Inclusion and Democratization: Class, Gender, Race, and the Extension of Suffrage Author(s): Teri L.
Caraway Reviewed work(s): Source: Comparative Politics, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Jul., 2004), pp. 443-460 Published by: Ph.D. Program in Political Science of the City University of New York Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150170 . Accessed: 19/05/2012 08:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Ph.D. Program in Political Science of the City University of New York is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Politics.
Democratizationis also a story of the extension of formal political citizenshipto new categoriesof individualsand the continuedexclusion of others. and is considered problematiconly to the extent that it excludes AfricanAmericanmen from the polity.2 Comparativehistorical scholars of democratizationconcentrate primarily on Latin America.S. all women and racially subordinated groups had already been enfranchised. The second is to inteand subtlerway to include genderand race into analyses of democratization grate them as categories of analysis. While feminists have launchedtrenchantcritiquesof the recent studies of transitions. but in the initial waves of democratization studied by comparativistswomen were usually excluded from the franchise.Gender. How can comparativehistorical studies be revamped to incorporate gender and race more fully into their analyses?The first and most obvious way is to raise the bar to include women and raciallyexcluded groups.
TeriL. Delimiting the level of inclusion to universal adult male suffrage does not mean that gender and race can be safely excluded from consideration. with tization after authoritarian the exception of South Africa. By confining the study of democratization to the incorporationof (white) men. and in some countries racially subordinated groups were also denied the suffrage. while scholars of recent transitionsto democracy usually examine redemocrainterludes. She would be disappointed to see that little has changed. Caraway
In 1994 Carole Pateman lamented that political scientists had largely neglected the study of womanhood suffrage. while race encompasses not only racially subordinated groups but also racially dominant (usually white) groups.In most recent transitionsto democracy.they have largely ignored the fundamentalweaknesses of comparativehistorical studies of democratization. Europe.1 Scholars of democratizationgenerally focus on either the initial enfranchisement of (white) working class men or on recent transitions to democracy. 443
.since genderincludesnot only women but also men.Inclusion and Democratization of Suffrage Race.it is addressed explicitly only in the case of the U.3Although racial exclusion has captured more attention from comparative historical scholars of democratization. not only is an importanthistorical event overlookedbut the picture of the politics of democratizationis skewed. and the United States in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.andthe Extension Class.
they generally define democracyas a combinationof proceduresand inclusiveness. While scholars in the comparativehistorical traditionuse definitions of democracy that include procedural guaranteessimilar to those in recent studies of transitions. is consistent in this approach. Some may argue that inclusion is not important.7 In Dahl's scheme. however.4Following Dahl. but the experiences of the movement show its women's suffrage movement. According to Dahl. however. scholars could no longer ignore inclusion. for example.
Defining Democracy Comparativepolitics scholars who have studied early episodes of democratization have produced impressive comparativestudies that have provided a better explanation of the dynamics of expandingpolitical citizenship. whoever they may be.6 After Dahl's seminal work. historical timing potential importance must be taken into account when incorporatinginclusion in comparativetheories of democratization.that democracy is achieved once the governmentis held accountableto its citizens.5The aspect of inclusiveness in the definition. presents a challenge. in studies addition. Inclusion is not a major concern for him.Politics Comparative
In addition.Transnationalactivism is not a variable in studies of the extension of suffrage to the male working class. Barrington Moore. abolitionists. and the antiapartheid In of democratization. and he classifies countries such as England as democracies even though the vast majorityof their population could not vote.The crucial step in setting nations on the democraticpath thus becomes the incorporationof these excluded men. many of Moore's democratic cases would have fallen underthe category of competitive oligarchy. polyarchyrequires extensive inclusion as well as high levels of public contestation (see Figure 1). Ultimately. Two influential comparativehistorical works on democratization.Collier's Paths 444
. they often narrow their dependent variable by using universal adult male suffrage as the standard of inclusiveness. even though women of all races and some racially subordinated groups had still not gained the suffrage. They therefore concentrate on the transition from limited male suffrage to universaladult male suffrage and really study how particulargroups of men became incorporatedinto democraticinstitutions. his study shows how differentcountriesmade rulers accountableto some citizens. the issue boils down to where the line for inclusion in definitions of democracy is drawn. Most countries that gained independence from colonial powers after World War II did not go through multiple episodes of inclusion but usually enacted universal suffrage in their first elections. transnationalactivism and the role of historical timing are important in studies of democratization. and incorporationof these cases into comparative historical studies presents a dramatically different picture of democratization.
but they were far less importantin the known histories of democratization. and Stephens argue that "universal suffrage and responsibility of the state define in our view the essence of democracy.then they must say something about why the inclusion of women is not an essential aspect of their study. Stephens.
Delimiting Democracy Rueschemeyer. with high levels of contestationbut moderatelevels of political inclusion. Stephens."8A political system.yet they as well as Collier drawthe line at manhood suffrage when they operationalizedemocracy. and Stephens'justifications for delimiting democracy are worth quoting at length. If extensive inclusion is a necessary feature of a democracy. and their inclusion did not give rise to regime changes designed to reexclude them. then. Stephens. their dependent variable (II) falls in between competitive oligarchies (I) and polyarchy (III). make political inclusion part of their definition of democracy. Stephens/Collier
toward Democracy and Rueschemeyer.
