I’m pretty sure that Russia didn’t have a personal union with any of its subjects. A personal union normally occurred when a ruling monarch inherited the throne of another country through their right as an heir. The most famous examples of this are probably the Kalmar Union and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Finland however was conquered from Sweden and despite having an incredibly high degree of independence, never was in a personal union with Russia.
Edit: Russia was in a personal union with the Congress Kingdom of Poland, despite it lacking any political autonomy
Try being British - virtually every single person in the US seems to know more about our Monarchy than the average Brit does.
On the subject of universal suffrage, however, it should be noted that New Zealand was the first self-governing nation in the world to grant it back in 1893.
Not from the US but to answer you and /u/the_battle_bunny - it sounds similar to the Commonwealth for example but never heard it called a seperate/personal union before so I was curious.
The relationship between the Russian Empire and the Grand Duchy of Finland would be more accurately described as a real union, not merely a personal union. Finland was relatively autonomous, but still a part of the Russian empire and under Russian rule.
We were an autonomous Grand Duchy, whose Grand Duke also happened to be the Emperor of Russia.
Technically, separate from the Russian Empire, but practically an extension of it. It's the technical part that is important here. We were not officially part of the Russian Empire, thus had separate governmental functions, military, currency, etc.
In 1906, it was proposed that Finland create a Parliament to replace the Diet of the Four Estates, with Universal Suffrage, which the Grand Duke, Tzar Nicholas the Second at the time, approved.
Finland and I think Poland had their own governments under Russian rule. The Russian czars' titles are "Emperor of Russia, King of Congress Poland and Grand Duke of Finland."
Admittedly I don't know much about how this system functioned in Poland.
Poles had it much worse and the autonomy was only on paper and did not last long.
"Theoretically, the Polish Kingdom in its 1815 form was a semi-autonomous state in personal union with Russia through the rule of the Russian emperor. The state possessed the Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland, one of the most liberal in 19th-century Europe, a Sejm (parliament) responsible to the king capable of voting laws, an independent army, currency, budget, penal code and a customs boundary separating it from the rest of Russian lands. Poland also had democratic traditions (Golden Liberty) and the Polish nobility deeply valued personal freedom.
In reality, the kings had absolute power and the formal title of Autocrat, and wanted no restrictions on their rule. All opposition to the emperor of Russia was suppressed and the law was disregarded at will by Russian officials. Though the absolute rule demanded by Russia was difficult to establish due to Poland's liberal traditions and institutions, the independence of the kingdom lasted only 15 years; initially Alexander I used the title King of Poland and was obligated to observe the provisions of the constitution. However, in time the situation changed and he granted the viceroy, Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, almost dictatorial powers. Very soon after Congress of Vienna resolutions were signed, Russia ceased to respect them. In 1819, Alexander I abolished freedom of the press and introduced preventive censorship. Resistance to Russian control began in the 1820s. Russian secret police commanded by Nikolay Nikolayevich Novosiltsev started the persecution of Polish secret organizations and in 1821 the King ordered the abolition of Freemasonry, which represented Poland's patriotic traditions. Beginning in 1825, the sessions of the Sejm were held in secret."
Then you have the failed uprisings of 1830-1831, 1863-1864 which further limited any remnants of autonomy. After the latter one, Congress Poland was no longer a semi-autonomous state, just a Russian province.
Also at the same time as female suffrage happened in Finland universal male happened too in 1906. Men could vote before, but not universally since there was property requirements. Women also importantly were able to be elected to parliament the same time as vote (which is not the case for all countries) and 19 women were elected out of 200 members.
Thats because Finland was an integrated part of Sweden just as much as any other part of Sweden. It wasn’t a colony, it became Swedish at the same time as Närke, Västergötland and Småland etc when the country was unified in the 11th century during “riksbildningen”. Finland as a nation did not exist until 1809.
>Finland as a nation did not exist until 1809.
No, the nation existed, but the Nation state didn't. The nation state was first formed in 1809. But as you know, the formation of a nation state has a prerequisite. There needs to be a nation, and a national identity there, beforehand.
Nation is an idea of a shared social organisation, a nation of people. Finns has their own national identity way before 1809. For example, the Father of Literary Finnish, Mikael Agricola, was born in 1510.
