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 support@jstor.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.

http://www.jstor.org

Inclusion and Democratization of Suffrage Race,andthe Extension Class,Gender,

TeriL. Caraway

In 1994 Carole Pateman lamented that political scientists had largely neglected the study of womanhood suffrage. She would be disappointed to see that little has changed.1 Scholars of democratizationgenerally focus on either the initial enfranchisement of (white) working class men or on recent transitions to democracy.2 Comparativehistorical scholars of democratizationconcentrate primarily on Latin America, Europe, and the United States in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, while scholars of recent transitionsto democracy usually examine redemocrainterludes.In most recent transitionsto democracy, with tization after authoritarian the exception of South Africa, all women and racially subordinated groups had already been enfranchised, but in the initial waves of democratization studied by comparativistswomen were usually excluded from the franchise, and in some countries racially subordinated groups were also denied the suffrage. While feminists have launchedtrenchantcritiquesof the recent studies of transitions,they have largely ignored the fundamentalweaknesses of comparativehistorical studies of democratization.3Although racial exclusion has captured more attention from comparative historical scholars of democratization,it is addressed explicitly only in the case of the U.S. and is considered problematiconly to the extent that it excludes AfricanAmericanmen from the polity. 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. By confining the study of democratization to the incorporationof (white) men, not only is an importanthistorical event overlookedbut the picture of the politics of democratizationis skewed. The second is to inteand subtlerway to include genderand race into analyses of democratization grate them as categories of analysis. Delimiting the level of inclusion to universal adult male suffrage does not mean that gender and race can be safely excluded from consideration,since genderincludesnot only women but also men, while race encompasses not only racially subordinated groups but also racially dominant (usually white) groups. Democratizationis also a story of the extension of formal political citizenshipto new categoriesof individualsand the continuedexclusion of others. 443

Politics Comparative

July 2004

In addition, transnationalactivism and the role of historical timing are important in studies of democratization.Transnationalactivism is not a variable in studies of the extension of suffrage to the male working class, but the experiences of the movement show its women's suffrage movement, abolitionists, and the antiapartheid In of democratization. in studies addition, historical timing potential importance must be taken into account when incorporatinginclusion in comparativetheories of democratization. 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, and incorporationof these cases into comparative historical studies presents a dramatically different picture of democratization.

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.4Following Dahl, they generally define democracyas a combinationof proceduresand inclusiveness.5The aspect of inclusiveness in the definition, however, presents a challenge. While scholars in the comparativehistorical traditionuse definitions of democracy that include procedural guaranteessimilar to those in recent studies of transitions, they often narrow their dependent variable by using universal adult male suffrage as the standard of inclusiveness. They therefore concentrate on the transition from limited male suffrage to universaladult male suffrage and really study how particulargroups of men became incorporatedinto democraticinstitutions.The crucial step in setting nations on the democraticpath thus becomes the incorporationof these excluded men, even though women of all races and some racially subordinated groups had still not gained the suffrage. Ultimately, the issue boils down to where the line for inclusion in definitions of democracy is drawn. Some may argue that inclusion is not important,that democracy is achieved once the governmentis held accountableto its citizens, whoever they may be. Barrington Moore, for example, is consistent in this approach; his study shows how differentcountriesmade rulers accountableto some citizens. Inclusion is not a major concern for him, and he classifies countries such as England as democracies even though the vast majorityof their population could not vote.6 After Dahl's seminal work, however, scholars could no longer ignore inclusion. According to Dahl, polyarchyrequires extensive inclusion as well as high levels of public contestation (see Figure 1).7 In Dahl's scheme, many of Moore's democratic cases would have fallen underthe category of competitive oligarchy. Two influential comparativehistorical works on democratization,Collier's Paths 444

TeriL. Caraway Figure 1 Contestationand Inclusiveness

Competitive
Oligarchies

III

Rueschemeyer,
and Stephens, Stephens/Collier

Polyarchy

Inclusiveness

toward Democracy and Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens' Capitalist Development and Democracy, make political inclusion part of their definition of democracy. Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens argue that "universal suffrage and responsibility of the state define in our view the essence of democracy."8A political system, then, is not democratic unless there is widespread participation in democraticinstitutions,yet they as well as Collier drawthe line at manhood suffrage when they operationalizedemocracy.On Dahl's chart, their dependent variable (II) falls in between competitive oligarchies (I) and polyarchy (III), with high levels of contestationbut moderatelevels of political inclusion.