Genderrelationsmay well be of critical importancefor futuredevelopments in democracy.
and Stephens. is not democratic unless there is widespread participation in democraticinstitutions.TeriL. and Stephens realize that they must justify drawing the line of inclusion at universal adult male suffrage.9
. Rueschemeyer. Rueschemeyer. and Stephens' Capitalist Development and Democracy.On Dahl's chart. Vastly less blood was shed in the struggles for women's political inclusion. Caraway Figure 1 Contestationand Inclusiveness
For Rueschemeyer. and would therefore Not surprisingly. and Stephens' account. republicansfeared that enfranchisingwomen would tip the balance to conservatives.As for whetherwomen's participationdid little to change the political spectrum. given women's close identification with the Catholic church. both on the streets and out of sight in the private sphere. and Stephens. the reader would never know about the existence of active and even militant women's suffrage movements duringthe periods in which the male working class was enfranchised. then they would need to exclude many of their cases. Supportersof suffrage. working does not of democratization A these vital historical periods. Whether women's political behavior actually changed the political spectrum after obtaining the vote is beside the point. Stephens.there is no need to make their incorporationinto democratic institutionspart of their study. Stephens.13 struggles over women's suffrage either opposed or supportedit based in part on their assessment of how women would change the future shape of politics. and the supposed lack of change after the fact is a post hoc justification. the incorporationof the working class was often a relatively bloodless affair pushed by competing elites Feminists would argue that hoping to capturethe vote of the newly enfranchised. gendered analysis it it makes necessary to require that nineteenth century history be left out. Since Collier the locus classicus of debates on the working class and democracy. political actors taking part in the alter the natureof politics for the better. often highlighted women's special characteristics and the way they would dramatically In short. She selects episodes of democratizationthat led to manhood suffrage and regrets that setting the bar higher to include women would "exclude virtually the entire experience of Europe in the nineteenth century.10 These justifications can be criticized both empirically and theoretically. From Rueschemeyer."15 is loath to omit she in class the role of the to aims study democratization.11 women did indeed spill blood. But first it is important to discuss how delimiting democracyto universaladult male suffrage shapes the way these authorsconducttheir analyses. Empirically. but explore how each extension of suffrage is a gendered process. and Stephens. in contrast. Collier also adopts manhood suffrage as her cutting point. In France. for example.if high levels of bloodshed determine inclusion in the study.12 to prevent women from gaining the vote.14 Unlike Rueschemeyer.many studies show that many men fought to exclude women precisely because they feared that women's voting behavior would change the political map.Stephens.republicansfought long and hard underminethe secular republic. universal adult male suffrage is the "historically crucial benchmark"for inclusion because only with it does electoral 446
They also comment that since women's inclusion never significantly changed the political spectrum. she does not make elaboratejustifications for why women can safely be excluded. As Collier shows.
The chancesof democracy.Insteadof focusing exclusively on class. and Stephens' theory go beyond the use of universal adult male suffrage as their standard of inclusion. as she analyzes many of the same cases as Rueschemeyer. the problems with Rueschemeyer. Paxton shows that transition dates often shift many years when this gap between definition and operationalizationis closed.22 However.Bringing women in. "by basing their measurement decision on class participation rather than full inclusion and concluding that the working-class plays a decisive role in democratization. the year women were enfranchised. it is possible that Rueschemeyer. and in many countries that formed part their analysis women comprised a significant portion of the working class. aligning the definition of democracycauses some cases long treatedas early democand operationalization ratizers (for example.As Paxton observes. Paxton notes that. is not simply a matterof including half the adult population in studies of democratization. there is a 123 year difference in the transition date to democracy.Adding women to the equation changes the variablesthat are consideredto be relevantin explaining democratizationand has profound theoretical implications. and Stephens.Stephens.mustbe seen as fundamentally shapedby the balanceof class classesovertherightto rulethatthedominant andsubordinate between It is the struggle power.20The same issue arises in Collier's study. Caraway participationtranscendclass lines. although this aspect is certainly important. anddecidesits prospects.16This definition of democracy works exceedingly well for them because they make a class-based argumentabout democratization. later than many less industrialized countries. which they call the "relativeclass power"model.""18 In an importantarticle. Switzerland) to become quite late democratizers. and Stephens' conclusion may have been built into their measurementdecision. and Stephens' book.from 1848 to 1971. democratic stability. France (sixty-eight years). and transition dates. they defeminize class by excluding women 447
. Stephens.19 In her analysis of Rueschmeyer. Stephens. Johnson has argued that classifying nations such as Switzerlandas democracieswhen more than half of the adult population could not vote constitutesa misclassification of the nationalpolitical regime. Britain (ten years). then. Paxton shows how this gap between the definition and the operationalizationof democracy affects explanations of the emergence of democracy. Stephens. Switzerland. and Uruguay (fifteen years).21Indeed. they would have had to include additionalvariables.like gender.TeriL.The most obvious point is that classes are composed not only of men but also of women. Italy (twenty-seven years).There were other notable differences in Argentina (twenty-five years). In the most striking case. In effect. A relatedissue is the imbricationand mutual constitutionof class and gender.17 on thehistorical morethananyotherfactor-putsdemocracy agenda
This argumentwould be difficult to sustain if they had selected universal suffrage as part of their dependentvariable.