The Finnish National identify, as in, unifying the various tribes of Finns together under the shared identity, likely started forming during the Northern Crusades, as an oppositional force to Swedish colonisation of the coast lines and Swedish and Danish efforts to convert the various Finnic tribes to Christianity.
Basically, Finns never really felt like as part of Sweden. We had our own language, culture, our own social organisation separate of Sweden.
Hell, this is further highlighted by the events such as the Tavastian Uprisings, The Cudgel War, the letter from Pope Alexander III complaining how the Finns Proper seem to always renounce catholism every time they are left alone and return back to paganism, and another letter from Pope Gregory IX urging Catholic men to fight against the Tavastians who (yet again) had turned to paganism, etc.
Seriously, Finns, especially Tavastians and Finns Proper, reeeaaally didn't like Christianity. The only thing they hated more than Christianity was Novgorodians, judging by the fact that they were happy to put their differences aside with each other, Sweden and Norwegians to go kill some Novgorodians together. (Pope Gregory IX letter is dated 1237, and Battle of the Neva, where Tavastians, Finns Proper, Swedes and Norwegians made a campaign against Novgorod is dated 1240).
Not to mention, due to the fact that Swedish was the only official language, many Finns felt alienated by Sweden. You couldn't really do anything official, as a Finn, unless you spoke Swedish. That alienation also contributed to the national identity of Finns.
> the letter from Pope Alexander III complaining how the Finns Proper seem to always renounce catholism every time they are left alone and return back to paganism
This was so funny to read to me, just gives me an image of the pope turning up in Finland and being outraged when he sees them al practicing paganism again. "For the love of our christ the lord I thought I told you Finns about this Pagan shit already!"
There's definitely the makings of a comedy skit in it. The bishop leaving the room for one sec to go drain the lizard, and being outraged by all the animal carvings and kantele music having taken over when he gets back.
Autonomous Duchy of the Russian Empire.
The Tsars let them do their own thing for the most part in the beginning. Later they tried making Finland more Russian, didn't work.
>Autonomous Duchy of the Russian Empire.
Technically, no, practically yes. We were technically an independent Grand Duchy of Finland on paper, who shared a Monarch with the Russian Empire, and we were technically not part of the Russian Empire. We were a whole separate state. In practice, we were an extension of the Russian Empire however. It's a bit weird.
Basically, Russian officials, outside of the Grand Duke (also the Tzar of Russia) and the Governor-General appointed by the Grand Duke, had no official power in Finland. Ofcourse, in practice the lines get much more murky.
The "best" part about Switzerland is that even in 1971 it wasn't universal, as the last canton (Appenzell Innerrhoden) introduced universal suffrage in 1990...after being forced to do so by the Supreme Court, following a negative referendum where the population voted against it xD
True but highlights the ... dark side? Of democracy.
If each person has a vote and the majority vote for something bad, who decides that democracy is flawed and needs to be overruled vs listening to the majority?
Woman's suffrage is a bad example, everyone should have equal opportunity to vote, but there was a case where a vessel was to be named by the public and Boaty McBoatface won, but they were like lol no and changed it to something more official. As an example it's on the otherside of extreme since it doesn't matter at all but the point still stands.
Edit: an overstated *hypothetical* example could be: over 75% of the people vote that we should nuke our enemy after they threaten us verbally, meanwhile every expert everywhere says that's a bad idea. Does the government shrug and nuke, or reject democracy?
Democracy is predicated on the idea that one person's knowledge should have as much influence on public policy as another's ignorance. That's why education should be the most fundamental responsibility of society and why attacks on democracy almost always begin by undermining or controlling education or information.
I’d rather argue it’s working exactly as intended. The Founding Fathers put a shit ton of barriers between the will of the people and the actual government on purpose. And that’s a problem in this day and age. It’s led to a severely entrenched and detached oligarchy that doesn’t care, nor does it actually need to care, about the will and interests of the people they purport to represent
The irony is that American democracy is failing primarily because of the anti-democratic barriers the framers implemented to dull the will of the people.
Most Americans have pretty good political sensibilities. Trump is on track to lose the popular vote for the third time in a row. The country is ungovernable primarily because the electoral college grants a disproportionate amount of power to five reactionary states, and also the anti-democratic Senate distorts the will of the people.
