Ending Violence Against Women in Europe
By: Anna Gwiazda (she/her/hers) and Liana Minkova (she/her/hers)
Violence against women is a global problem with devastating social, health, and economic consequences. With one in three women having experienced physical and/or sexual violence, it is important to understand how public policies might tackle this human rights abuse.
The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, known as the Istanbul Convention, aims to combat this serious problem. However, several Council of Europe member states have not ratified it. Considering the urgency and saliency of combatting violence against women and domestic violence, it is of upmost importance to understand why some states have ratified the Istanbul Convention to end violence against women whereas others have not done so.
In the article Gendered Advocacy Coalitions and the Istanbul Convention: A Comparative Analysis of Bulgaria and Poland, we explore this question by looking at the complex normative, political, and legal dynamics. Specifically, we examine the formation and operation of rival ‘advocacy coalitions’ that draw on competing beliefs about the appropriate functioning of society. ‘Feminist’ advocacy coalitions share liberal values of individual freedom, personal dignity and women’s rights. By contrast, ‘anti-gender’ advocacy coalitions form around conservative notions of the nation, the family, and tradition. Both types of advocacy coalitions involve a broad range of actors: from non-governmental and religious organizations to members of parliament, presidents and judges.
Marc Nozell, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
The presence of a strong feminist advocacy coalition in a given country facilitates the ratification of the Istanbul Convention. Conversely, the presence of a powerful anti-gender coalition obstructs the efforts to ratify the Convention. We argue that the strength of the advocacy coalitions is determined by its size and the resources it has access to. Crucial resources include voting power in parliament, presidential approval, and the legal power of the Constitutional Court to pronounce on the compatibility of the Istanbul Convention with the constitution of the country in question. Complementary resources include the power to influence public opinion, information strategies, the ability to mobilize supporters, financial resources, and skillful leadership.
In the article, we observe that in both Bulgaria and Poland the proposal to ratify the Istanbul Convention has led to the mobilization of rival advocacy coalitions. In Bulgaria, women’s rights organizations have been active supporters of the Convention, highlighting the gaps in the country’s legal and institutional framework with respect to addressing VAW and domestic violence. However, soon after the government announced its decision to propose the ratification of the Convention in late 2016, the anti-gender coalition coalesced around conservative civil society organisations, which accused the Convention of seeking to transform the moral fabric of society by introducing ‘gender ideology’. This coalition was stronger than the feminist one, utilizing the legal authority of the Constitutional Court to pronounce on the constitutionality of the Convention. The majority of the Court’s judges concurred with the core beliefs of the anti-gender coalition and declared the Convention incompatible with the Bulgarian Constitution, which precluded any further efforts towards ratification.
In Poland, the Istanbul Convention was ratified with the support of a strong feminist advocacy coalition. It comprised governing Civic Platform and the opposition Democratic Left Alliance and Your Movement, in addition to the Polish president and feminist civil society organisations. The parliamentary majority and president’s support led to the passage of the law and subsequent ratification of the Convention in 2015. At that time, the anti-gender coalition of the right-wing populist Law and Justice party, the Catholic Church and other conservative organisations was weak because it did not have a parliamentary majority. Nevertheless, it organised a widespread disinformation campaign in churches about the Convention's threats and ‘stop gender’ demonstrations, which intensified when Law and Justice came to power following the 2015 parliamentary elections.
Our findings have broader implications for the understanding of the backlash against women’s rights occurring globally. The analysis shows that the contestation of specific policies, such as ratification of the Istanbul Convention, is rooted in deeper and pre-existing cultural cleavages. The normative tensions within society are likely to persist, as illustrated by continuing anti-gender demonstrations in Bulgaria and calls for withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention by the Law and Justice party in Poland.
Read the full article here: Gendered advocacy coalitions and the Istanbul Convention: a comparative analysis of Bulgaria and Poland
Each blog post gives the views of the individual author(s) based on their published IFJP article. All posts published on ifjpglobal.org remain the intellectual property and copyright of the author or authors.
Anna Gwiazda is a Reader in Comparative Politics in the Department of Political Economy at King’s College London, UK. Her current research focuses on women’s political representation and gender equality.
.jpg){kind=link}
Liana Minkova is a Junior Research Fellow in Law at Newnham College, University of Cambridge, UK. Her work explores questions of international criminal law, gender justice, and environmental protection.