class may be defined objectively in terms of position within the relations of production. in her discussion of the 1918 electoral reform in GreatBritain.then. while the reform resulted in about 90 percent of men obtaining the franchise. Feminist scholars have shown how gender is deeply implicated in the construction of the "working class" and its political demands.Stephens. but also potentially forms a line of division within classes. Stephens. why. but in real life politics the constitution of political actors may not correspond neatly to the objective boundaries of class. she neglects to explore more fully the extent to which the expansion of manhood suffrage was intimatelylinked to the continuedexclusion of many women.26 Yet in the end only some women benefited from the resulting expansion of the franchise.ComparativePolitics
from their class analysis. women householders. women are often excluded from the social definition of the working class. and Stephens. The omissions of race are less evident at first because many of the cases selected by scholars did not 448
.Stephens. initially included female suffragein their platformbut soon removed it for fear that it would retardthe suffrage of working class men. and Stephens reproduce this exclusion of women from the working class and muddle the distinction between objective and socially constructedcategories.Their approachraises the distinction between objective analyticalcategories and the way categories operate socially. For example. and. if they did not.she inadvertentlymisses some opportunitiesto bring gender more strongly into her analysis. Rueschemeyer. Collier does not give excessive analytical weight to class and is more concerned with showing the different paths through which workers gained access to democratic institutions. Unlike Rueschemeyer. Analytically. and in this sense even their study is deeply gendered. then propertiedwomen would have received the vote along with men when democratic institutions were founded. but in spite of this greater sensitivity there are still considerableweaknesses in their analyses. and women university graduatesthirty and over were enfranchised.24Gender. Political scientists should be interested in whether the "workingclass" pushed for the inclusion of women. By delimiting democracy to universal adult male suffrage. The continued exclusion of women is part of the story of the inclusion of the male working class. In fact. Thus. Since the enfranchisementof women is not part of her dependent variable. Rueschemeyer.25In their analysis. she notes that suffragetteskept up the pressure for reform and that the Labour Party did not oppose womanhood suffrage. If democratizationwere solely a matterof class struggle. some comparative historical studies have shown concern about incorporatingracial exclusion into their studies. only married women. In contrast to gender. however. not only operates in the construction of the working class and its interests.23Chartists in England. she often finds that the working class had little to do with its own enfranchisement and in many cases opposed it. and Stephensnever question why the female working class did not get the vote along with their male brethren. for example.
Stephens. then. 449
.it neglects the role of poor of laborcontrol. and Stephens wrestle with how to situateblack men in their theorizing. of the incompatibility between democracy and southernplantationowners' need for a repressive system While this factor is certainlyimportant. and Stephens'critical gaze. classlinesandweaken case.they can reinforce anddeepenclass differences as well as cut across rigiddistinctions thatmustbe treated muchlikeclassesthemselves.Stephens. he argues. They arguethat:
wherethey are linkedto class and/or Racialand ethnicdivisionsbecomeparticularly important As sharpandoften linkedto the stateapparatus. The lack of interest in discussing race seriously can be seen in Rueschemeyer. In addition.S. and Stephens prioritize class over other causal factors. is important only to the extent that it affects class relations or is like class.while these theorists make the significant step of acknowledging that race was a basis of exclusion. Since Rueschemeyer. historical analyses of democratizationshow a distinct sense of discomComparative fort and confusion about how to deal with the U. Stephens. as a democracy while slavery existed.thesedivisions mayconstitute Race. for example. Stephens. and Stephens. Stephens. The most studied exception.and Stephens' treatmentof Australia.TeriL. is a matterof class. the formal exclusion of the Inuit population in Denmarkuntil 1950 and in Canada until 1960 passes without remark in the comparative historical studies of democratization. Only after the Civil War. they do not change their analytical frameworkin light of the obvious importanceof race. is the U.28The issue is not whetherthe year 1870 or 1965 should be used as the date for the inclusion of African-Americanmen into the polity. then.29 Rueschemeyer.31 whites in enforcing the racial line and collaborating in the rollback of the newly acquired democratic rights of black men.S. was a democracy in the 1800s. Stephens.in which there is no mention that the Aboriginalpopulation could not vote in federal elections until 1962. did the U.S.27 BarringtonMoore. and it is not treatedas an analytical category with independentcausal weight. Rather.30 segments
Inthelimiting social classcohesion. was reluctantto classify the U. and Stephens do attempt to explain the relevance of race to studies of democratization.S.They rightly note that the FifteenthAmendment only temporarilyenfranchisedAfrican-Americanmen and that after Reconstruction many did not get to exercise their rights until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.S. become a democracy. whereracialandethnicgroupsaredifferentially of status. Similarly. Caraway experience a period in which universalwhite male suffrage coincided with the exclusion of particularracial groups. According to Rueschemeyer. and by the middle of the nineteenthcentury most white men were enfranchised. this importantdynamic escapes Rueschemeyer. Rueschemeyer. of course. the failure of the Fifteenth Amendmentto take root in the South.but slavery and the exclusion of black men gave scholars greaterpause than the exclusion of women. On proceduralgrounds there was little doubt that the U.