Delimiting Democracy Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens realize that they must justify drawing the line of inclusion at universal adult male suffrage. If extensive inclusion is a necessary feature of a democracy,then they must say something about why the inclusion of women is not an essential aspect of their study. Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens'justifications for delimiting democracy are worth quoting at length.
Genderrelationsmay well be of critical importancefor futuredevelopments in democracy,but they were far less importantin the known histories of democratization. Vastly less blood was shed in the struggles for women's political inclusion, and their inclusion did not give rise to regime changes designed to reexclude them.9

445

Politics Comparative

July 2004

They also comment that since women's inclusion never significantly changed the political spectrum,there is no need to make their incorporationinto democratic institutionspart of their study.10 These justifications can be criticized both empirically and theoretically. Empirically,if high levels of bloodshed determine inclusion in the study, then they would need to exclude many of their cases. As Collier shows, 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.11 women did indeed spill blood, both on the streets and out of sight in the private sphere. From Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens' account, 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.As for whetherwomen's participationdid little to change the political spectrum,many studies show that many men fought to exclude women precisely because they feared that women's voting behavior would change the political map. In France, for example, republicansfeared that enfranchisingwomen would tip the balance to conservatives, given women's close identification with the Catholic church, and would therefore Not surprisingly,republicansfought long and hard underminethe secular republic.12 to prevent women from gaining the vote. Supportersof suffrage, in contrast, often highlighted women's special characteristics and the way they would dramatically In short, political actors taking part in the alter the natureof politics for the better.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. Whether women's political behavior actually changed the political spectrum after obtaining the vote is beside the point, and the supposed lack of change after the fact is a post hoc justification. Collier also adopts manhood suffrage as her cutting point.14 Unlike Rueschemeyer,Stephens, and Stephens, she does not make elaboratejustifications for why women can safely be excluded. 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, Since Collier the locus classicus of debates on the working class and democracy."15 is loath to omit she in class the role of the to aims study democratization, working does not of democratization A these vital historical periods. gendered analysis it it makes necessary to require that nineteenth century history be left out, but explore how each extension of suffrage is a gendered process. But first it is important to discuss how delimiting democracyto universaladult male suffrage shapes the way these authorsconducttheir analyses. For Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens, universal adult male suffrage is the "historically crucial benchmark"for inclusion because only with it does electoral 446

TeriL. Caraway participationtranscendclass lines.16This definition of democracy works exceedingly well for them because they make a class-based argumentabout democratization, which they call the "relativeclass power"model.
The chancesof democracy, then,mustbe seen as fundamentally shapedby the balanceof class classesovertherightto rulethatthedominant andsubordinate between It is the struggle power. anddecidesits prospects.17 on thehistorical morethananyotherfactor-putsdemocracy agenda

This argumentwould be difficult to sustain if they had selected universal suffrage as part of their dependentvariable.Insteadof focusing exclusively on class, they would have had to include additionalvariables,like gender.Bringing women in, then, is not simply a matterof including half the adult population in studies of democratization, although this aspect is certainly important.Adding women to the equation changes the variablesthat are consideredto be relevantin explaining democratizationand has profound theoretical implications. Paxton notes that, "by basing their measurement decision on class participation rather than full inclusion and concluding that the working-class plays a decisive role in democratization, it is possible that Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens' conclusion may have been built into their measurementdecision.""18 In an importantarticle, Paxton shows how this gap between the definition and the operationalizationof democracy affects explanations of the emergence of democracy, democratic stability, and transition dates.19 In her analysis of Rueschmeyer, Stephens, and Stephens' book, Paxton shows that transition dates often shift many years when this gap between definition and operationalizationis closed. In the most striking case, Switzerland, there is a 123 year difference in the transition date to democracy,from 1848 to 1971, the year women were enfranchised.There were other notable differences in Argentina (twenty-five years), Britain (ten years), France (sixty-eight years), Italy (twenty-seven years), and Uruguay (fifteen years).20The same issue arises in Collier's study, as she analyzes many of the same cases as Rueschemeyer,Stephens, and Stephens.As Paxton observes, aligning the definition of democracycauses some cases long treatedas early democand operationalization ratizers (for example, Switzerland) to become quite late democratizers, later than many less industrialized countries.21Indeed, 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.22 However, the problems with Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens' theory go beyond the use of universal adult male suffrage as their standard of inclusion. A relatedissue is the imbricationand mutual constitutionof class and gender.The most obvious point is that classes are composed not only of men but also of women, and in many countries that formed part their analysis women comprised a significant portion of the working class. In effect, they defeminize class by excluding women 447

