WOMEN, THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
INTRODUCTION
This section focuses on the question of the affinity between women and
local government. Is there a feminist case for local government? Can local
government be more accessible and responsive to women’s needs than in national
government?. In answering these questions I will first explore diverse feminist
perspectives on state since it provide a crucial starting point in
understanding the persistent gendered relationship between women and the state.
Considering the influence of the state on both women’s live and local
government, I will then elaborate on the factors which I consider significant
in determining the affinity between local government and women: the competing
values of participation and efficiency in local government, and the
bureaucratic mire of local government
Discussions on the state and gender relations are crucial in understanding the complexities women face at the local level. The existence of the state in influencing women’s lives whether positively or negatively cannot be negated if we want to explore women’s struggle at the local level. Issues to consider include the implication through the basic constitution of the realm of the state, in the composition of the controllers of the state apparatus, in the staffing of the state machinery and its internal organisations, in what the state does, who it affects, and how (Franzway et.al in Mills & Tancred 1992), Therefore, as Rai (1999:7) argues it is important to ‘read the state map accurately as the fractured terrain upon which its various institutions are situated and using the interstices between the various levels of state institutions to the best advantage of women’s struggle’.
At this point, feminist perspective is useful in understanding the gendered relationship of the state and its consequences on women. By explaining how the structural relations of gender relations inequality occurs in state institutions, policies and actions, and the ways state divide strengthens the division of public and private sphere, feminists corrected the partial and inaccurate view of the state by “male stream” political theories (Waylen 1996; Mills & Tancred 1992:115).
FEMINIST
PERSPECTIVES ON STATE
Despite their attempts to reveal gender inequality in relations between the state and its institutions, feminist perspective diverge not only in their views on the theorisation of gender inequality but also on the nature and role of the state institutions. Liberal feminists assume that the state is a monolithic, all-seeing, all-knowing corpus, which will always act in the most advantageous way possible for existing power relations (Halford 1992:158). Gender inequality is viewed as the result of individual cases of discrimination combined sometimes with the existence of sex-role stereotyping in education and the labor market (Pringle & Watson 1998). Access to education and legal reform aims primarily at increasing women’s professional and occupational stature, thus enabling women to compete equally with men. The state is regarded as a neutral arbiter in equalising gender relations by removing discriminatory laws and policies. The introduction of women’s initiatives and representatives into local government, then, could be a prime strategy from a liberal feminist perspective (Halford 1992). Thus, liberal strategies rely heavily on legal remedies.
On the other hand, the Marxist feminist
perspective perceives state institutions as instruments with a dominant
interest in exploiting women. It views that although the state sustains women’s
oppression and subordination within capitalism, it only indirectly oppresses
women because it is capitalist rather than patriarchal (Pringle & Watson 1998). Differing from the liberal feminist
perspective, this perspective tends to focus on the oppressive aspects of the
state. It argues that the state participates in oppressing women through its
function in protecting capitalism and racism (Vietz 1998). The strategy to
overcome this oppression, therefore, is the mobilisation of women into economic
spheres. Through its political critique on capitalism a Marxist feminist
perspective contributes in challenging the liberal assumption that
representative government is the sole sanctuary for politics and the legitimate
arbiter of social change (Vietz 1998:385). Yet, by over-emphasising the
effectiveness with which the welfare state reproduces the capitalist mode of
production through women’s dependence upon men within the family, it fails in
explaining convincingly just why the state should need to reinforce masculine
dominance and privilege (Pringle & Watson 1998).
Elaborating more on the oppressive aspects of the state and the incapability of the male dominated and patriarchal state in protecting women, radical feminists resist and ignore state action, both individually and collectively. They view the attempt to work within the state arenas with suspicion because it will only lead to cooptation of women (Pringle &Watson 1998). Radical feminist argue for the urgency to keep distance with state in engaging in politics state by using nonconventional political strategies which emphasise the purity and autonomy of responding to women’s concern by using streets, fields and home rather than in what they see as ’hallowed institutional halls of men’s political machinery’ (Staudt 1998:28). In this strategy the separation of women and men is urgent (Sapiro 1998).
