When Protest Made the State
My dissertation investigates the democratic means by which governments can undermine democratic principles. When Protest Made the State looks at how governments use public outrage about rape to increase their punitive power over marginalized populations and strengthen their surveillance policies amongst others. The project does so by exploring the causal impact of anti-rape demonstrations on governmental response to violence against women (VAW) – specifically in India, but also in Turkey and Nepal. Historically, governments have responded to activist agitations on issues of violence against women through small, incremental concessions. In the last decade however, we see the increased occurrence of large-scale anti-rape demonstrations globally, indicating an increased public interest in VAW. These protests draw widespread attention to the issue of violence against women, thus forcing government action, most notably amendments in sexual violence legislation. I however find that the longer-term consequences of this renewed interest in public violence against women has negative repercussions on civil liberties, specifically for marginalised populations.
While drawing attention to the problem, the widespread attention generated by protests simultaneously results in increased public concern about the safety of women. In the aftermath of anti-rape protests, public concern about security and safety increased manifold. This isn’t dissimilar to how concerns about the safety of the territory increases in the aftermath of terrorist attacks. By exploiting this increased public concern, governments therefore are able to move from a policy of incremental concessions to co-optation for their own purposes. By relying on a narrative of “security”, the guise of protecting women allows the State to curry favour with enraged and frightened voters while simultaneously strengthening their stronghold on the Indian state, through the implementation of a variety of disciplinary measures e.g. curfews, surveillance techniques, and the death penalty.
I therefore trace the incorporation of protectionist narratives into political discourse at multiple levels in India – federal, state, local, parliament, and bureaucratic. I find that the variation in incorporation of the narrative is strongly correlated with spikes in anti-rape demonstrations. Constituencies which witness anti-rape demonstrations see a subsequent uptake of the protectionist narrative, while communities that see low political agitation continue with the incremental approach of historical feminist agitation in improving the rights of women. Furthermore, I find that the Indian government extends the scope of this “protectionist” narrative to policy areas other than rape legislation. Specifically, I find the government uses this narrative to push through policies reshaping higher education, and pass sanitation policy, a key electoral promise by the government. I finally confirm this theory in case studies of Nepal and Turkey.
Violence against women as an issue area proves to be particularly prone to State capture as it allows for narratives of protection and safety to supersede narratives of autonomy and citizen rights, thus justifying State co-optation of the movement, and democratic civil liberties by extension. Specifically, we see that citizens are willing to trade the civil liberties of vulnerable populations (minority communities, marginalized populations – women and men), in return for increased security for women from communities of privilege. The security-liberty trade-off is therefore rooted in the power structure of the community, were security for the privileged is increased by decreasing civil liberties for the marginalized and vulnerable. The project therefore contributes a new approach to understanding the classical security-liberty debate, by reimagining how citizens perceive security and violence in the public sphere.
While drawing attention to the problem, the widespread attention generated by protests simultaneously results in increased public concern about the safety of women. In the aftermath of anti-rape protests, public concern about security and safety increased manifold. This isn’t dissimilar to how concerns about the safety of the territory increases in the aftermath of terrorist attacks. By exploiting this increased public concern, governments therefore are able to move from a policy of incremental concessions to co-optation for their own purposes. By relying on a narrative of “security”, the guise of protecting women allows the State to curry favour with enraged and frightened voters while simultaneously strengthening their stronghold on the Indian state, through the implementation of a variety of disciplinary measures e.g. curfews, surveillance techniques, and the death penalty.
I therefore trace the incorporation of protectionist narratives into political discourse at multiple levels in India – federal, state, local, parliament, and bureaucratic. I find that the variation in incorporation of the narrative is strongly correlated with spikes in anti-rape demonstrations. Constituencies which witness anti-rape demonstrations see a subsequent uptake of the protectionist narrative, while communities that see low political agitation continue with the incremental approach of historical feminist agitation in improving the rights of women. Furthermore, I find that the Indian government extends the scope of this “protectionist” narrative to policy areas other than rape legislation. Specifically, I find the government uses this narrative to push through policies reshaping higher education, and pass sanitation policy, a key electoral promise by the government. I finally confirm this theory in case studies of Nepal and Turkey.
Violence against women as an issue area proves to be particularly prone to State capture as it allows for narratives of protection and safety to supersede narratives of autonomy and citizen rights, thus justifying State co-optation of the movement, and democratic civil liberties by extension. Specifically, we see that citizens are willing to trade the civil liberties of vulnerable populations (minority communities, marginalized populations – women and men), in return for increased security for women from communities of privilege. The security-liberty trade-off is therefore rooted in the power structure of the community, were security for the privileged is increased by decreasing civil liberties for the marginalized and vulnerable. The project therefore contributes a new approach to understanding the classical security-liberty debate, by reimagining how citizens perceive security and violence in the public sphere.