nutrition and lack of health care is so severe, that we have a situation where the eminent philosopher and economist, Amartya Sen, has calculated that over 100 million women are missing. [Tables 2a&b] In the normal course of demographic events, we see a roughly equal balance between men and women in the population. Little boy babies tend to die a bit more often than girl babies, and women tend to live a bit longer than men, but we end up with roughly half men and half women in the population. Indeed, as the figures show, in some countries, especially the most well-off, there are slightly more women than men — and that is largely due to greater longevity of women. But you can also see from Table 2 that in some areas of the world there is a severe imbalance in the population in favour of men. There are around 100 million women less than would be expected in the normal course of events. The reason is that females are seen as of lesser human worth than males, and the health and lives of women and girls are deliberately neglected. If we are going to take democracy, rights and citizenship seriously, then we must consider the implications of such statistics. We have to ask how women’s rights — even rights to such basics as nutrition — are to be given priority in the 21st century. Often dis-  370  TABLE 2a: Women per 100 men 1970  1995  Europe  106  105  Other developed  101  103  Developed regions  Africa Northern Africa Sub-Saharan Africa  99  97  104  102  99  100  106  103  Latin America and Caribbean Latin America Caribbean Asia and Pacific Eastern Asia  98  97  Southeastern Asia  99  100  Southern Asia  95  Central Asia  95 104  Western Asia  90  92  Oceania  93  95  99.6  98.6  World  Source: "The World’s Women 1995: Trends and Statistics" (New York: United Nations) 1995  cussions of democracy and human rights are not brought together, but I hope that in the future they will be, and that we shall look back in amazement to see that a major problem existed in establishing women’s rights as human rights. Another aspect of the problem of women’s citizenship is that women tend to be poor. There are many millions of poor people in the world, but women tend to be the poorest. Women and children also make up the majority of refugees. And women’s contribution to the well-being of society and the survival of families is not counted in the same way as the contribution of men. We now hear every day about globalization and the spread of markets, which are closely associated with democratization in many discussions. And there are very well supported findings that, as income and education levels increase, so do demands for democratization. Figures 2a&b show  371  Carole Pateman  TABLE 2b: Countries and areas where there are fewer than 95 women per 100 men, 1970 and 1995 Women per 100 men 1970 Africa Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Latin America and Caribbean French Guiana Asia and Pacific Hong Kong Macau Bangladesh India Maldives Pakistan Bahrain [b] Oman [b] Qatar [b] Saudi Arabia [b] United Arab Emirates [b] Cook Islands French Polynesia Guam Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Vanuata  1995  91  92  84  90 [a]  97 95 93 93 89 93 86 98 54 94 60 95 95 79  94 94 94 94 92 92 75 90 55 81 52 92 93 93 86 93 89 94 92  92 93 89 89  [a] Data refer to 1982 [b] These oil-producing countries have large male immigrant populations. Source: "The World’s Women 1995: Trends and Statistics" (New York: United Nations) 1995  that women work much longer hours than men. But Figure 2 also shows that the United Nations System of National Accounts (SNA), a widely used way of measuring the wealth of the world, by calculating countries’ gross national product, measures only work that is done for the market. Only work that is done outside of the household is counted. Thus much of the work that women are doing is completely disregarded. This work includes a great deal more than housework as we think of it in Western countries; in many of the less developed countries, women spend countless hours gathering firewood, carrying water, and producing goods that are essential for the survival of their families, the survival of millions of people. None of  372  Developing Countries  Total time in all economic activities  Male NonSNA 24%  Female SNA 34% Male Total 47%  Female Total 53% Female Non-SNA 66%  Male SNA 76%  Male NonSNA 34%  Female SNA 34% Male Total 49%  Female Total 51% Female Non-SNA 66%  Male SNA 66%  Industrial countries  Total time in all economic activities  Carole Pateman  373  FACING PAGE: FIGURE 2a. Time allocation for SNA and non-SNA work (SNA = System of National Accounts). Developing countries: total averages for 9 countries; Industrial countries: total averages for 13 countries (excluding Sweden). Based on data in United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report 1995, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.  