once by defeminizingclass and twice by defeminizingrace. Rueschemeyer. they can avoid dealing with gender. and Stephens could grant that their theory explains only a small part of the story of democratizationand that separatestudies are needed to explain women's incorporation. Perhapsthe worst result of Rueschemeyer.35 The abstract individual of liberal theory was from the start deeply imbued with gender and race. As the work of feminist theorists has shown.The basis for excludingraciallysubordinatof race that ed groups from the franchisewas race. toward black leged position is not The White South for a and the world unite of Africa.and Stephens'use of race is that. to political consciousness from the path objectivepositionin the relationsof production and identityis twisted and can lead to multiple outcomes. As TerrellCarverhas observed."32 point simply that fight race can weaken class cohesion. defined as the social organization of sexual difference.but Abstractly. then. phrasingthe relationshipbetween race and race class in this mannerassumesthe causalpriorityof class over race. gender played an intimate role in defining who counted as a citizen. gender therefore infused democratic institutions from the beginning. and a conceptualization to is as it classes divides it insofar unlikely providemuch illuassigns importanceonly minationaboutthe processesthroughwhich these groupsare excludedand laterincluded into the democraticpolity. includes both men and women. Ultimately. by acknowledgingits importanceonly when it overlaps with class.ComparativePolitics
analystsmay define workersin relationto the means of production. "genderis not a synonym for women. does not mean that gender played no role in episodes of democratizationthat enfranchised men. The absence of women in the definition of the dependent variable. and certain categories of persons were not defined as 450
. Gender and Race as Categories of Analysis While defining democracy as universal adult male suffrage limits the scope of the variables considered as relevant causal factors. there is a more fundamental point about how analytical categories are constructed. they doublyexclude African-American women. Stephens.Stephens. since the group being incorporatedin the study is men. since the abstractindividual-the basis for citizenshipwas male. Conceptualizing in this manner-as somethingthat divides classes-prevents scholars from integrating race more meaningfullyinto theiranalyses.33Their analyticalerror is to assume that. Rueschemeyer. Indeed.Stephens. not class. and Stephens lament that "an analysis of female suffrage would requireanothercomparativestudy" since there is little correlation between the extension of suffrage across class and across gender lines."34 Gender.wherewhite workersused access to the ballot box to guarantee "Workers the banner: rallied under White workers workers.The peril of overlookingthe processthroughwhich class is socially constructedcan perhapsbe seen most clearly in theirpriviSouthAfrica.
39 In racially divided societies. many elements of the white women's suffrage movement mobilized nationalist and racist imagery in order to push for their own enfranchiseIn addition.As analyses of the politics of "whiteness"demonstrate. Rather.41 Finally.38Race is thereforean integral part of every stage of democratization.the discussion of gender and race separatelyfrom class thus far has been somewhat simplistic. dered-and class-lines and simultaneously Just as gender is deeply implicated in the constructionof democratic institutions.race is not simply at work when people of color are studied but deeply shapes even "white" politics.A genderedanalysiswould not simply porpetuating traythe 1867 reformas the inclusionof more men. the extension of suffrage to more men actually marked two developments:"one.since bringing universal suffrage into the debate would result in the enfranchisement of 451
. the extenment and the continued exclusion of all African-Americans. Aboriginal peoples were disenfranchised.for example. For example.it would show how the expansion of suffrage operated along genincludedand excludedspecific groups. gender. Even prior to the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment."37 ReformAct in 1867 in Britain. John Stuart Mill argued in 1870 that universal and womanhood suffrage should be separated. Caraway part of the abstractindividual that formed the bedrock for delimiting citizenship.36 The inclusion of propertiedmen in this concept. In the Second women.43 sion of suffrage is deeply influenced by gender and race even when only white men are brought into the polity. Instead.42 In the United States the enfranchisementof black men createdbitter splits among abolitionists and advocates of female suffrage. therebyperthe completeexclusionof women.for example. an act of drawinglines between groups of the population that is deeply political.membersof parliamentretainedthe word man. race and class also mutuallyconstituteeach other in disparateways. and in the end women of all races had to wait until 1920 to be formally enfranchised.TeriL. while white women were enfranchisednationally in 1902. and race when pushing for extensions of the suffrage. even when the franchise is being extended to subgroups of the white population.two. class is not only constructedand divided along genderedlines but also along racial lines. so too is race. As Carole Patemannotes. also markedthe beginning of the exclusion of women.In Australia." women and men. Political actors carefully weighed class. the denial of votes to The exclusion of women was seldom a simple oversight.40Likewise. or even the continuedexclusion of women. then. the widening of manhood franchise. since the wider inclusion of white men simultaneously excluded other groups based on gender and race.JohnStuartMill triedbut failed to amenda which would have enfranchisedsome clause to replacethe word "man"with "person. In actual episodes of democratizationthese categories interact in complex ways. The politicalchoice to includemore men in democraticinstitutionsshould therefore provokethe question why the extension of suffrageoperatedalong genderedlines. each decision to incorporateadditional members of a politically dominantrace is also a decision to persist in excluding subordinatedraces.
"Women in Parliaments. Historical timing was thus important. transnationalactors based in other countries can encourage their home governmentsto pressureother governments. DuBois observes that from 1890 throughWorldWarI women associated with the Second Socialist International and the World's Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) pushed strongly for suffrage.but there are strong reasons to believe that it is importantfor studies of the inclusion of women and racially excluded groups.44The reasons behind these sorts of trade-offs call out for deeper analysis by political scientists. and even perhaps for activism can affect struggles for democracy in parworkingclass men. while women in the socialist women's movements advocatedthe suffrage agenda in nationAfter 1930 transnationalactivism as a means of spreading sufal socialist parties. The connections between abolitionists in Britain and the U.49 Historical Timing A quick perusal of the Inter-Parliamentary Union's useful report. for example. Civil War. the struggle for women's suffrage was international in scope almost from its inception.ComparativePolitics
working class men but not women. Transnational Activism activism plays little role in existing comparativehistorical studies of Transnational democratization. Many of the national affiliates of the WCTU had close links to trade unions and socialist parties..a key A more recent example is the international element in the North's eventualvictory. important lition on the political agenda.S. meeting with women's groups all over the world to talk about suffrage and its benefits.S. pressure on the white government in Pretoria. Also.45 role in the end of white rule in an which played important campaignagainstapartheid. and shared strategies. exchanged letters.50While women in Latin America.women from many countries met." reveals an interesting pattern..48 for women appearsto be less importantthan the diffusion of a world model of frage political citizenship that includedwomen. not only mobilized against a of activists how Klotz documents Africa. some proponents even traveled the globe. were Activists succeededin puttingaboin the antislavery strugglein each country.Keck and Sikkinkarguethatthe influence of BritishabolitionistspreventedBritainfromrecognizingthe South duringthe U. most notably the persuading apartheid the increased that sanctions to enact U. South range national in also succeeded but governments. Transnational ticular national contexts by influencing the local actors who participate in transnational networks. 452
.47Through a variety of organizations.S.46 Similarly.
