I don’t even know how many times, I’ve advocated for the «inclusion» of queer and feminist movements in pro-democracy movements, conversations, and actions. More times, in fact, than discussing in spaces – activist, political, intellectual – where the connection between different social justice movements was self-explanatory and implied as an imperative. I even started calling these spaces «non-traditional» for feminism/queer activism. I was, and still am, tirelessly explaining not only benefits of the broad, inclusive, and strategic pro-democratic movements for the marginalized communities, but also for democracy and our societies itself.
On the other hand, it is hard not to notice that there has never been a dispute between anti-democratic, neofascist, right-wing movements on whether the topics of gender equality, sexual and reproductive rights and racial/migrant justice should not only be a part, but at the core of their policies and narratives. They have centered these communities in every possible way, which efficiently provides them political and economic profit by making different marginalized people the Others who societies should fear, and therefore oppress and/or erase/expel before allegedly being oppressed by them, or by making them one of us, the tokens of inclusivity, to show off their diverse and progressive policies. In either way, narrowing many people down only to one or several marginalized identities only supports the victimhood Olympics. In the first case, these forces advocate against these communities by weaponizing misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism, islamophobia and antisemitism; in the second case, the weapon is pinkwashing their autocratic, colonialist, oligarchic, and autocratic modi operandi. In both cases, the cult of the victim is being empowered. This is one of the basic tools of empowering anti-democratic forces, which use the overall sense of frustration with pro-democratic policies and their failure to provide consistency and fulfil the promise of prosperity for all as a tool to manipulate.
Are we living true inclusion by focusing on representing marginalized groups?
Recently, I was at a very inspiring peace-building forum, where I listened to many vibrant activists and decision makers, jointly advocating for feminist peace building. While I was listening to one quite prominent feminist repeating «Women should be in all decision-making spaces,» I couldn’t help but think – yes, but isn’t this something we have been vocal about for several decades at least? How many more need to pass until this is a reality? Are we living a broader inclusion when we focus merely on the representation of particular identity groups, or are we increasing tokenization? Are our identities a guarantee for progressive, feminist, and democratic policies? And when are we going to tire of repeating that women’s rights, queer rights, trans rights, migrant rights, people with disability rights – are human rights? And when we get tired, finally – what are we going to change to be more strategic, efficient and proactive as movements?
To get closer to answering these questions, one concept always comes to mind first: solidarity, the meaning of which is in constant flux. I agree with Sara Ahmed, who says: Solidarity does not assume that our struggles are the same fights, that our pain is the same pain, or that we hope for the same future. Solidarity implies dedication and work, and the recognition that even though we do not have the same feelings, or the same lives, or the same bodies, we live on the same earth. This often-used word that is constantly in a liminal space, between the world of shabbiness beyond recognition and the world of hope about utopias, for which hardly anyone can blame you for not outgrowing your utopists fantasies. And when it comes to liminal spaces and periods, especially in these times, to me, by default, Gramsci comes to mind, with his famous saying, «The old world is dying, the new is trying to be born, this is the time of monsters», which resonates strongly in this global hour. Yes, we live the time of monsters, and the new world is yet unborn. In that atmosphere, solidarity persistently fails to slip away, not ending up in the dustbin of history, nor walking on utopian paths. It somehow becomes a self-evident category, which makes it relative and susceptible to our subjectivity. And it’s the same challenge with all self-evident categories ‒ we define them by feelings, which can be a deceptive compass, especially when we consider that emotions are not only psychological states, but also social and cultural practices. Perhaps that is why Gramsci asks in his Prison Notebooks why fascism appeared in Italy, at a time in history when all the conditions for the development of a socialist revolution existed. Sounds familiar?
Recently, in many countries, a debate has ignited about transgender people: what to do with them, which rights they deserve, is there such a thing as too much equality? Of course, there are also a lot of other debates regarding many different groups, comparing them and discussing who deserves peace, resources, human rights, and opportunities, also evident in the current discussion about Palestine, Jews, Ukrainians, and many others. These discussions showcase the instrumentalization of false dichotomies, as well as arbitrary solidarity. Here, as well as in the lively debate on the issue of movements based on the principles and values vs. movements based on identities and victimhood, it is not hard to conclude which one is the winner who takes it all: These discourses provide fertile ground for the rise of (neo)fascist and far-right actors across the globe, evident also in the European elections results.
A couple of weeks ago, after I made the clear connection between anti-democratic and anti-gender actors, advocating they are the same, I was asked by one institutional representative – ‘but what if we create the stronger backlash by making these connections, aren’t we better off if we address these issues separately?’ I shared my thoughts – that these anti-democratic actors, which include politicians, different religious organizations, think tanks, seemingly grassroot collectives, and in some cases even allegedly women’s rights organizations ‒-profit from this fear, because they are aware of the connection and use it to the maximum, while pro-democratic actors do not. In our region, which is the Western Balkan region (as well as many others), women’s rights and LGBTIQ rights are usually weaponized to destabilize the region, because the anti-democratic/anti-gender actors have realized very well that these are emotionally charged topics that may be used to destroy democracy. At the same time, they are aware that many who care either don’t care about these topics, or they don’t understand how they are an integral part of the story of democracy, security and peace building. This omission is exploited by (in our case) pro-Russian autocratic and other anti-democratic players, to destabilize our countries, endanger peace, empower nationalism using escalation and de-escalation towards potential conflicts, while weaponizing gender.
Are we missing the connection of our struggles as the essential part of our holistic view on democracy?
Furthermore, the decolonial sentiment and perspective is strongly abused to mask the expansion of Russian imperial influence and sub-imperial influence in the region of their main proxy ‒ Serbia. While we, as progressive, strongly pro-democratic movements, self-reflect and consolidate in this collective fear for the preservation and advancement of world peace and democracies, shouldn’t we wonder whether we are we making the same mistakes by not having onboard all of our people, their knowledge, and their struggles? Are we missing the connection of our struggles as the essential part of our holistic view on democracy? And what and who are we ready to sacrifice to hold onto some sort of privilege and have the illusion of power? The answer to these questions is the answer to the question – what is needed to have peace? Because without peace, which we don’t have today, and which is going to be even more absent in the future, if this constellation of things remain in place, everything we have worked for, all the struggles we have and face will fall by the wayside – like a song that may trail off within seconds.
Anti-gender/anti-democratic movements feed off the defeatism of progressive movements. We may have to strengthen our collective reasoning by not just focusing on expediency, but instead on a vision of rebirthing democratic ideals that need to be consistently lived, not just proclaimed. To revive democracy that aims to be true to itself and transformative, that negates and transcends the status quo, infused with experiences of all marginalized and oppressed ones, such democracy needs to be decolonial, anti-fascist, and thus feminist and queer. Solidarity must be political decision.
Jovan Džoli Ulićević is an activist from Montenegro working on anti-fascism, queer activism, and feminism. He studied Biology at the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics at the University of Donja Gorica in Podgorica, where he is currently enrolled for his final year in the program of Diplomacy and International Relations. Dzoli heads the organization Spektra and the Trans Network Balkan. He is a member of the activist circle of the Guerrilla Foundation.