ComparativePolitics

July 2004

from their class analysis, and in this sense even their study is deeply gendered. If democratizationwere solely a matterof class struggle, then propertiedwomen would have received the vote along with men when democratic institutions were founded. Rueschemeyer,Stephens, and Stephensnever question why the female working class did not get the vote along with their male brethren.Their approachraises the distinction between objective analyticalcategories and the way categories operate socially. Analytically,class may be defined objectively in terms of position within the relations of production, but in real life politics the constitution of political actors may not correspond neatly to the objective boundaries of class. Feminist scholars have shown how gender is deeply implicated in the construction of the "working class" and its political demands.23Chartists in England, for example, initially included female suffragein their platformbut soon removed it for fear that it would retardthe suffrage of working class men.24Gender,then, not only operates in the construction of the working class and its interests, but also potentially forms a line of division within classes. Thus, women are often excluded from the social definition of the working class.25In their analysis, Rueschemeyer,Stephens, and Stephens reproduce this exclusion of women from the working class and muddle the distinction between objective and socially constructedcategories. Political scientists should be interested in whether the "workingclass" pushed for the inclusion of women, and, if they did not, why. The continued exclusion of women is part of the story of the inclusion of the male working class. Unlike Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens, 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. In fact, she often finds that the working class had little to do with its own enfranchisement and in many cases opposed it. By delimiting democracy to universal adult male suffrage, however,she inadvertentlymisses some opportunitiesto bring gender more strongly into her analysis. For example, in her discussion of the 1918 electoral reform in GreatBritain, she notes that suffragetteskept up the pressure for reform and that the Labour Party did not oppose womanhood suffrage.26 Yet in the end only some women benefited from the resulting expansion of the franchise; while the reform resulted in about 90 percent of men obtaining the franchise, only married women, women householders, and women university graduatesthirty and over were enfranchised. Since the enfranchisementof women is not part of her dependent variable, she neglects to explore more fully the extent to which the expansion of manhood suffrage was intimatelylinked to the continuedexclusion of many women. In contrast to gender, some comparative historical studies have shown concern about incorporatingracial exclusion into their studies, but in spite of this greater sensitivity there are still considerableweaknesses in their analyses. The omissions of race are less evident at first because many of the cases selected by scholars did not 448

TeriL. Caraway experience a period in which universalwhite male suffrage coincided with the exclusion of particularracial groups. The most studied exception, of course, is the U.S. historical analyses of democratizationshow a distinct sense of discomComparative fort and confusion about how to deal with the U.S. On proceduralgrounds there was little doubt that the U.S. was a democracy in the 1800s, and by the middle of the nineteenthcentury most white men were enfranchised,but slavery and the exclusion of black men gave scholars greaterpause than the exclusion of women.27 BarringtonMoore, for example, was reluctantto classify the U.S. as a democracy while slavery existed. Only after the Civil War, he argues, did the U.S. become a democracy. Similarly, Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens wrestle with how to situateblack men in their theorizing.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 1965.28The issue is not whetherthe year 1870 or 1965 should be used as the date for the inclusion of African-Americanmen into the polity. Rather,while these theorists make the significant step of acknowledging that race was a basis of exclusion, they do not change their analytical frameworkin light of the obvious importanceof race. The lack of interest in discussing race seriously can be seen in Rueschemeyer, Stephens,and Stephens' treatmentof Australia,in which there is no mention that the Aboriginalpopulation could not vote in federal elections until 1962. In addition, 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.29 Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens do attempt to explain the relevance of race to studies of democratization. They arguethat:
wherethey are linkedto class and/or Racialand ethnicdivisionsbecomeparticularly important As sharpandoften linkedto the stateapparatus. whereracialandethnicgroupsaredifferentially of status,they can reinforce anddeepenclass differences as well as cut across rigiddistinctions thatmustbe treated muchlikeclassesthemselves.30 segments

Inthelimiting social classcohesion. classlinesandweaken case,thesedivisions mayconstitute Race, then, is important only to the extent that it affects class relations or is like class, and it is not treatedas an analytical category with independentcausal weight. According to Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens, the failure of the Fifteenth Amendmentto take root in the South, then, is a matterof class, of the incompatibility between democracy and southernplantationowners' need for a repressive system While this factor is certainlyimportant,it neglects the role of poor of laborcontrol.31 whites in enforcing the racial line and collaborating in the rollback of the newly acquired democratic rights of black men. Since Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens prioritize class over other causal factors, this importantdynamic escapes Rueschemeyer,Stephens, and Stephens'critical gaze. 449

ComparativePolitics

July 2004

analystsmay define workersin relationto the means of production,but Abstractly, to political consciousness from the path objectivepositionin the relationsof production and identityis twisted and can lead to multiple outcomes.The peril of overlookingthe processthroughwhich class is socially constructedcan perhapsbe seen most clearly in theirpriviSouthAfrica,wherewhite workersused access to the ballot box to guarantee "Workers the banner: rallied under White workers workers. toward black leged position is not The White South for a and the world unite of Africa."32 point simply that fight race can weaken class cohesion. Indeed, phrasingthe relationshipbetween race and race class in this mannerassumesthe causalpriorityof class over race. Conceptualizing in this manner-as somethingthat divides classes-prevents scholars from integrating race more meaningfullyinto theiranalyses.The basis for excludingraciallysubordinatof race that ed groups from the franchisewas race, not class, and a conceptualization to is as it classes divides it insofar unlikely providemuch illuassigns importanceonly minationaboutthe processesthroughwhich these groupsare excludedand laterincluded into the democraticpolity. Perhapsthe worst result of Rueschemeyer,Stephens,and Stephens'use of race is that, by acknowledgingits importanceonly when it overlaps with class, they doublyexclude African-American women, once by defeminizingclass and twice by defeminizingrace. 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. Rueschemeyer, Stephens, 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. Ultimately, Rueschemeyer,Stephens, 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.33Their analyticalerror is to assume that, since the group being incorporatedin the study is men, they can avoid dealing with gender. As TerrellCarverhas observed, "genderis not a synonym for women."34 Gender, defined as the social organization of sexual difference, includes both men and women. The absence of women in the definition of the dependent variable, then, does not mean that gender played no role in episodes of democratizationthat enfranchised men. As the work of feminist theorists has shown, gender played an intimate role in defining who counted as a citizen; gender therefore infused democratic institutions from the beginning, since the abstractindividual-the basis for citizenshipwas male.35 The abstract individual of liberal theory was from the start deeply imbued with gender and race, and certain categories of persons were not defined as 450