Western
universalism as reflected in both
Marxist and liberal models above, ignores the peculiarities of political
structures and function of states in
third world countries have failed in explaining the existence of third world women’s political participation
and resistance in various location
(Udayagiri 1995; Tong 1998;Rai 1999).
Beside these two feminist perspectives, there is a post-structuralist
feminist which I regard as more capable of explaining the relationship between
the state and women in the Third World since it reveals the diversity of women
in third world countries. Post structuralist feminists, thus, provides new ways
in capturing the perception and knowledge of these women based on the
complexities and varieties of their daily life experience.
Owing
much to Foucault’s concept of power, post-structuralist perspectives view the
state as
a hierarchically arranged
multiplicity of power relations’ (Pringle &Watson 1998:32) . The
state is a by product of political
struggle rather than a unified structure.
As a site of struggle, it does not
lie outside of society and social processes, but has on the one hand, a degree
of autonomy from these which varies under particular circumstances, and on the
other, it is permeated by them (Fransway et.al 1989 Waylen 1996:15). Hence, the
focus of the analysis of public power should not be an impossible unity of the
state, but micro- level organisations and institutions that affect individual
lives daily (Rai 1996:27).
Viewing the state as the location for the struggle of diverse actors and structures may lead us to a better understanding of the relationship between women and the state. For women in the Third World the state and civil society are both complex terrains: fractured, oppressive, threatening and also providing spaces for struggle and negotiation. Both state and the civil society form the boundaries within which women act and are acted upon (Jayawardena 1986; Afshar 1996). Focusing mainly on the power of state obscures the reality of the variety of women’s struggles which take many forms of opposition, cooperation, through subversion not simply of rules but of articulated intentions of state forms , and through negotiations in challenging patriarchal structures while at the same time attempt to bring alternatives (Rai 1996:37).
The recognition of the manifold structures of
power in the post-structural perspective’s definition of state reveals that
Third World women actively struggle for their interest through various form of
resistance and movement (Mohanty 1991; Udayagiri 1995). The post-structuralist
perspective has contributed in the theorising of the state through its
insistence that the state cannot be viewed as a unity in spite of its reality
as ‘a network of power relations existing in cooperation and also in tension’ (Rai
1996:36).
The manifold structures of
state provide the possibility of the combination of various strategies by
various actors and at various level to be used in enhancing women’s quality of
life. The question then is how and under what circumstances does the state act
for women? General political economy
problems, including the structure of government and secular political needs,
ideology, interest organization, especially feminist movements and the effects
of women as member of the political elite provides explanations for the
possibility of changes in state’s policy on women (Sapiro 1998). The state,
together with a society that continuously supports feminist organisations that
challenge sexual hierarchy through both radical politics from outside and
reform politics in unions and parties, has the structural capacity to
institutionalize new demands for gender equality (Stetson & Mazur 1995:290).
In the 1970s, there was a
growing demand to reduce the status and role of the state since it was
considered as having to much power and control. Local government with its major
promise of being more responsive to people’s needs through people’s
participation and government accountability offers an attractive development
strategy. Local government needs local
community support in implementing their programmes, therefore local government
will be more responsive to local needs (Haddenias &Uggla 1996). The local
level decision making based on participation and accountability, it is argued
will create community’s sense of belonging and responsibility so that the
community will contributes to local government while at the same time creates
legitimacy for local government (Plein
et al 1998).
Basically, there are 3 core
arguments for local government as have been established by nineteenth and early
twentieth century theorists:
1. Local
government provides an opportunity for political participation
2. It ensures efficient service delivery
3. It expressed a tradition of opposition to
an overly centralised government (Stroker 1996)
Differences among the above
arguments continuously develop into competing paradigms on Local government
especially between the proponents of political participation and those who
stress the technical aspect based on efficiency as the most ultimate
justification for the role local government.