The United Arab Emiratesand Kuwait are the two countriesthat still do not allow women to vote. Nevertheless. soon thereafter.53Likewise. however.TeriL. India. there is much variationwithin western countries in the exclusion of racially subordinant groups and the timing of the extension of suffrage to women. Europe.makes it hazardousto draw firm conclusions about timing with respect to race. While Latin Americancountriesexcluded women.51 The main exceptions to this rule are in the Middle East. The timing of the formation of the nationstate played a major role in whethergroups were incorporatedsequentially or simultaneously. there are interesting paradoxes. Countries that gained independence after World War II tended to adopt universal suffrage immediately. The longest delays occurred in the Gulf states. Second.First. However. How do notions of democracy change over time? It is hardly coincidental that most new nations enacted universalsuffragebefore or soon after independencewhile colonial powers. womanhood suffrage was no longer a controversial issue in most existing democracies. in studying democratization. based on the available data. In most nations bordering the women either participatedin the first elections or were enfranchised Mediterranean. Timing was important. and the settler colonies generally had to wait years before being incorporated into democratic institutions. however. they were less likely to exclude racially subordinant groups explicitly than the settler colonies and western countries. For example. Caraway Europe. Nations established before World War II were far more likely to deny women or racially subordinated groups the suffrage. 453
. while those founded after World War II usually enfranchised all citizens immediately. Indonesia.most women in the postcolonial world had the right to vote in their countries' first elections. With respect to race. and countries that gained independencein the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were far more likely to follow sequentially inclusive patterns. women played an importantrole in nationaliststruggles for independence.52Islam per se does not seem to be the most important factor. and Malaysiaenfranchisedall adults simultaneously. with the exception of settler colonies in Africa. Not all western countries excluded people from voting based on race. settler colonies. Nevertheless. race-based exclusion in the West does not present the same pronounced pattern as gender.A couple of factors played a role in generatingthis sharplydistinctpath of democratization. The absence of systematic data on racial exclusion.and many male nationalists viewed the improvementof women's status as an integral part of becoming a "modern"nation. and North America. by the time that most of these countries gained independence after World War II. countries that denied suffrage based on race were in the Antipodes. In short. Countries with large Muslim populations like Bangladesh. no countries that gained independence after World War II denied suffrage to citizens based solely on race. where in the overwhelming share of cases women were initially excluded from voting.it is importantto keep in mind the issue of world time.
from limited male suffrage to universal adult male suffrage to universal adult suf454
. since democratization is a process. As arguedby Dahl (see Figure 1). A comparativehistorical approachto democratizationcan help explain this puzzling variation. greaterinclusiveness moves a polity closer to polyarchy. dependentvariablethat will allow them to draw meaningful conclusions. Yet.the possibility of conceptualizingdemocratizationas episodes of the expansion of suffrage to include new groups of people should also be explored. Any move to include an excluded group is a form of democratization.Instead of thinking of democratizationas a process that has a particularendpoint. then universal. countries can be more or less democratic.just as the eventual incorporation of other excluded groups forever changed how succeeding generations conceived of democracy.55 Combining dichotomous and graded definitions may seem contradictory. they do not want to compare apples and oranges. the meaning of The incorporationof the male working class changed democracyshifts historically.54 notions about the necessary featuresof a democracy. A dichotomous definition of democracy that combines universal suffrage and a set of proceduresshould be retained. all males. Three additional factors should also inform any comparativestudy of democratization that focuses on inclusion. But Switzerland enfranchised women in 1971. Once democratization is conceptualizedin this way.The most common paths are not those followed by the countries in North and South America and Europe that form the basis of most historical theorizing on democratization. changes in proceduresor inclusion that bring a polity more in line with the dichotomous definition of democracyare a form of democratization.but democratizationshould be examined as a graded process in which a countrybecomes more democratic. a new set of researchquestions emerges. In dichotomousdefinitions of democracy. The element of democratization to which more attention should be paid is inclusiveness. as Markoff observes. then. in contrast. First.
Revamping Democratization: A New Research Agenda How. although polities that enfranchise all citizens are not necessarily democracies.depending on the extent to which they fulfill certain characteristics.a country is either a democracyor not a democracy.Most of Latin America followed a path similar to Europe's.It is not necessarily a democracy. can these multiple observations be combined into a workable research political scientists seek to define a consistent agenda? In studies of democratization. countries have followed different paths of democratization.but it is acquiringmore attributesof one.ComparativePolitics
Switzerlandextended the suffrage in a sequence similar to the Netherlands-limited male. and the Netherlands in 1922. but. In graded notions of democracy.