TeriL. Caraway part of the abstractindividual that formed the bedrock for delimiting citizenship.36 The inclusion of propertiedmen in this concept, then, also markedthe beginning of the exclusion of women. The politicalchoice to includemore men in democraticinstitutionsshould therefore provokethe question why the extension of suffrageoperatedalong genderedlines. As Carole Patemannotes, the extension of suffrage to more men actually marked two developments:"one, the widening of manhood franchise;two, the denial of votes to The exclusion of women was seldom a simple oversight. In the Second women."37 ReformAct in 1867 in Britain,for example,JohnStuartMill triedbut failed to amenda which would have enfranchisedsome clause to replacethe word "man"with "person," women and men. Instead,membersof parliamentretainedthe word man, therebyperthe completeexclusionof women.A genderedanalysiswould not simply porpetuating traythe 1867 reformas the inclusionof more men, or even the continuedexclusion of women. Rather,it would show how the expansion of suffrage operated along genincludedand excludedspecific groups. dered-and class-lines and simultaneously Just as gender is deeply implicated in the constructionof democratic institutions, so too is race.38Race is thereforean integral part of every stage of democratization, even when the franchise is being extended to subgroups of the white population.As analyses of the politics of "whiteness"demonstrate,race is not simply at work when people of color are studied but deeply shapes even "white" politics.39 In racially divided societies, each decision to incorporateadditional members of a politically dominantrace is also a decision to persist in excluding subordinatedraces, an act of drawinglines between groups of the population that is deeply political.40Likewise, race and class also mutuallyconstituteeach other in disparateways; class is not only constructedand divided along genderedlines but also along racial lines.41 Finally,the discussion of gender and race separatelyfrom class thus far has been somewhat simplistic. In actual episodes of democratizationthese categories interact in complex ways. Political actors carefully weighed class, gender, and race when pushing for extensions of the suffrage.In Australia,for example, while white women were enfranchisednationally in 1902, Aboriginal peoples were disenfranchised.42 In the United States the enfranchisementof black men createdbitter splits among abolitionists and advocates of female suffrage, and in the end women of all races had to wait until 1920 to be formally enfranchised. Even prior to the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, many elements of the white women's suffrage movement mobilized nationalist and racist imagery in order to push for their own enfranchiseIn addition, the extenment and the continued exclusion of all African-Americans.43 sion of suffrage is deeply influenced by gender and race even when only white men are brought into the polity, since the wider inclusion of white men simultaneously excluded other groups based on gender and race. For example, John Stuart Mill argued in 1870 that universal and womanhood suffrage should be separated,since bringing universal suffrage into the debate would result in the enfranchisement of 451

ComparativePolitics

July 2004

working class men but not women.44The reasons behind these sorts of trade-offs call out for deeper analysis by political scientists. Transnational Activism activism plays little role in existing comparativehistorical studies of Transnational democratization,but there are strong reasons to believe that it is importantfor studies of the inclusion of women and racially excluded groups, and even perhaps for activism can affect struggles for democracy in parworkingclass men. Transnational ticular national contexts by influencing the local actors who participate in transnational networks. Also, transnationalactors based in other countries can encourage their home governmentsto pressureother governments. The connections between abolitionists in Britain and the U.S., for example, were Activists succeededin puttingaboin the antislavery strugglein each country. important lition on the political agenda;Keck and Sikkinkarguethatthe influence of BritishabolitionistspreventedBritainfromrecognizingthe South duringthe U.S. Civil War,a key A more recent example is the international element in the North's eventualvictory.45 role in the end of white rule in an which played important campaignagainstapartheid, not only mobilized against a of activists how Klotz documents Africa. South range national in also succeeded but governments, most notably the persuading apartheid the increased that sanctions to enact U.S., pressure on the white government in Pretoria.46 Similarly, the struggle for women's suffrage was international in scope almost from its inception.47Through a variety of organizations,women from many countries met, exchanged letters, and shared strategies; some proponents even traveled the globe, meeting with women's groups all over the world to talk about suffrage and its benefits. 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. Many of the national affiliates of the WCTU had close links to trade unions and socialist parties, while women in the socialist women's movements advocatedthe suffrage agenda in nationAfter 1930 transnationalactivism as a means of spreading sufal socialist parties.48 for women appearsto be less importantthan the diffusion of a world model of frage political citizenship that includedwomen. Historical timing was thus important.49 Historical Timing A quick perusal of the Inter-Parliamentary Union's useful report, "Women in Parliaments," reveals an interesting pattern.50While women in Latin America, 452