this work is counted in these official statistics — nor is it rewarded; most of it is unpaid. So here is another question: what should count as a contribution, and so be regarded as something that adds to social worth and standing, and the respect that is given to citizens? This, too, is important if women are to be equal partners with men in the process of democratization. While there has been progress in some areas, in reducing illiteracy and providing health care, for instance, inequalities have been increasing over the last 20 years, both between countries of North and South, the richer and poorer countries, and within the rich countries. For example, in 1960 the richest 20% of the world’s population had 70% of global income. In 1991, that richest 20% enjoyed 85% of global income — their share had gone up. On the other hand the share of the poorest 20% actually dropped from 2.3 to 1.4% — a very minimal amount. In 1991, 85% of the world’s population were making do with 15% of the world’s income. Now if people are really poor, if they are destitute, then it is very easy to see them as something less than citizens — as not really being worthy of the standing and the rights that citizens enjoy. So here is another, more familiar, question that we need to think about: the question of democratization and the distribution of income and wealth. Certainly the policies that have been so popular in the last 20 years — the policies of economic liberalization and privatization, that are called structural adjustment — have led to some progress, and some countries have improved their economic position greatly. But overall the disparities between rich and poor are growing. Now, is that a good basis for democratization? Can we really go on in that fashion into the 21st century if we are serious about democracy and democratization? There are some signs of re-thinking on the part of the World Bank and even the IMF. One of the encouraging signs is  374  FACING PAGE: FIGURE 2b. Women’s work time in excess of men (%). Based on data in United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report 1995, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.  the UN Human Development Reports that have been published annually since 1990, in which the emphasis is on the conditions necessary if men and women are going to be educated, healthy, self-governing citizens and take a meaningful part in controlling their own lives. Human rights, necessarily, cut across the boundaries of nation-states. Until quite recently the boundaries of the nation-state were taken for granted in discussions of democracy, but the ideas that I have argued are at the heart of democracy and human rights are, in principle, universal. You enjoy human rights wherever you are, no matter which state you are in. But the peculiarity of citizenship from the beginning has been that you always have to be a citizen of a state, and to enjoy rights within a state. The long process of democratization has been part of the making of a world divided into states, and the making of a world divided between citizens and aliens. Issues of inclusion and exclusion have been raised both inside states, and between states, right from the outset. Today, of course, many of the developments that have been summed up as “globalization” are making state borders less meaningful, and new transnational political units are being created, notably the European Union. However, a particularly complicated process is going on at the moment, since two contradictory processes are at work. On the one hand, globalization is bring borders into question, and prominence is given to human rights that cut across state borders. But, on the other hand, there is a resurgence of what is now called “ethnic cleansing,” and active hostility towards those seen as alien. People seen as the same as each other are gathering, or being forced, inside borders, and more and more states are being created. So another of the pressing issues that we need to think about as we move into the next century is whether we can develop some forms of democratization, and some new thinking about political units,  375  Developing Countries - Urban  Carole Pateman  Kenya Nepal Venezuela Indonesia Colombia 0%  5%  10%  15%  20%  25%  30%  35%  Developing Countries - Rural  Bangladesh Guatemala Nepal Philippines Kenya 0%  5%  10%  15%  20%  25%  30%  35%  5%  10%  15%  20%  25%  30%  35%  UK Finland USA Norway  Industrial Countries  Netherlands France Austria Italy 0%  376  that are not tied so closely to the nation-state. Can we create more flexible political institutions that would enable us to transcend some of the ethnic hatreds, anti-democratic ideas, and violations of human rights that we are facing at the moment? That I think is one of our biggest challenges, and one of the biggest questions. I have touched on some very complex matters, and we are living in a period of very rapid change. This makes it all the harder to tell which current developments present opportunities for further democratization, and which present problems or lead to dead ends. What are the obstacles? What are the opportunities? How do we tell the difference at a time of very rapid change? Can we be optimistic about democracy and democratization in the 21st century? Will we do better in the next century than we have in this one? Certainly one thing I am sure about: we cannot talk about democratization in any genuine sense in the 21st century if we do not give equal weight to the standing and rights of both halves of humankind.  377  INSTITUTE MEMORABILIA  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items