How did political actors limit the scope of the extension of the suffrage to certain categories of individuals? In cases where all citizens were enfranchisedin the first democraticelections. analyzes sequentially all episodes of the inclusion of excluded groups. the vast majority of postcolonial countries enfranchised all adults in the first elections. However.studies of the integrationof other exclud455
. Withthese considerationsin mind.Third. scholars would not need to choose between proceduresand inclusion. a comparison of the U. In contrast. in some cases these categories will be more important than in others. nationalist ideology.gender and race should be utilized as categories of analysis. In these cases. and race.new political actors enter the scene. The first. Caraway frage. how did political actors come to see suffrage as an integralright for all citizens? Historical timing. regardless of the group being incorporated. Second. In selecting cases. gender. and Brazil could provide insights into why some countriesfollow one path and not another. whereas a comparisonof Indonesia. comparison of countries that followed similar sequences of inclusion will lead to different conclusions than comparison of countries that followed different sequences. and a narrowergroup of political actors remain excluded. and the extent to which transnational factors altered domestic debates. Longitudinal studies of democratizationin single countries can also consider the sequencing of the extension of democraticcitizenship.S.S. South Africa. For example. and transnational factors are likely to be importantelements of the story. three kinds of studies will deepen explanations of democratization. the extent to which previous expansions of the franchise affected the next round of democratization.TeriL.Such studies provide vital insights into the whole process of democratization and a rich sense of the interactionof class. the task is slightly different. if scholars begin the exercise with the assumption that they are irrelevantbecause working class men are included. These political constellations should have a dramatic impact on the politics of subsequentdemocratization. Just as the comparativehistorical analysis of the incorporationof the working class has yielded a number of powerful theories that explain the causes of that particulartype of democratization.transnational activism should also be considered explicitly as a possible factor prompting democratization. single country studies. The U. Cross-nationalstudies that comparethe extension of suffrage to particulargroups are also needed. scholars must be careful to structuretheir comparisonsto take into account these different sequences. With each successive round of democratization. Of course. then they are likely to miss the role that they play during democratization. and South Africa could tell much about the causes behind this particular sequencing of inclusion. both aspects could easily be incorporated. In this type of analysis. and South Africa (excluding the Cape) moved from limited white male suffrageto universaladult white male suffrageto universaladult white suffrage to universal adult suffrage. Ambitious scholars who wish to conduct longitudinalcomparativestudies should take care in the selection of cases.
Early and late are relative ratherthan absolute concepts. A gendered look at political inclusion. the contexts. tell much about how historical timing and the sequencing of inclusion shaped the incorporationof the group in question. although importantrole of nationalismin placing much of the postcoloon a different nial world important path is better understoodthanks to Jayawardena's call out for comparativetheorization. in contrast."56 in movement women's suffrage particularcountries. historical timing is largely controlled.58 Among countries that followed similar sequences in inclusion. In this type of study. comparativistshave yet to turn this to their attention importantsubject. then. therebyruling it out as a potential cause. Comparisonsacross sequences.Politics Comparative
ed groups into democratic institutionsare needed.where the franchisewas not restrictedby race? Finally. Cross-nationalcomparisonsof particularepisodes of inclusion will generate useful generalizationsabout how certain groups became integratedinto the democratic polity. Are there differences in how Communist.In addition. For instance. and Switzerland. Why did women in some countries where in stages obtain the vote relatively early (in the late ninewas extended the suffrage twentieth teenth and early centuries). authoritarian. was the politics of the inclusion of white women in South Africa different from the politics of democratizationfor women in the Netherlands.By controlling for sequence. As Paxton states. while others succeeded quickly?57In II)? Why examine the debates about womanhood suffrage in postcolonial few studies addition. where all women obtained the right to vote in 1913. for example) were ahead of many western democracies. 456
. we only understand While a host of case studies examines the democratizationthat excludes women. "we do not yet understanddemocratizationas it is commonly conceptualized. much could be learned about democratizationby comparing countries that enfranchised the group relatively early and relatively late. Norway.while in others relatively late (after WorldWar women did some struggle for years. by comparing countriesthat followed the same sequence. which enfranchised women in federal elections in 1971. underminessome of the hierarchiesimplicit in much social science research about the inclusive nature of political systems and the progressiveness of the West when comparedto the rest of the world. while some authoritarianregimes in the East (Thailand and Turkey. for example.it would also be worthwhileto look at inclusion irrespectiveof the broadand democer regime type. ratic regimes have incorporatedwomen? Communist countries were ahead of many "democracies"in granting women the formal rights of political citizenship. the previous inclusion of other groups can be ruled out as a causal factor in their enfranchisementand attention can be focused on why the inclusion of this group took so much longer in one case than in another. These subjects study. but the difference in time between when the first group and the group that is the subject of the comparisonwere enfranchisedis important. scholarsneed to specify carefully the proceduralcomponent of their definition so that they can hold these factors relatively constant. Not the actual year.
