Irish law up until as recent as 1922 denied women the right to vote. During the 19th and 20th century the suffragettes undertook a long campaign for equal voting rights. They fought for a more just and fair society and ultimately franchised women, challenged dominant ideas and changed women’s political and legal standing. The movement was driven by political exclusion, it demanded the right to vote as a matter of social justice. The change fought for by the suffragettes was structural and sought to change the very institutions which regulated society. The prolonged conflict which followed shows the difficulty of finding a solution to inequality within a system defined by it.
THE SUFFRAGETTE CAMPAIGN
This mass movement or later termed first wave feminism began in Ireland with the Women’s Liberation movement or Suffrage movement. The movement fought for legal equality, political equality and equal recognition. Participation increased as the movement gathered pace, with different organisations being formed around the country, this led to the formation the Irish Women’s Suffrage Federation in an attempt to form a united front. However differences of opinion caused some organisations to remain independent and the “overwhelming desire for everybody to be friends” (Murphy, 1989) prevented it from having any great effect. That said, non-hierarchical and decentralised movements are often more fluid and willing to adopt new tactics than rigid bureaucratic movements (Staggenborg, 1989). Diversity within the movement, from nationalist to unionist, from property owner to property-less to differences of class, clearly played a part in determining strategies and ensuring a dynamic campaign. The majority of those involved in the movement adopted peaceful methods, protests, marches, lobbying politicians, publishing their views in the Irish Citizen newspaper. However it was the radical methods adopted by the Irish Women’s Franchise League which really drove change. The League was founded by Hanna Sheehy Skeffington in 1908 and adopted militant methods after forty years of moderate strategies. It has been said that “people turn to the law when they lose faith in politics” (Whyte, 2005, p.135), however the suffragettes had no law to base their claims and no politicians willing to fight their corner and so militant methods was their only viable option to achieve change.
CHANGING DOMINANT IDEOLOGIES
Whatever strategy a movement uses, it must fundamentally “raise public awareness and create a demand for change” (Farrell, 2005, p132). This demand was created by suffragettes changing the perception of women and applying huge political pressure. It is beyond doubt that the denial of women’s suffrage stemmed from a belief that women’s interests could be adequately represented by men (Cain, 1990) Dominant ideologies can and in this case did “dress up simply conservative thought in the guise of pure reason” (Bourdieu, 1998, p.53). Politicians were afraid of change, afraid of what “unreasonable” women would demand of them, afraid of losing their jobs. John Cage put it well when he said, “I can’t understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I’m frightened of the old ones”. By defining women in relation to the private sphere, women’s issues were effectively swept under the carpet. The suffragettes challenged this view of women.
Inequality of resources which sustained women’s low social status were gradually overcome in successive parliamentary acts during the late 1870s and 80s which gave them greater control over their property (Ryan, 1996). At the same time, legislation came into force giving women the right to receive university degrees and qualifications. This enabled women to participate more equally in the labour market and gained them recognition as more than caring emotional beings and ultimately increased their status (World Bank, 2001). Also in the late 19th century legislation enabled women to sit on local government councils, further breaking stereotypes. The most significant step in heightening women’s status came in 1881 when they took over the Land League during the imprisonment of its male members. One historian said the Ladies Land League “represented an unprecedented initiative in female participation in public life” (Ryan L., 1996) The importance of this cannot be underestimated as Abraham Lincoln said “public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed” (1858).
THE POLITICS OF CHANGE
Despite these changes, the fact remained that the suffragettes were politically excluded, unable to join an existing political party or establish their own, so they tried to convince those in power to implement universal suffrage. However the movement that followed was far from cohesive, even though the majority of its members came from middle class backgrounds they held extremely varied opinions. Some strove to appeal to dominant values at the time and argued for high franchise suffrage excluding women without property or education (Ryan, L., 1996), others were undoubtedly divided by nationalist and unionist loyalties. However the biggest cause of controversy within the movement was over the strategies to be employed.