TeriL. Caraway Europe, and the settler colonies generally had to wait years before being incorporated into democratic institutions,most women in the postcolonial world had the right to vote in their countries' first elections. The timing of the formation of the nationstate played a major role in whethergroups were incorporatedsequentially or simultaneously. Nations established before World War II were far more likely to deny women or racially subordinated groups the suffrage, while those founded after World War II usually enfranchised all citizens immediately.A couple of factors played a role in generatingthis sharplydistinctpath of democratization.First, by the time that most of these countries gained independence after World War II, womanhood suffrage was no longer a controversial issue in most existing democracies. Second, women played an importantrole in nationaliststruggles for independence,and many male nationalists viewed the improvementof women's status as an integral part of becoming a "modern"nation.51 The main exceptions to this rule are in the Middle East. The United Arab Emiratesand Kuwait are the two countriesthat still do not allow women to vote. The longest delays occurred in the Gulf states. In most nations bordering the women either participatedin the first elections or were enfranchised Mediterranean, soon thereafter.52Islam per se does not seem to be the most important factor. Countries with large Muslim populations like Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and Malaysiaenfranchisedall adults simultaneously. With respect to race, no countries that gained independence after World War II denied suffrage to citizens based solely on race. The absence of systematic data on racial exclusion, however,makes it hazardousto draw firm conclusions about timing with respect to race. Nevertheless, based on the available data, with the exception of settler colonies in Africa, countries that denied suffrage based on race were in the Antipodes, Europe, and North America. Not all western countries excluded people from voting based on race, however. Timing was important. Countries that gained independence after World War II tended to adopt universal suffrage immediately. However, race-based exclusion in the West does not present the same pronounced pattern as gender, where in the overwhelming share of cases women were initially excluded from voting. How do notions of democracy change over time? It is hardly coincidental that most new nations enacted universalsuffragebefore or soon after independencewhile colonial powers, settler colonies, and countries that gained independencein the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were far more likely to follow sequentially inclusive patterns. In short, in studying democratization,it is importantto keep in mind the issue of world time. Nevertheless, there are interesting paradoxes. While Latin Americancountriesexcluded women, they were less likely to exclude racially subordinant groups explicitly than the settler colonies and western countries.53Likewise, there is much variationwithin western countries in the exclusion of racially subordinant groups and the timing of the extension of suffrage to women. For example, 453

ComparativePolitics

July 2004

Switzerlandextended the suffrage in a sequence similar to the Netherlands-limited male, all males, then universal. But Switzerland enfranchised women in 1971, and the Netherlands in 1922. A comparativehistorical approachto democratizationcan help explain this puzzling variation.

Revamping Democratization: A New Research Agenda How, then, can these multiple observations be combined into a workable research political scientists seek to define a consistent agenda? In studies of democratization, dependentvariablethat will allow them to draw meaningful conclusions; they do not want to compare apples and oranges. Yet, as Markoff observes, the meaning of The incorporationof the male working class changed democracyshifts historically.54 notions about the necessary featuresof a democracy,just as the eventual incorporation of other excluded groups forever changed how succeeding generations conceived of democracy.Instead of thinking of democratizationas a process that has a particularendpoint,the possibility of conceptualizingdemocratizationas episodes of the expansion of suffrage to include new groups of people should also be explored. As arguedby Dahl (see Figure 1), greaterinclusiveness moves a polity closer to polyarchy. In dichotomousdefinitions of democracy,a country is either a democracyor not a democracy. In graded notions of democracy, in contrast, countries can be more or less democratic,depending on the extent to which they fulfill certain characteristics. A dichotomous definition of democracy that combines universal suffrage and a set of proceduresshould be retained,but democratizationshould be examined as a graded process in which a countrybecomes more democratic.55 Combining dichotomous and graded definitions may seem contradictory, but, since democratization is a process, changes in proceduresor inclusion that bring a polity more in line with the dichotomous definition of democracyare a form of democratization.It is not necessarily a democracy,but it is acquiringmore attributesof one. The element of democratization to which more attention should be paid is inclusiveness. Any move to include an excluded group is a form of democratization, although polities that enfranchise all citizens are not necessarily democracies. Once democratization is conceptualizedin this way, a new set of researchquestions emerges. Three additional factors should also inform any comparativestudy of democratization that focuses on inclusion. First, countries have followed different paths of democratization.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.Most of Latin America followed a path similar to Europe's, from limited male suffrage to universal adult male suffrage to universal adult suf454

