This is to continue the discussion in my Sept. 8 column regarding women and autocrats, drawn from the very interesting article in the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs (by the way, a journal published by the Council on Foreign Relations and founded on Sept. 1, 1922 – a hundred years ago) entitled “Revenge of the Patriarchs: Why Autocrats Fear Women” by Harvard University professors Erica Chenoweth and Zoe Marks.
What makes it doubly interesting for me is that as references to the influence of women on the frontlines of mass movements are made, they bring it closer to home with the references to the Philippines. This allows a quick historical look and a renewed appreciation for women’s roles – and more important, a basis for empowering these women’s movements even more.
The authors’ research reveals that all the major resistance movements during the postwar period seeking to topple national governments or for independence had women playing a role, whether in providing food, shelter, intelligence, funds or other supplies.
In the first half of the 20th century, women were engaged in anti-colonial liberation struggles in Africa and in leftist movements in Europe and Latin America. In more recent times, pro-democracy movements in Myanmar and the Philippines “saw nuns positioning their bodies between the security forces and civilian activists.”
Mass movements in which there was extensive frontline women participation were noted to have had much more likelihood of success rather than those that marginalized or excluded women. They have been more likely to participate in nonviolent mass movements than in violent ones. To appreciate why women’s frontline participation increases a movement’s chance for success, it is important to see how and why nonviolent movements fail or succeed.
First, the advantage of women’s participation is obvious in increasing numbers of people in the mass action. Movements that sideline women reduce the potential pool of participants by half. The larger the mobilization, the more likely the status quo will be disturbed. And the fence sitters may join as the crowd number increases. There are those who hesitate, wanting to join what looks like the “winning side.”
Second, “significant participation by women and other diverse actors increases the social, moral and financial capital… that can erode its opponent’s support system.” The diversity of participants signals the possibility that a regime may be defied. The example given is the 1986 People Power Revolution in the country. It reports “… Ferdinand Marcos ordered the security forces to attack large groups of demonstrators who were demanding his ouster.” But nuns physically blocked the tanks and shielded the demonstrators, something the security forces could not bring themselves to defy, “averting a massacre that could have altered the course of the revolution. High-level defections followed, and Marcos eventually fled the country, leading to a democratic transition.”
Third, women’s participation expands the range of tactics and modes of protest. Among the creative tactics are: the march in beauty queen regalia as Myanmar did in its 2021 pro-democracy protests; women protesting naked in Kenya, Nigeria and other countries to disarm their opponents; social shaming as during the 2019 anti-government protests in Algeria when grandmothers told the riot police to go home, threatening to report their bad behavior to their mothers.
Women have also given birth to other forms of noncooperation as seen in the origin of the term “boycott.” The name of this “new” form of strategy comes from the absentee British landlord Captain Charles Boycott when, in the late 19th century, women cooks, maids and laundrywomen refused to continue providing their services. Others joined them and Boycott could not remain in Ireland.
Fourth, women on the frontlines are less likely to support violence and moderates the behavior of police forces. Public violence against women is considered taboo in society.
It is noted that women on the frontlines of mass movements don’t just stop at the achievement of their short-term goal as in the removal of a dictator. They look towards achieving democratic change and increases in egalitarian democracy. Their participation opens up increased demands for “electoral participation, economic opportunity and access to education and health care.” All these make the transition to democracy more likely to endure.
Such participation is described as akin to “a rising tide, lifting all boats.”
And to be realistic about it, when such movements fail, it is seen that the greater the participation of women in the defeated movement, the stronger the patriarchal backlash.
There is a lengthy discussion on the autocrat’s playbook and why women are targeted. But what should be of special interest to us is the reference to the Dutertes, father and daughter. Sara Duterte Carpio was viewed as a frontrunner to the presidency and her father’s successor until her father announced that women are “not fit” to be president. “Despite the country’s history of female heads of state and Duterte-Carpio’s leading poll numbers, she dutifully filed her candidacy for vice president instead.”
The future is not bleak for women’s participation in frontline mass actions, despite setbacks posed by identified misogynist leaders like Trump, Bolsonaro and Duterte. History has shown that authoritarian strategies fail in the long run. And bless the feminists who have always found ways to fight for their rights, to carry on with the struggle.
* * *
Save these September writing dates via Zoom. Sept. 17: “Writing in Challenging Times,” for adults with awardwinning novelist Glenn Diaz, 2-3:30 pm. His first novel “The Quiet Ones” (Ateneo University Press) won the Palanca Grand Prize and the National Book Award from the Manila Critics Circle. His forthcoming second novel “Yñiga” was shortlisted for the 2020 Novel Prize.
Sept. 24: Young Writers’ Hangout with facilitator Sofi Bernedo, 2-3 pm.
Contact writethingsph@gmail.com. 0945.2273216
Email: elfrencruz@gmail.com