The Irish Women’s Franchise League one of the biggest organisations involved in the movement decided it was time to adopt militant measures. Many organisations around the country were opposed to this, however it was to my mind the right choice. Violence against property was the main offence committed and in a way it was poetic justice for the years women had been deprived of their own property once married! Such strategies did in practice gain mass media attention and established “a sense of public urgency” (Baker, 2004, p.239) it further helped to breathe new life into what had become a stale movement. The need for active militant measures was premised on the belief that the only measures which had proved effective in such movements were militant ones (Murphy, 1989). This caused much internal squabbling and arguably discredited the cohesion of the movement and showed cracks to the opposition which they could then manipulate.
That said Schwartz claims that factionalism actually promotes continuity and aids movement survival (2002). My own view would be that in order to respectfully recognise the differences between us, we must work together even when we don’t fully agree with the approaches of others, for the greater good as it were. When a movement divides into contending factions it necessarily leads to “increased numbers and types of participants, and the creation of new ideas, issues and methods” (Ryan, B., 1992, p21). Kriesberg believes that conflict within any movement leads to the development of new strategies and this is productive in itself (1998). Indeed these internal arguments may also be beneficial in that they generate publicity, assuming the “no publicity is bad publicity” slogan to be correct. After all the media will rarely report a protest unless there is a degree of conflict anyway (Baker, 2004).
Questions over the solidarity of the movement do not undermine the fact that “[b]y claiming rights, women asserted their intention to be taken seriously in society” (Schneider, 1993, p.625). The women’s movement proves that rights can emerge from political struggle (Schneider, 1993) and these rights can become law.
LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE
The limitations of the legal route to social change are evident but so too are the rights it has enshrined. The importance of the law was recognised by the Irish Citizen when it reported how “their best efforts are crippled until they can lay their hands on the legislative machine also, and take a share in framing the laws as well as administering them” (quoted in Ryan, 1996, p54). Significant legal change began with the 1916 proclamation which guaranteed ‘equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens’. By the time Home Rule was in practice in Ireland after WW1 the political scene had changed radically. Opponents of universal suffrage Redmond and Asquith even voted in favour of the Representation of Peoples Act 1918. Finally all women over the age of 21 were given the right to vote in the 1922 Constitution, the supreme law of the land finally recognised universal suffrage.
Legal reform doesn’t act in a vacuum but it can concretise changing political and social beliefs. That said it has “limited transformative potential” (Razack, 1992, p.34) and often fails to substantial change women’s lives. Egalitarian change should not for this reason be confined to legislative reform as Connelly put it, “women had won the vote but were never the less expected to devote their lives to domestic pursuits”. Radical change is rarely forthcoming, law continues to mystify, affirm the status quo and condone inequality and it does so as a “neutral” arbiter. It “prevents anarchy and induces people to obey orders and commands without the use of force” (Friedman, 1985, p.12). Law is fundamentally a reactive instrument, and proposals for legal reform are generally developed “in response to perceived ‘needs’ for reform” (Cousins, 2005). The onus then was on women, the burden of proof was on women, they had to prove and argue the case for universal suffrage. Equality was not forthcoming but had to be sought out over several centuries.
That said the procedural change of giving women the vote is not insignificant, it is near impossible to measure accurately the substantive benefits to women. However it was impossible for women to change their legal position without the franchise (Murphy, 1989). Lorde has argued that, ‘the master’s tools will never dismantle the masters house’ (2000, p.292) I fundamentally disagree. The legal right to vote gave women previously unknown power, respect and recognition. It was in this position that they could compete more fairly for social power as they now had “equality of social esteem”, (Weber, 1978, p932) on the ballot paper anyway.
CONCLUSION
Unfortunately once the vote was achieved the movement lacked a reason d’etre and stagnated. The importance of women seeing “themselves as potential agents for change” (Wolf, 1993, p149 –as quote in Lister, 2005) has fallen by the wayside. The fact that at the current rate it will take 370 years for women to equal men in the Dail (Hainsworth, NWCI, 2005) has failed to rally women tells me many things about the suffragette movement and the women’s movement as a whole. Radical change comes from the bottom up, from grass roots activism and solidarity. Though sexist laws and practices are slowly being eliminated the “women’s place” mentality still remains. I would agree with Chomsky that all power is illegitimate unless it proves its legitimacy, it is time to develop a culture where questions are asked of the power institutions in society, it is time for an egalitarian movement which asks hard questions and gets real answers.