TeriL. Caraway frage. The U.S. and South Africa (excluding the Cape) moved from limited white male suffrageto universaladult white male suffrageto universaladult white suffrage to universal adult suffrage. In contrast, the vast majority of postcolonial countries enfranchised all adults in the first elections. In selecting cases, scholars must be careful to structuretheir comparisonsto take into account these different sequences. Second, regardless of the group being incorporated,gender and race should be utilized as categories of analysis. Of course, in some cases these categories will be more important than in others. However, if scholars begin the exercise with the assumption that they are irrelevantbecause working class men are included, then they are likely to miss the role that they play during democratization.Third,transnational activism should also be considered explicitly as a possible factor prompting democratization. Withthese considerationsin mind, three kinds of studies will deepen explanations of democratization. The first, single country studies, analyzes sequentially all episodes of the inclusion of excluded groups. In this type of analysis, scholars would not need to choose between proceduresand inclusion; both aspects could easily be incorporated.Such studies provide vital insights into the whole process of democratization and a rich sense of the interactionof class, gender, and race. Longitudinal studies of democratizationin single countries can also consider the sequencing of the extension of democraticcitizenship, the extent to which previous expansions of the franchise affected the next round of democratization, and the extent to which transnational factors altered domestic debates. With each successive round of democratization,new political actors enter the scene, and a narrowergroup of political actors remain excluded. These political constellations should have a dramatic impact on the politics of subsequentdemocratization.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, the task is slightly different. In these cases, how did political actors come to see suffrage as an integralright for all citizens? Historical timing, nationalist ideology, and transnational factors are likely to be importantelements of the story. Ambitious scholars who wish to conduct longitudinalcomparativestudies should take care in the selection of cases; comparison of countries that followed similar sequences of inclusion will lead to different conclusions than comparison of countries that followed different sequences. For example, a comparison of the U.S. and South Africa could tell much about the causes behind this particular sequencing of inclusion, whereas a comparisonof Indonesia, South Africa, and Brazil could provide insights into why some countriesfollow one path and not another. Cross-nationalstudies that comparethe extension of suffrage to particulargroups are also needed. 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,studies of the integrationof other exclud455

Politics Comparative

July 2004

ed groups into democratic institutionsare needed. As Paxton states, "we do not yet understanddemocratizationas it is commonly conceptualized, we only understand While a host of case studies examines the democratizationthat excludes women."56 in movement women's suffrage particularcountries, comparativistshave yet to turn this to their attention importantsubject. 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),while in others relatively late (after WorldWar women did some struggle for years, while others succeeded quickly?57In II)? Why examine the debates about womanhood suffrage in postcolonial few studies addition, the contexts, 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. These subjects study. Cross-nationalcomparisonsof particularepisodes of inclusion will generate useful generalizationsabout how certain groups became integratedinto the democratic polity. In this type of study, scholarsneed to specify carefully the proceduralcomponent of their definition so that they can hold these factors relatively constant.58 Among countries that followed similar sequences in inclusion, much could be learned about democratizationby comparing countries that enfranchised the group relatively early and relatively late, for example, Norway, where all women obtained the right to vote in 1913, and Switzerland, which enfranchised women in federal elections in 1971. Early and late are relative ratherthan absolute concepts. Not the actual year, but the difference in time between when the first group and the group that is the subject of the comparisonwere enfranchisedis important.By controlling for sequence, 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.In addition, by comparing countriesthat followed the same sequence, historical timing is largely controlled, therebyruling it out as a potential cause. Comparisonsacross sequences, in contrast, tell much about how historical timing and the sequencing of inclusion shaped the incorporationof the group in question. For instance, was the politics of the inclusion of white women in South Africa different from the politics of democratizationfor women in the Netherlands,where the franchisewas not restrictedby race? Finally,it would also be worthwhileto look at inclusion irrespectiveof the broadand democer regime type. Are there differences in how Communist, authoritarian, ratic regimes have incorporatedwomen? Communist countries were ahead of many "democracies"in granting women the formal rights of political citizenship, while some authoritarianregimes in the East (Thailand and Turkey, for example) were ahead of many western democracies. A gendered look at political inclusion, then, 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. 456

