Showing posts with label transition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transition. Show all posts

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Post Communist Transition

 Many articles I found linked the Balkans and all of the other post-Soviet countries as having similar “women’s issues.” Since they share a part in a Communism past that directed that women and men were equal “created a cultural and developmental legacy that differs in key respects from the Western democracies and countries in the developing world” (Matland & Montgomery, 19). After the fall of communism, when “democracy” was beginning to take over Eastern Europe many things changed in the political system while transitioning, specifically with in women’s roles and rights. (While this may seem like a “duh” statement- they went from communism to democracy! of course things changed- bear with me.)

Women went from being considered equal by law to having their issues considered “tertiary issues that could be dealt with once the ‘real issues’ of transition had been resolved” (Matland & Montgomery, 39). In fact, most students of democratization have either over looked gender entirely or treated the decline i female representation as a return to ‘normal politics’ in the region” (Montgomery, 3). Yet, it is important to note that while legally  women and men were equal and there was no difference between the sexes, the stress remains on legally. In practice, the household remained the burden of the wife. While men were often advised to “help out more” their role within the family was never officially challenged. (Matland & Montgomery, 36) So this transition appeared on paper, could be argued that it was just changing to reflect the actual status of the family.

It is not to say that women were forced to give up all of their political power by the new regimes, sometimes women were “eager to shed their many burdens...voluntarily  withdrew from the public sphere” (Montgomery, 7). Matland & Montgomery go on to point out that at a practical level, women were promised greater access to Western goods and services if they retreated and allowed the government to transition ‘properly’ (38). However, when women lost their power, at least in Macedonia, they were not provoked due to their concern about the safety of their children and families than their own political representation (Ristova, 212).

It does not help matters that in many countries in Eastern Europe, “at least some voters believe men are better suited for politics than women and that men are more able executives and legislators” (Wilcox, Stark, & Thomas, 42). Further, many people believe in the traditional stereotype that women are “too moralistic to engage in the back-room dealmaking that often allows legislatures to reach compromise [nor are they] sufficiently rough to manage the rough and tumble world of politics” (Wilcox, Stark, & Thomas, 42). While I see a back-handed compliment in there, it is disastrous to the idea of women in politics (and politics in general) that women are too moral to be engaged in politics. {Maybe politics should be cleaned up so moral people can lead the country?}

In Macedonia, after the transition, the first 3 elections through 1998, only 3 to 7 % of the Parliament was filled with female representatives (Ristova, 196). All of the political parties in Macedonia declared their “dedication to gender equality” (Ristova, 203) during these elections. There was a difference between the elections and what was highlighted.
  • 1990- women in the context of family relations
  • 1994 & 1998 - covered a broader range of issues with gender relations and status of women
    • improving women’s political representation, protection of employment rights, etc.


Women’s Access to Political Power in Post-Communist Europe, ed: Richard Matland & Kathleen Montgomery. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Richard Matland & Kathleen Montgomery, “Recruiting Women to National Legislatures: A General Framework with Applications to Post-Communist Democracies.”

Kathleen Montgomery, “Introduction”

Karolina Ristova, “Establishing a Machocracy: Women & Elections in Macedonia (1990-8)”

Clyde Wilcox, Beth Stark, & Sue Thomas, “Popular Support for Electing Women in Eastern Europe.”

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Transitions and Gender

The next few articles that I looked at were about feminism and women’s rights in the transitioning cultures of Eastern Europe/the Balkans. Part of this transition includes the creation of a national myth of heritage. In most of these myths women were to play a crucial role in the extreme nationalism that was helpful to the disintegration of both Eastern Europe and the Balkans. The build up of one nationality often focused on women ‘doing what nature intended and having babies’! Dasa Duhacek believes that the state uses gender or women in at least three different ways:
  1. changing abortion laws as a way of nation building: In communist times there was a relaxed abortion policy  allowing women to receive aborts with fewer questions. It was also not looked down upon or thought of as a serious problem. However, newer nations would often change their abortion policy so that it became harder for women to access these services. Some politicians even stated that it was to help bring up the birthrate of the population so that they could have more ethnic citizens. Some states, it has been accused, went a step further and made it more difficult in general and then made it easier for the “wrong” ethnicity to access abortion services.
  2. reproduction as a function of nation and motherhood: This idea is that if you do not have children and many of them you are trying to kill the state (and ethnicity). Thus women should not work so they can focus on creating new life and blood for the country. Women were seen as the caretakers of the young and thus the nation. They did this by influencing the young children’s thought towards the correct (state and party) line. When you had children you were helping to support the nation by giving it many more new citizens.
  3. rape as a way of politics:This is sadly the easiest to explain. Rape was used not only as a means of war and a weapon in the Balkan conflicts, but also after the war when they were setting up their societies. Rape was not fully decriminalized, but not punished as harshly as before. Women faced the same pressures in these areas as they did else where: if you dress like a slut, then obviously you were asking to get raped. (For a modern take on these comments see: Wikipedia on Slut Walk for the links and a quick summary)


In socialist/communist times (Yugoslavia was a communist state, but not connected with the USSR. They had more political freedom than the USSR and access to western goods.) there was an official “equality paradigm,” where you were not to consider gender. Officially the people were genderless (except for when it came to maternity leave and women working less ‘safe’ jobs where they were given laxer treatment). The new ideology of the state (usually based in a western-conservative ideology of religion) was “crucially based on the strategy of retraditionalization of women’s identities, their social roles and symbolic representations” (Papic, 122). Yet it is not correct to expect the state to willingly give up these gendered roles that it helped to create when it serves the government well in their nationalist rhetoric as well as their own personal beliefs. Institutions were built upon these hierarchies and their inherent inequality (Ivekovic, 57). To change these views meant that institutions would have to be changed, and this would harm whoever was currently in power at the time, thus no one was willing to do so, and they remain unwilling.




Zarana Papic, “Women in Serbia: Post-Communism, War & Nationalist Mutations,” in Gender & identity: Theories from &/or on South East Europe, ed by Jelisaveta Blagojevic, Katerina Kolozova, Svetlana Slapsak. (Belgrade Women’s Studies & Gender Research/Athena, 2006).

Dasa Duhacek, “Gender Perspective on Political Identies in Yugoslavia,” in Gender & identity: Theories from &/or on South East Europe, ed by Jelisaveta Blagojevic, Katerina Kolozova, Svetlana Slapsa, 297-319. (Belgrade Women’s Studies & Gender Research/Athena, 2006).