ed. Thus. it can be seen how even early episodes of democratization that expanded the suffrage to particular subgroups of white men were deeply shaped by both gender and race. 1990).and the anonymous reviewers for ComparativePolitics for their comments. Democratizationis therefore also a story of the extension of suffrage to new categories of individuals and the continued exclusion of others. Although raising the bar to include women is an importantfirst step. NOTES
I am grateful to EdwardGibson. See Sonia E. 1999). and race are mutually constructedand interactin concrete historical circumstances. what is being studied-a very limited form of democratization-must be clearly defined. gender. 2. By confining the study of democratizationto the incorporation of men. Paths toward Democracy: The WorkingClass and Elites in WesternEurope and SouthAmerica (New York:CambridgeUniversity Press.. Since women were already enfranchisedin these cases. 1994)."Three Questions about Womanhood Suffrage. Jaquette. bringing gender and race into analyses will make theorizing about democratizationmore thanjust studies of the enfranchisementof men. Decisions to include white working class men were often also decisions to exclude women and particularracial groups. Feministstudies of recent transitionsto democracyhighlight the role of women's groups in the colrule and the consequences of the transitionto and consolidation of democracy for lapse of authoritarian women's substantivepolitical citizenship.TeriL. The Women's
. By injecting gender and race as categories of analysis. Gendermay be a relevant factor even though women were not enfranchised."in Caroline Daley and Melanie Nolan. pp. LaurenMorris-Maclean.. Engendering Democracy in Brazil: Women Movements in TransitionPolitics (Princeton: Princeton University Press. Such a simplistic view overlooks the extent to which class. Carole Pateman. 3. 1. Caraway Conclusion The study of democratizationwill be radicallyaltered and improvedby a meaningful integration of gender and race. simply adding women or racially excluded groups to existing paradigmsis not enough. is an importantexception. the picture of the politics of democratizationis skewed. Jane S. The enfranchisementof the male working class can still be studied.The incorporationof gender and race as categories of analysis in studies of democratizationwill not only generate causal explanationsfor the inclusion of excluded groups but will also show the role of gender and race in the inclusion of working class men. 331-48. It will also make clear the gender and racial assumptions that underlinemuch of comparativepolitical analysis. Elisabeth Friedman. Suffrageand Beyond: InternationalFeminist Perspectives (New York:New York University Press. Ruth Berins Collier. 2000). Tulia Falleti. eds. suffrage 's does not figure in the analyses. Unfinished Transitions:Womenand the GenderedDevelopment of Democracy in Venezuela.1936-1996 (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Alvarez. However. Gender and race appear to play little or no role because the group obtaining the vote is white men.
CapitalistDevelopmentand Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. RobertA. Wolchik. p.Most nations in Latin America strove to erase the identities of indigenous peoples by incorporatingthem as peasants. Chile. 35 (Fall 2000). eds. and Social Change in Argentina. 26-27. Collier. Women.Producing Workers: Jute Mills (Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress. Ibid. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World(Boston: Beacon Press. lists 1830 as the year in which all white males had the right to vote in national elections.. Asunci6n Lavrin. 9.Stephens. 15. pp. 1789-1993. 17. and Social Democratic Regimes (New York:CambridgeUniversity Press. and Uruguay (Lincoln:University of NebraskaPress. Ibid. and Georgina Waylen. Karen Offen. 116. "Women. although indigenous peoples in Latin America were usually not formally excluded by racial identity. 1983). Citizenshipand Civil Society: A Frameworkof Rights and Obligations in Liberal. See Deborah J. Joan Wallach Scott.and Stephens. Ollie A. pp. Pamela Paxton. Sonya O.Citizenship and Suffrage with a FrenchTwist. 46 (April 1994). p. Collier.Evelyne Huber Stephens. Traditional. 1988). Dahl. 10. 100-1 27. 1971). 24. Class. Jane S. Ibid. 1992). and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. 47.p. 92-111.. "Women's Suffrage in the Measurement of Democracy: Problems of InternationalDevelopment. 16. and Culture in the Calcutta 25. 26. The Politics of Gender.Contesting Citizenship: Indigenous Movements. Ibid. Moore. p. 8.p. Jaquetteand SharonL.. pp. and the Postliberal Challenge in Latin America (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. For example. BarringtonMoore. 7."National Political Science Review.. Studies in Comparative Operationalization. 204-5.S. p. 12. Women and Eastern Europe (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Rueschemeyer. and Democracy: LatinAmerica and Central 1991). 43. The most widely read comparative historical studies of democratization include Collier.
. 1995). Leela Fernandes. 18. 14. 4. 5. 314." in Daley and Nolan. Collier. Ibid.Feminism.Stephens. and Regime Classification. 1998). LimitedLivelihoods: Gender and Class in Nineteenth-Century England (Berkeley: Universityof California Press.Politics Comparative
Movement in Latin America: Feminism and the Transition to Democracy (Boulder: Westview Press. 27. and John. 48. BarbaraTaylor. is probablynot the only country in which the formal enfranchisementof racially excluded groups was subverted in practice. Johnson III. Gender and the Politics of History (New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press. 1997). Male Supremacy. eds. "PluralistAuthoritarianismin ComparativePerspective: White Supremacy. The U. Stephens. 327-54. pp. and Stephens. pp. 7 (1999). Thomas Janoski. 11. 1998). p. the State. 13. Ibid. Rose. 98 21. "Womenand Democratization:ConceptualizingGender Relations in TransitionPolitics. D. 23.." 19. p. Ibid. Rueschemeyer..they may not have been able to exercise their right to vote due to such obstacles as literacy restrictions." WorldPolitics. 103 22. and Opposition(New Haven:YaleUniversityPress. forthcoming). Polyarchy: Participation 6. 20. 1992). 28. 7. Dahl. 54-76. 1966). Yashar.Eve and the New Jerusalem: Socialism and Feminism in the Nineteenth Century (London:Virago. 151-70..