TeriL. Caraway Conclusion The study of democratizationwill be radicallyaltered and improvedby a meaningful integration of gender and race. Although raising the bar to include women is an importantfirst step, simply adding women or racially excluded groups to existing paradigmsis not enough. By confining the study of democratizationto the incorporation of men, the picture of the politics of democratizationis skewed. Gender and race appear to play little or no role because the group obtaining the vote is white men. Such a simplistic view overlooks the extent to which class, gender, and race are mutually constructedand interactin concrete historical circumstances. By injecting gender and race as categories of analysis, 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. Decisions to include white working class men were often also decisions to exclude women and particularracial groups. Democratizationis therefore also a story of the extension of suffrage to new categories of individuals and the continued exclusion of others. The enfranchisementof the male working class can still be studied. However, what is being studied-a very limited form of democratization-must be clearly defined. Gendermay be a relevant factor even though women were not enfranchised.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. Thus, bringing gender and race into analyses will make theorizing about democratizationmore thanjust studies of the enfranchisementof men. It will also make clear the gender and racial assumptions that underlinemuch of comparativepolitical analysis. NOTES
I am grateful to EdwardGibson, Tulia Falleti, LaurenMorris-Maclean,and the anonymous reviewers for ComparativePolitics for their comments. 1. Carole Pateman,"Three Questions about Womanhood Suffrage,"in Caroline Daley and Melanie Nolan, eds., Suffrageand Beyond: InternationalFeminist Perspectives (New York:New York University Press, 1994), pp. 331-48. 2. Ruth Berins Collier, Paths toward Democracy: The WorkingClass and Elites in WesternEurope and SouthAmerica (New York:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1999), is an importantexception. 3. 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. Since women were already enfranchisedin these cases, suffrage 's does not figure in the analyses. See Sonia E. Alvarez, Engendering Democracy in Brazil: Women Movements in TransitionPolitics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990); Elisabeth Friedman, Unfinished Transitions:Womenand the GenderedDevelopment of Democracy in Venezuela,1936-1996 (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000); Jane S. Jaquette, ed., The Women's

457

Politics Comparative

July 2004

Movement in Latin America: Feminism and the Transition to Democracy (Boulder: Westview Press, and Democracy: LatinAmerica and Central 1991); Jane S. Jaquetteand SharonL. Wolchik, eds., Women and Eastern Europe (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998); and Georgina Waylen, "Womenand Democratization:ConceptualizingGender Relations in TransitionPolitics," WorldPolitics, 46 (April 1994), 327-54. 4. The most widely read comparative historical studies of democratization include Collier; BarringtonMoore, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World(Boston: Beacon Press, 1966); and Dietrich Rueschemeyer,Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John. D. Stephens, CapitalistDevelopmentand Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992). and Opposition(New Haven:YaleUniversityPress, 1971). 5. RobertA. Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation 6. Moore. 7. Dahl, p. 7. 8. Rueschemeyer,Stephens,and Stephens,p. 43. 9. Ibid., p. 48. 10. Ibid. 11. Collier, pp. 54-76. 12. Karen Offen, "Women,Citizenship and Suffrage with a FrenchTwist, 1789-1993," in Daley and Nolan, eds., pp. 151-70. 13. Asunci6n Lavrin, Women,Feminism, and Social Change in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay (Lincoln:University of NebraskaPress, 1995). 14. Collier, pp. 26-27. 15. Ibid., p. 27. 16. Rueschemeyer,Stephens, and Stephens,p. 314. 17. Ibid., p. 47. 18. Pamela Paxton, "Women's Suffrage in the Measurement of Democracy: Problems of InternationalDevelopment, 35 (Fall 2000), 92-111. Studies in Comparative Operationalization," 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid., p. 98 21. Ibid., p. 103 22. Ollie A. Johnson III, "PluralistAuthoritarianismin ComparativePerspective: White Supremacy, and Regime Classification,"National Political Science Review, 7 (1999), 116. Male Supremacy, 23. Sonya O. Rose, LimitedLivelihoods: Gender and Class in Nineteenth-Century England (Berkeley: Universityof California Press, 1992); Joan Wallach Scott, Gender and the Politics of History (New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1988). 24. BarbaraTaylor,Eve and the New Jerusalem: Socialism and Feminism in the Nineteenth Century (London:Virago, 1983). The Politics of Gender, Class, and Culture in the Calcutta 25. Leela Fernandes,Producing Workers: Jute Mills (Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress, 1997). 26. Collier, pp. 100-1 27. Thomas Janoski, Citizenshipand Civil Society: A Frameworkof Rights and Obligations in Liberal, and Social Democratic Regimes (New York:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1998), pp. 204-5, Traditional, lists 1830 as the year in which all white males had the right to vote in national elections. 28. The U.S. is probablynot the only country in which the formal enfranchisementof racially excluded groups was subverted in practice. For example, although indigenous peoples in Latin America were usually not formally excluded by racial identity,they may not have been able to exercise their right to vote due to such obstacles as literacy restrictions.Most nations in Latin America strove to erase the identities of indigenous peoples by incorporatingthem as peasants. See Deborah J. Yashar,Contesting Citizenship: Indigenous Movements, the State, and the Postliberal Challenge in Latin America (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, forthcoming).

