A resurgence of authoritarianism is emerging across Southeast Asia. In recent years, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia and the Philippines have drawn the world’s ire for human rights abuses, oppressive governance tactics and for strangling a free press. However, on account of women’s rights, they appear to do well. In this essay, I investigate three key questions – One, what are the incentives that drive authoritarian regimes to advance women’s rights? Two, does advancing women’s rights lead to improved women’s welfare? Three, what will the resurgence of authoritarianism in Southeast Asia mean for women’s welfare? I find that there is a positive causality between party-based authoritarian regimes and women’s rights, but advancing women’s rights alone, does not lead to improved women’s welfare. I conclude that the rise of authoritarianism in Southeast Asia is likely to increase pro-women policies but is not likely to lead to a consequential improvement in women’s welfare.

“At least 40% of the world’s women live in authoritarian regimes” and “approximately 25% of present-day autocracies perform as well or better on respect for women’s rights than the average developing democracy” (Donno and Kreft, 720). Women’s rights are economic and political rights, but also civil, cultural and social rights. To exercise these rights, women must have access to equal participation in society, without discrimination. To ensure that women and men enjoy their constitutional rights equally requires “a comprehensive understanding of social structures, social norms and stereotyping, and power relations that frame not only laws and politics, but also the economy, social dynamics, family life and community life” (“Women’s Rights”). Women’s welfare in a state depends on a state’s capacity to “reform discriminatory laws and policies”; “transform discriminatory social norms”; “eliminate gender-based violence”; “guarantee sexual and reproductive health rights” and “protect and expand civil space for women” (“Women’s Rights”). In this essay, I observe evidence to establish the causality between authoritarian regimes and women’s welfare, and respond to three key questions: One, what are the incentives that drive authoritarian regimes to advance women’s rights? Two, does advancing women’s rights lead to improved women’s welfare in authoritarian states? Three, what will the resurgence of authoritarianism in Southeast Asia mean for women’s welfare? I conclude this essay by determining if the causality between authoritarian regimes and women’s rights is positive or negative, and what this means for women’s welfare, particularly in Southeast Asia. 

Positioning women’s rights as a priority, is a strategic tool for political survival among authoritarian regimes. Previous research undertaken in Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria, reveals that “women’s rights are used both instrumentally and symbolically to advance the political goals of authoritarian regimes” (Tripp). In the context of Turkey, Arat finds that “governing elites had different needs at different political stages and instrumentalized women’s rights to meet those needs” (1). He further points out that democratic backsliding regimes in particular,  “manipulate women’s rights and the discourse of women’s rights in the process of this transformation” (Arat 1). In Uganda, Tripp explains how the ruling party’s support for women has translated to women becoming “the staunchest supporters of the NRM” – the National Resistance Movement (“Museveni’s Uganda” 106). There are several incentives that drive autocracies to advance women’s rights – “advancing women’s rights is less politically costly than providing coordination goods such as civil liberties, speech rights or clean elections, which can pose a direct threat to the regime’s survival” (Bueno de Mesquita). “Allowing freedom of the press and ensuring civil liberties in particular, reduce the chances that an autocratic government will survive for another year, by about 15 to 20 percent” (Bueno de Mesquita).

In autocratic regimes, “different forms of rights provisions serve different ends” and women’s rights in particular serve as a coalition building tool that institutionalized party-based regimes can employ most effectively (Donno and Kreft 722). Party-based regimes, wherein the parties are governed by a set of institutional rules by which to distribute power and patronage within the party, “have mechanisms that can make women’s representation, consultation and mobilization more readily available” (Donno and Kreft 721). Such party-based regimes also enjoy stronger coalition support and “extensive linkages to society” where women empowerment becomes a part of a strategic plan “to signal modernity, encourage economic growth and bolster its popular support” (qtd in Donno and Kreft 721). Autocrats have a great degree of agility and flexibility in shaping institutions and political events to their advantage and engage in strategic coordination – “refers to the set of activities that people must engage in to win political power in a given situation – including disseminating information, recruiting and organizing opposition members, choosing leaders and developing a viable strategy to increase the group’s power and to influence policy” (Bueno de Mesquita). Using rational choice theory, Valdini argues that it is to strengthen their own hold on power that male elites, include women in politics.

Authoritarian regimes benefit from women’s organizations as they become a means for autocrats to co-opt women and draw on their political support when needed (Arat 6). Caprioli and Melander find that “higher degrees of gender equality are demonstrably associated with a decreased risk of internal armed conflict” (161-178; 695-714). Furthermore a positive association has been observed between “the security of women within states and the security of the states” (qtd in Dunno and Kreft 724). The act of extending increased political representation to women is enacted in regime-compatible ways by authoritarian regimes, and does not necessitate increased political openness (Bush and Ottaway). Infact, “investing in women’s rights can have a stabilizing effect for authoritarian regimes” as compared to “other available modernizing options like electoral reforms” (Dunno and Kreft 724). 

The full essay with the works cited can be viewed below.