41. The Wagesof Whiteness:Race and the Making of the American Working (London: Verso. pp. Mills. three weeks after its promulgation an electoral law was passed that disenfranchisedwomen. Ellen Carol DuBois." 43. "LiberalStrategiesof Exclusion. and Stephens. Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault's History of Sexualityand the Colonial Orderof Things(Durham:Duke University Press. eds. for Women 35. 1995). 49. 37. eds. Francisco O. 735-45. 52. JoanWallachScott. 1991). Caraway
29. and Tasmania) enfranchisedwomen and/orall Aboriginalpeoples. 252-74. New South Wales. p. 42.p. and Shanahanassert that only three countries that became independent in the twentiethcentury-Austria."ThreeQuestions aboutWomanhoodSuffrage. 1991).Stephens. Class 39. Roediger. CharlesW. Carole Pateman. 45.and Libya--extended suffrage to men prior to women. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in InternationalPolitics (Ithaca:Cornell UniversityPress.Stephens.Mass. some parts of Australia(South Australia. Ramirez. David R. Audie Klotz. 1998).Stephens. Ireland. 40. 32.GenderIs Not a Synonym (Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Ramirez. Yasemin Soysal. Ann Laura Stoler. 1996). "Woman Suffrage around the World: Three Phases of Suffragist in Daley and Nolan. and Stephens. Priorto 1902. in Parliaments1945-1995: A World Statistical Survey (Geneva: 50.Stephens.Mass. "The ChangingLogic of Political Citizenship:Cross-NationalAcquisition of Women's Suffrage Rights.Victoria. Margaret E. although space limitations preventa thoroughdiscussion of it. pp. 128. 62 (October 1997).. Arnold Whittick. 427-55. 707-27. Uday Mehta. 18 (December 1990). (London:Zed Books. Nigel Worden."pp. 334-35. Rueschemeyer. Rueschmeyer. Feminismand Nationalism in the ThirdWorld 51. 333-34.
.. 21 (Spring 1996).: Blackwell. 31. 1986). Internationalism. the authorsalso find that the importanceof national political and organizationalfactors diminished after 1930. In addition. 1995)."Signs. The Making of Modern South Africa: Conquest. for example. The 1902 constitution. however. "InternationalFeminist Perspectives in Daley and Nolan. 44. Cohen. 52. pp.. 1996). 48. 47. Ibid. "Nationalismand Suffrage:Gender Struggle in Nation-BuildingAmerica.denied the Aboriginal populationthe federal suffrage. Egypt. KumariJayawardena. while Canada is discussed only in Rueschemeyer. Philip N." Woman into Citizen(London:Athenaeumwith FrederickMuller. Dubois."Politics and Society. pp. Melanie Nolan and Caroline Daley. 46. Segregation. 36. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink. Women IPU. 30. Roediger. However."ThreeQuestions aboutWomanhoodSuffrage. ThereAin 't No Black in the Union Jack: The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation (Chicago:University of Chicago Press. this Union Data.and Stephens. 41-51.p. 48. and Suzanne Shanahan.and Stephens. TheRacial Contract(Ithaca:Cornell University Press."pp. 1988). gained independence in assertion conflicts with the Interparliamentary 1922. Norms in InternationalRelations: The Struggle against Apartheid (Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress.TeriL. TerrellCarver. 34. Pateman. and Apartheid (Cambridge. 1997). Immigrationand citizenship have implications for this debate as well. 51-58. Women were later reenfranchisedin 1956. Soysal. 1995). p. 1-22. Keck and Sikkink. on Suffrage:An Introduction. 1996).: Harvard University Press. 314. 38. Inter-Parliamentary Union. Paul Gilroy. Ibid. 1890 to 1990. 33."AmericanSociological Review. Denmarkis a case in both Collier and Rueschemeyer. Althoughthe 1923 constitutionenfranchisedboth men and women. Only Paradoxesto Offer:FrenchFeminists and the Rights of Man (Cambridge. Pateman.TheSexual Contract(Stanford:StanfordUniversity Press. 1979).
56. 207. See David Collier and Robert Adcock."Banaszak'scomparison of the women's suffrage movement in the U. This distinction has importantconsequences for the politics of expanding inclusion. Paxton. 49 (April 1997). 104. 57. 53."Annual Review of Political Science." World Politics. often resulted in the exclusion of former slaves from the suffrage in Latin America.p. With the absence of formal racial exclusions in Latin America."ThreeQuestions about WomanhoodSuffrage. WhyMovements Succeed or Fail: Culture. 55. 1996). Daley and Nolan's Suffrageand Beyond. 430-51.while a valuable contribution. of course. Scholars might need to resort to "democracywith adjectives"to come up with terms that describe countries that are more democratic on inclusion but less so on proceduralmeasures. and Switzerland. 1995). and dynamics of women's eventual inclusion in democraticpolitics. 537-65.Politics Comparative
See Margot Badran. covers a range of experiences of suffrage movementsbut generalizes little about the timing. 2 (1999). 58.S. "Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovationin ComparativeResearch. causes.and the Strugglefor Woman Suffrage(Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press. See Lee Ann Banaszak. "Democracy and Dichotomies: A PragmaticApproach to Choices aboutConcepts. Another useful collection. Pateman. Propertyqualifications. however. Islam. and Nation: Gender and the Making of Modern Egypt (Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress. 54. David Collier and Steven Levitsky. Wavesof Democracy: Social Movements and Political Change (Thousand Oaks: Pine ForgePress. Opportunity. 1996). John Markoff. the majorityof racially excluded groups was formally incorporatedby lowering propertyqualifications or literacy requirementsratherthan revoking laws that prohibitedracial categories from voting.
. p.engages studies of social movements rather than democratization.Feminists.