458

TeriL. Caraway
29. Ibid. Denmarkis a case in both Collier and Rueschemeyer,Stephens, and Stephens, while Canada is discussed only in Rueschemeyer,Stephens,and Stephens. 30. Rueschmeyer,Stephens, and Stephens,p. 48. 31. Ibid., p. 128. 32. Nigel Worden, The Making of Modern South Africa: Conquest, Segregation, and Apartheid (Cambridge,Mass.: Blackwell, 1995), p. 52. 33. Rueschemeyer,Stephens,and Stephens,p. 314. 34. TerrellCarver,GenderIs Not a Synonym (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1996). for Women 35. Carole Pateman,TheSexual Contract(Stanford:StanfordUniversity Press, 1988). 36. Uday Mehta, "LiberalStrategiesof Exclusion,"Politics and Society, 18 (December 1990), 427-55; JoanWallachScott, Only Paradoxesto Offer:FrenchFeminists and the Rights of Man (Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996). 37. Pateman,"ThreeQuestions aboutWomanhoodSuffrage,"pp. 333-34. 38. CharlesW. Mills, TheRacial Contract(Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 1997). Class 39. David R. Roediger, The Wagesof Whiteness:Race and the Making of the American Working (London: Verso, 1991); Ann Laura Stoler, Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault's History of Sexualityand the Colonial Orderof Things(Durham:Duke University Press, 1995). 40. Immigrationand citizenship have implications for this debate as well, although space limitations preventa thoroughdiscussion of it. 41. Paul Gilroy, ThereAin 't No Black in the Union Jack: The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1991); Roediger. 42. Priorto 1902, some parts of Australia(South Australia,Victoria, New South Wales, and Tasmania) enfranchisedwomen and/orall Aboriginalpeoples. The 1902 constitution, however,denied the Aboriginal populationthe federal suffrage. Melanie Nolan and Caroline Daley, "InternationalFeminist Perspectives in Daley and Nolan, eds., pp. 1-22. on Suffrage:An Introduction," 43. Philip N. Cohen, "Nationalismand Suffrage:Gender Struggle in Nation-BuildingAmerica,"Signs, 21 (Spring 1996), 707-27. 44. Pateman,"ThreeQuestions aboutWomanhoodSuffrage,"pp. 334-35. 45. Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in InternationalPolitics (Ithaca:Cornell UniversityPress, 1998), pp. 41-51. 46. Audie Klotz, Norms in InternationalRelations: The Struggle against Apartheid (Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress, 1996). 47. Ellen Carol DuBois, "Woman Suffrage around the World: Three Phases of Suffragist in Daley and Nolan, eds., pp. 252-74; Keck and Sikkink, pp. 51-58; Arnold Whittick, Internationalism," Woman into Citizen(London:Athenaeumwith FrederickMuller, 1979). 48. Dubois. 49. In addition, the authorsalso find that the importanceof national political and organizationalfactors diminished after 1930. Francisco O. Ramirez, Yasemin Soysal, and Suzanne Shanahan, "The ChangingLogic of Political Citizenship:Cross-NationalAcquisition of Women's Suffrage Rights, 1890 to 1990,"AmericanSociological Review, 62 (October 1997), 735-45. in Parliaments1945-1995: A World Statistical Survey (Geneva: 50. Inter-Parliamentary Union, Women IPU, 1995). Feminismand Nationalism in the ThirdWorld 51. KumariJayawardena, (London:Zed Books, 1986). 52. Ramirez, Soysal, and Shanahanassert that only three countries that became independent in the twentiethcentury-Austria, Ireland,and Libya--extended suffrage to men prior to women. However, this Union Data. Egypt, for example, gained independence in assertion conflicts with the Interparliamentary 1922. Althoughthe 1923 constitutionenfranchisedboth men and women, three weeks after its promulgation an electoral law was passed that disenfranchisedwomen. Women were later reenfranchisedin 1956.

459

Politics Comparative

July 2004

See Margot Badran,Feminists, Islam, and Nation: Gender and the Making of Modern Egypt (Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress, 1995), p. 207. 53. Propertyqualifications, of course, often resulted in the exclusion of former slaves from the suffrage in Latin America. With the absence of formal racial exclusions in Latin America, however, the majorityof racially excluded groups was formally incorporatedby lowering propertyqualifications or literacy requirementsratherthan revoking laws that prohibitedracial categories from voting. This distinction has importantconsequences for the politics of expanding inclusion. 54. John Markoff, Wavesof Democracy: Social Movements and Political Change (Thousand Oaks: Pine ForgePress, 1996). 55. See David Collier and Robert Adcock, "Democracy and Dichotomies: A PragmaticApproach to Choices aboutConcepts,"Annual Review of Political Science, 2 (1999), 537-65. 56. Paxton,p. 104. 57. Pateman,"ThreeQuestions about WomanhoodSuffrage."Banaszak'scomparison of the women's suffrage movement in the U.S. and Switzerland,while a valuable contribution,engages studies of social movements rather than democratization. See Lee Ann Banaszak, WhyMovements Succeed or Fail: Culture,and the Strugglefor Woman Suffrage(Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press, 1996). Opportunity, Another useful collection, Daley and Nolan's Suffrageand Beyond, covers a range of experiences of suffrage movementsbut generalizes little about the timing, causes, and dynamics of women's eventual inclusion in democraticpolitics. 58. 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. David Collier and Steven Levitsky, "Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovationin ComparativeResearch," World Politics, 49 (April 1997), 430-51.

460