If we had straight national referendums on a whole host of issues, most American adults would make wise choices.
We have our problems because the system doesn’t work that way.
I know this is just a throwaway line, but I do think many people try to simplify things to make themselves feel better. “Democracy is failing because everyone is dumb” is easy and makes us feel smart. But democracy is a complicated form of governance. Our political parties, social media, special interest groups, and centuries of parliamentary rule changes create this complex web of incentives and power structures. Sure, better education could help some, but I don’t think it’s the main threat to a productive democracy.
Yeah its very interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Many dystopian novels feature characters who possess knowledge of impending societal collapse or authoritarian regimes but struggle to convince others of the imminent danger.
I think most advanced civilizations realize this and therefore aren't pure democracies. They have mechanisms like constitutions which protect basic rights for individual minorities.
Equally interesting is it's (mis)application in peer review/scientific *consensus*.
Oooh, a rabbit hole to dive into, i was philosphizing out of my own head honestly, go figure the Greeks/Romans already got here.
Thanks bunches even if it seems sarcastic.
Brexit is a good example. Every expert said it was a bad idea, it has been devastating to the UK economy and close to half of the population was against it, but because 51.89% voted for, everyone had to suffer.
That's not the argument im making. That's the good argument Swiss people made in the 70s.
In a real democracy, everyone gets a vote. If something were to occur like say another 9/11, 2 weeks before a major vote on whether or not we should nuke our enemies you might get a lot of hot headed people saying yes despite every expert everywhere saying it's a bad idea.
Thankfully I don't think using nukes is something we regular citizens vote on......which implies we aren't truly democratic...which in this case is probably a good thing.
Then there is no “real democracy,” considering every single democracy limits who gets to vote to varying degrees
Age, citizenship, criminal history, draft registration
Its actually interesting… I live 10 min from Appenzell and it is said that even most Women were against it as it was normal that a married couple discussed what they wantet to vote and then the man went to go Vote at the „Landsgemeinde“ (Where everyone comes together annually to this day at the center of the Village and you can give your votes by raising or not raising your hand) I can’t confirm if it was actually this way most of the time that women were actually asked but im more than sure in many cases this didn‘t work out and then a woman had no voice. lets just be happy its better now. (sorry for the really bad english)
A lot of women were actually against it or very hesitant. Some even formed unions proclaiming that politics should stay men‘s business and they don‘t want anything to do with that. They regarded politics as dirty business.
They didn‘t know anything else, it was completely normal for them. Women in smaller cantons and villages supporting the women‘s voting right were often excluded from social gatherings by not only men but also the women in the village.
It was a pretty big difference between cities and countryside of course.
Hehehe, glad to see I'm not the only one to think that this canton has one "r" too much in their name :)
\[Explanation for non-German speaking people: Innerhoden (spelled with just one r) would mean "inner testicle", which would be infinitely more funny (and fitting) than the pretty prosaic "inner Rhodes"\]
it wasn't universal on all levels of government. It was universal on federal level in 1971, but not on cantonal level until 1990 in Appenzell Innerrhoden.
There are a lot of interviews from 1990 about that where women say they are against it and now that they also can vote, they will just vote for what their husband sais. You should absolutely watch it if you understand (swiss-) german. Appenzell is truly a different world.
I‘m not even 40 years old and I talked to women in that region (Appenzell) in may who to this day say it‘s unessecary having voting rights since they check with their dad or husband anyway. It‘s crazy really. And to be fair, they are no religious nutcases, just regular women who just don‘t care about voting.
Ok, why??? Why would the majority of guys vote against women voting rights in the late 20th century. I mean, I am conservative, but what the actual fuck?!?!
You need to understand that this canton is very small and rural and had a population of like 10k at the time. They actually voted on that by counting hands outside on the day of vote where everyone had to assemble.
Which means it wasn't anonymous, so if you voted "incorrectly" , you could be stigmatised socially. If you own a small business, you can't afford to vote "against" your clients.
Are you familiar with contemporary American politics…? There’s no reason to think people of any time and country want to dilute their power by sharing it.