For the early advocates of
local government and their followers,
political participation serves as the basic argument for local
government. The liberal and radical approaches see the devolution of power to
local government as a means of promoting a new communitarian spirit and forming
the seedbed of democratic practice (Mohan &Stokke1995:250). The societal
value of citizen participation is that it allows each citizen the right to
influence governmental decision making. Citizen participation is viewed as
revitalising democratic practice in general by giving opportunities for local
self-government to the average citizen (Stolman et al 1979).
On the other hand, the
reformists argue that the major role of local government is as service provider
rather than to support the political democracy. In the 1950s the concept of
decentralisation was focused on the technical managerial term in public
administration which neglected the component of democracy. Efficiency became
the fundamental concept in implementing decentralisation. There is a tendency
to separate the technical component and political component of
decentralisation. In this approach local is perceived as ‘a function of
economic space to achieve efficient service delivery’ (Mohan & Stokke
2000:251). Participation by the people is considered as inefficient (Yeatman
1990). Therefore, under this approach efficiency is the strongest point for
local government through its role as
coordinator of services in the field; as a reconciler of community opinion; as
a consumer pressure group; as an agent for responding to rising demand; as a
counterweight to incipient syndicalism (Sharpe quoted in Stroker 1996).
This shift according to
Rondinelly et.al (1989) has neglected the component of participation in state
decision making by perceiving participation as market transaction, thus
reducing the value of the people into merely as consumers. By focusing on the
narrative of capital and efficiency, this rational choice theory is considered
as ‘creating narrative capital rather than narrative community’. Beyond the gains in effectiveness and
efficiency that derive from people’s participation in decision making, the
utilitarian argument can be formulated in more general terms: the state and the
market have their limits as mechanisms for organising society and the economy.
Giving people and their communities a stronger role and rights can help to make
for market and government failure (Schneider & Liebcier 1995:31).
With the democratic
agenda pointing to the need for
openness and responsiveness of bureaucratic processes to individuals and
communities, and on the other hand the
efficiency agenda tends to privilege guidelines and techniques for controlling
inputs and for ensuring outcomes in line with centrally imposed priorities,
these competing values of efficiency and participation frequently come into
conflict (Yeatman 1990).
Since the 1980s the debate
has shifted from contribution of Local Government as service provider to the
political value of local government as a bulwark against over centralised
state. The liberal and radical
theorists of local government argue that local government function cannot be
viewed merely in technical terms of efficiency. In this view democracy cannot
be subsumed under an efficiency consideration. ’We value democracy because,
although it is inefficient on non-democratic terms, it is the only form of
government (on democratic terms) which can allow for the expression of
interests’ (Batin 1991:303). Decentralisation, trust, rapid adaptation, and
diversity with the concept of stake holders
became the strategy for
participation and gender equity. Participatory development is growing
along with demand from the South and World Bank (Nelson &Right 1995).
Participation began to be viewed as crucial for equity-enhancing and
self-reliant development. This people
centered approach has political implications, since it requires considerable
decentralisation of decision making and can thus lead to empowerment. It does
not only provide the driving force for collective development, but also
reaffirms the fundamental right to self-determination (Beaulieu & Manoukian
1995). While the defence of cultural difference and livelihoods serve as the
main principle (Mohan & Stokke 2000), individual and collective empowerment
over citizen’s lives, which includes more direct involvement of citizens in the
policy making process become the ultimate
goal of the participatory approach
(Wistow &Barness 1993).
