table of contents - home page - text-only home page Challenges in the Comparative Study of Disability Politics By Kay Schriner (kays@uark.edu) People with disabilities hold elected and appointed offices in many nations around the world. Disabled people are members of parliaments and high-level officials in executive branches. They use these positions to influence policy and work hard to improve the quality of life for other disabled people. The roles they play in their governments, the issues they work on, and the impact they have in their countries is of great interest. The increasing consciousness about disability issues internationally suggests that we need to develop a thorough understanding of the status of disabled people in the political structures of their countries. We need to understand how these various nations govern themselves, and how disabled people can gain and wield influence. To do this, we need to know about the country's history and traditions, and how to compare those circumstances across countries. This analysis must reflect an appreciation of cultural, economic, and political practices. This background is necessary to develop the comparative study of disability politics. Take the example of a country such as Saudi Arabia, which is a conservative country with an absolute monarchy. It is governed by a king and a crown prince, in consultation with the senior princes of the Al Saud clan, religious authorities, and the Council of Ministers. Its constitution is the Qur'an, the holy book of the Islamic religion. How can we understand the political status of disabled people in that country? The status of any particular disabled individual will be determined by a variety of factors, including lineage, class, and religion. In terms of political influence, a disabled person born into the Saudi royal family would obviously have a much greater likelihood of taking part in governance and having influence than would a disabled person born into say, an Egyptian family whose male head of household works in a Riyadh hotel. If a disabled person has an influential position in the Saudi government, what does that tell us about the political status of other disabled persons in Saudi? Answering that broader question requires an understanding of the unique role of the Saudi royal family, and the nature of governance in Saudi Arabia. The fact that there is one disabled member of the royal family in an influential position may not be all that important to or affect the status of the many other people in Saudi Arabia who have disabilities. Most disabled people do not have an opportunity to participate because they are not part of the ruling family. The presence of one or more disabled persons - almost certain to be men - in influential positions does not necessarily indicate anything about the political status of disabled people more generally. It would not necessarily mean, for example, that the Saudi government would take steps to elevate the status of disabled people, since for the most part, disability is considered a family issue and women bear the responsibility of caring for other family members who may have disabilities. Disability is largely an issue of the private sphere, not the public sphere. In a government where the monarchy rules with almost complete autonomy, the "interests" of disabled people must find their way to power through traditions of royal authority, family lineage, and religious influences that are unfamiliar, and perhaps perplexing, to many Westerners. This example illustrates that studying the political influence of disabled people requires a country-specific approach. It would be difficult to assess the status of persons with disabilities in Saudi Arabia without a through grounding in its history and contemporary situation. A comparative study of disability politics also requires knowledge about forms of government and how power is exercised and distributed through those various forms. Studying a monarchial system is a very different proposition that studying a parliamentary or presidential system. In a parliamentary or presidential system, where political leaders are chosen through cyclical elections with typically broad suffrage (though not always a large turn-out of eligible voters), the analysis of political power must be approached differently. In such systems, the presence of disabled people in government positions may mean something different than in a monarchial system. When disabled people are elected to official positions, it may mean that they are seen by the voters as representing a group of people with common interests. There is a source of power behind that elected representative and the official operates within a public sphere that has a power of its own. The representative is mostly free to represent constituents without fear of reprisals from other centers of power, and is accountable to the voters who elected that official. A comparative politics of disability must also address the question of representation and political identity. This is an important issue in Western democracies where the "personal" has become the "political," partly as a result of the civil rights and women's rights movements. Ideology has to some extent been replaced by the group and individual interests inherent in groupings based on race, gender, age, and increasingly, disability. Politicians play to those interests by making specific appeals to women, African-Americans, older people, and to a greater degree than ever, disabled people. This was certainly the case in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, during which the Republican, Democrat and Green party nominees issued numerous statements on disability issues and made other direct appeals to the disability community. The question of political identity also arises in campaigns when candidates themselves have disabilities. Candidates who have physical disabilities are typically better off, politically speaking, if their disabilities are the result of military service. Robert Dole, the senior Senator from Kansas and Presidential aspirant, was introduced by his wife as proudly bearing a "badge of honor" - a war injury - during the 1996 Republican National Convention. Similarly, Senator Max Cleland of Georgia, who uses a wheelchair due to injuries received as a soldier in Vietnam, routinely includes reports on how he became disabled in his biographical statements. If a candidate has been treated for a mental illness, there are potentially serious consequences, as was true for Arizona Senator John McCain, who made a bid for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination. Senator McCain, who had spent years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, found it necessary to release his medical records to combat the charge that his lengthy confinement had made him mentally unstable. In the United States, then, running as a "disabled" candidate for public office works better in some circumstances than others. The war injury certainly plays better than a mental illness. Until public attitudes change for the better, disabled candidates must decide how to manage information about their disability to the most advantageous end. If there is a community of people who have disabilities, who admit to having disabilities, and who identify themselves as having a set of common interests that can and should be represented in the political system, then a disabled candidate is much more likely to make specific appeals to this group of voters. And, that candidate is probably more likely to represent this group in the policymaking process if he or she is elected. There is a lot at stake in the identity question. If and when a true disability consciousness develops among the 54 million disabled Americans, candidates (both disabled candidates and non-disabled candidates) will be more likely to speak directly to that political force. This in turn, should result in a more receptive legislature and executive branch after the election. This brief discussion illustrates just a few of the many questions that must be answered as we develop a knowledge base about the politics of disability. We must understand more about the ways disabled people are acquiring and using political power in various governance systems. We need to consider how these patterns are similar to, and different from, each other and why. We must also strive to learn more about the effects of these similarities and differences on the representation of disabled peoples' interests in political systems. table of contents - home page - text-only home page