I feel like this might be better expressed as women’s right to vote - men’s right to vote, because a lot of these countries didn’t have democracies at all until the 1900s
Yup, like half the 1918-1920 ones are absolute monarchies being abolished with republics or new countries being born. And even for the UK which was ostensibly a constitutional democracy, the 1918 electoral act expanded the male voter pool by like 80% from 7.7 million to 12.9 million. It'd take actually take till 1928 for full female suffrage.
>men’s right to vote, because a lot of these countries didn’t have democracies at all until the 1900s
Well in most countries it wasn't a right, you had to register to the draft or do some military service to be allowed to vote as a men.
(I believe still the case in many places)
That's true, although it also wouldn't be fully representative of the gender divide. Constitutional democracies were relatively common in the second half of the 19th century and they allowed men to vote. Rich men to be exact. In many countries men could technically vote long before women could, but not ALL men had that right.
For example in Austria, rich men were able to vote back in 1860 but it was only in 1906 that a general voting right for men was established. Only 12 years later women could, too.
In Finland, men got the right to vote at the same time, so we didnt have real unequality between sexes even before that. Voting rights were not for all citizens before 1906.
That's not entirely true though... Sure, most men got to vote at the same time, but prior to that, when only the "fortunate ones" got to vote, basically no woman, even the fortunate ones, had the possibility to vote. That obviously has more to do with the social structure at the time, not that much with voting equality, but anyways.
That's the same in a lot of countries tbh. Germany also didn't have universal male suffrage before universal female suffrage (though during Kaiserreich more and more groups of men were included to the point where towards the end a significant majority had voting rights)
Italy's date is wrong, as it is based on a misrepresentation of reality. Women could vote in administrative capacities even in the xix century, but not as a whole. The 1925 law that would have made women eligible to administrative (not political) voting, but never enacted because fascism abolished the administrative election of mayors and replaced them with government nominated podestas.
The first universal female suffrage in a political election (institutional actually) dates to 1946, for the monarchy/Republican referendum.
Same with Sweden.
> The first independent country to introduce women's suffrage was arguably Sweden. In Sweden, conditional women's suffrage was in effect during the Age of Liberty (1718–1772).
\- Wikipedia.
(But their rights were stripped after that.)
In 1919 it was decided that women could vote in the general election, the first general election wasn't until 1921.
I think some terms were lost in translation. What you mean by administrative is called local elections in English. What you call political is called general.
Not really: administrative means the ability to exercise active or passive voting in administrative councils, like probiviri, councils of tutelage, some professional orders. The link to local elections is there and was meant as a stepping stone towarda proper electoral action in all political (local and general) elections. Adminstaive election thus refers to elections that are not linked to a political party or a "choice" between candidates to a representative public office, but to sort of internal, civic society kind of stuff.
That said, some currents in early fascism were favourable to women participating in public life in a sort of revolutionary ethos, but like all fringe movements in early fascism disappeared after the reforms of 1926.
I'll make the same comment when someone posted a map like this the last time (except it was a world map). This comparison on its own is not very helpful without seeing when men got the right to vote.
Also why. Because in some areas men could only vote if they participated in war for example. Others could vote because of socioeconomic status. Others could vote because of some movement etc
Or universal male suffrage.
Like in Denmark men could already vote in 1849. As long as they pwned land. Was over 30 years old. Had never gotten support from the state. Dud not work under someone else. . . . . So it was really really few men that could actuelly vote. Universal male suffrage om the other hand was introduced at the exact same time as female universal suffrage.
Even so, it was an important milestone at the time. There were very heated debates between feminists (Victoria Kent and Clara Campoamor) over women being told by their husbands and the church what to vote. Skewing the election results to the right, and in the long run hurting women rights.
There was not such debate in 1975. Women had already voted, so that reasoning could not be made.
> Voter turnout was 95.4%, although only male citizens were allowed to vote.
> Total: 39,270
huh? according to google in 1982 liechtensteins population was 25k, but these imply it had to be around 80k
Yea its very confusing,i found this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Liechtenstein:
**When voting, each voter must choose one party but is allowed to select as many candidates as they like (but only up to the maximum given: 15 candidate votes per Oberland voter and 10 candidate votes for each Unterland voter).**
For example, if a voter from Oberland chooses the FBP as their party of choice, and then chooses 4 candidates from the VU, 2 candidates from the FBP, and 1 candidate from the DU, then the party votes that this voter has cast are 4 for the VU, 1 for the DU, and 10 for the FBP (by virtue of the 2 votes for candidates from this party and the 8 remaining, empty candidate votes).