The tendency towards
essentialising the local in participatory development is considered as
neglectful of problems arise from the structure and the character of the local
itself. Mohan and Stokke (2000) argue that the over emphasis of the value of
the local tends to underplay both economic and political issues which means
that local social inequalities and power relations are downplayed. Another
problem is the tendency to view ‘the local’ in isolation from broader economic
and political structures in which the contextuality of place: national and
transnational economic forces, is neglected. ‘Local participation can be used
for different purposes by very different stakeholders. It can underplay the
role of the state and transnational power holders and can, overtly or
inadvertently, cement Eurocentric solutions to Third World development’ (Mohan
and Stokke 2000:263). Their argument
for a stronger emphasis on the politics
of the local and on the political use of the local by hegemonic and
counter-hegemonic interests contributes in highlighting both the external and the internal
community obstacles to
participation.
Cases in the Third World
reveal that along with the external factors, structural and societal actors
characterised by the domination and dependence upon local elites create
fatalism and the incapability of the people
to make decision , thus, it is the local traditional patrons who are more
frequently benefitted and take control over development process
(Mathur 1995; Haddenias &Ugla 1996). It is women who are often particularly
marginalised and disadvantaged in benefiting from the participation (Mathur
1995; Weekes-Vagliani 1995).
Country reports on local
governments in Asia and Pacific also point out problems of participation which
arises from the limited capability and willingness of the people to participate
in governance (Google 2000). In these cases the community has little knowledge
on the nature and function of local government. People at the grassroots need
more than the provision of institutional mechanisms for participation. They
need government intervention in establishing empowering techniques for
community participation. As country
report from Sri Lanka notes that the community participate only in the
election. Thereafter, this participation is dominated by traditional stronger
members of the society.
From the foregoing
discussion it is obvious that we cannot assume that the concept of
participation in local government will automatically enhance popular
participation, let alone gender equity. While on the one hand local government
may misuse participation whether in the form of political co-optation and in
contribution in the form of labor (Nelson &Wright 1995), on the other local
government offer attractive major
promise that popular participation and accountability will be more responsive
to people’s needs and more effective in delivering services for the community
(Blair 2000). At this point, rather than differentiate participation as a means
to achieve efficient and effective development project and goal, and
participation as an end in which as a process people control their own
development process, it is crucial to view the rational for participation in
local government as both instrumental and final.
The democratic ideal in
local government implies that active participation of the citizens in local
affairs is both a goal in itself and an instrument for strengthening society at
large is succintly as Kjelberg explains (1995:43):
First, participation
represents a real occasion to influence the decisions about everyday life; it
narrows the gap between the rulers and the ruled.
Second, it creates the
possibility for political education. Active participation in local affairs
might be perceived, as the most important training ground for democracy. By
participating in administration of districts and counties, directly or
indirectly, the citizens become familiar with public issues. They become, the
argument goes, more sensitive to the need for setting priorities and for
reaching compromises between different legitimate interests.
Third, there is an
assumption in this argument of a connection between local participation and the
feeling of solidarity in community.
The achievement of a
democratic participation depends on its contribution in securing greater
popular control over collective decision making, and greater equality in its
exercise (King & Stoker 1996). Genuine participation in everyday economic
and social activities is a major dimension of human, legal and political rights
which includes all those who are affected (Schneider &Liebcier 1995). In
this kind of participation a partnership built upon the basis of a dialogue
among the various actors (stakeholders), during which the agenda is set
jointly, and local views and indigenous knowledge are deliberately sought and
respected are the most crucial elements (Schneider & Liebcier 1995). The
experience of CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) in supporting
the creation of good governance in Ghana reveal that the interplays between
community action at the local level and political structures such as districts
assemblies may provide as a focal point for a governance project (Beauliau
& Manoukian 1995:219). In India,
joint management between Local Government agencies and the community, has
enabled local government to be more participative (Mathur 1995).
The transfer of power from
the Central Government to Local Government provides a site for women to represent
their interests and needs by entering the arena of local politics. Rejecting
the increase of central government control over local government expenditure,
and the privatisation of public services, many women become involved in local
government as a significant site of resistance and reaction (Pringle
&Watson 1998). Local Government is
considered as providing more space and opportunities for women to represent
their needs and interest than Central Government.