Securitization, Violence Against Women, and Political Representation in Jordan and Morocco

Scholars have shown that “high” politics issues such as national and international security threats tend to overshadow and dominate the policy agenda especially vis-à-vis “low” politics issues such as violence against women and women’s political participation. In the cases of Jordan and Morocco, however, the effect of securitization on policy outcomes seems more nuanced than the previous literature would suggest. In the early 2000s, both countries dealt with domestic terrorist attacks, conflicts, and refugee influxes. While the respective governments contended with these security issues, activists advocated for policy change related to violence against women and women’s political participation. In Jordan, reform occurred in both policy areas: the government enacted a policy granting greater protection to domestic violence victims as well as a women’s quota for the lower house of parliament. In Morocco, however, no action was taken on the violence against women policy, but the government did create a women’s quota in parliament. In this paper, I process trace the development of these policies in order to explain how securitization affects government action on women’s rights. I draw from over fourteen months of fieldwork, archival research, and in-depth interviews with policymakers to explain the policy variation in Jordan and Morocco. I argue that securitization affects policy outcomes in two consequential ways: first, the policies that reinforce the state as the protector of women are more likely to pass in securitized states. Second, the greater the involvement of international institutions and organizations in domestic security affairs, the higher the likelihood that policies enhancing the status of women will pass.