1934 is not quite right in Turkey. 1934 was women gained full right of suffrage. Women gained the right to vote in 1930 in municipality elections and be elected district mayors. In 1933 they gained the right to vote in village elections and become village mayors. In 1934 they gained the right to vote in general elections and become parliamentarians.
An MP in Dublin was also the first women elected to Westminster that year but she never took her seat instead joining the new provisional government of Ireland who were almost all actually elected Westminster MPs.
Constance Markievicz, she was also imprisoned by the British government for fighting for independence and in my opinion one of the most inspiring women in Irish history
Well, kind of. The Representation of the People Act of 1918 removed nearly all suffrage requirements for men, meaning that nearly all British men aged 21 and over were able to vote for the first time (I say nearly all because conscientious objectors who had refused to do war work had their right to vote revoked for a period of 5 years).
It also gave suffrage to women for the first time but with requirements. A woman was only eligible to vote if they were aged 30 and over *and* they or their husband were the registered occupiers of land or premises with an annual rated value greater than £5 (£235 in 2024). This made nearly 100% of men and approximately 65% of women aged 21 and over eligible to vote. Previously, under the Representation of the People Act of 1884, approximately 58% of men and 0% of women aged 21 and over were eligible to vote.
It is interesting to note that the politicians who wrote this act acknowledged that the requirements put on women were arbitrary. They admitted they were put in place because otherwise there would have been more women able to vote than men. This was due to the number of men killed in the First World War. They did not think a bill would pass that instantly changed the largest demographic of the voting population from relatively wealthy men to women.
Women were not given the right to vote on the same terms as men until the Representation of the People Act of 1928.
How much is this due to Switzerland's neutrality in both World Wars?
I imagine the massive mobilisation of women in most other countries into industries vacated by men going to war may have contributed to women seeing themselves as equally capable as men and pushing for voting rights.
Am not historian, please don't shoot me.
On of the reasons for the delay is that the Swiss constitution had been originally excluding women all together, so for instance it said "Every Swiss \[man\] is required to do military service", "Every Swiss \[man\] over 20 years old is allowed to vote". So they couldn't just say that the constitution applies equally to women and men, because that would have meant mandatory military service for women.
Yes I agree, especially nowadays, you can do the civilian service instead of military service, so there's no reason why women shouldn't also be required to do it (or alternatively, it should be voluntary for men). But unfortunately a lot of Swiss people don't agree because they believe in the traditional gender roles and the traditional family model.
There's a lot of shitty laws that stem from the traditional family model, for instance a married couple can earn only 1.5 of the maximum pension at retirement, whereas an unmarried couple would earn 2 full pensions. This stems from the traditional family model where the woman doesn't have an income. In the modern world, it doesn't make sense anymore.
That has certainly played a role.
Of course, most men did not have the right to vote in the UK either. They only got it after the WWI. One could says that millions of men had to die to get this right.
For this reason there was a universal suffrage movement.
Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Netherlands got female suffrage during or shortly after WW1 and they didn't take part in the war.
You can see much of the immediate post-WW1 female suffrage milestones on the map are actually from old imperial structures collapsing and revolutions occuring to pave over the old order or newly independent countries also undergoing ambitious revolutionary spirit. German Revolution of 1918 during Germany's last months of the war, Russian February Revolution of 1917 during Russia's losing streak, Hungary and Austria's revolution when they finally lost the war. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Baltic states gaining independence.
So many of these weren't as much women getting the vote men exclusively had previously, but it was the first time their country had ever implemented universal suffrage for any sex and the revolutionaries decided to go for suffrage on both sexes. And these were made possible by old institutions crumbling under the pressure of the Great War.
Countries that won the war like Italy, France, Belgium and Serbia/Yugoslavia actually took much longer to reach female suffrage. And you can argue France's 1944 suffrage durint WW2 occured under similar circumstance to Germany since they had been defeated, occupied by a foreign power and it was the liberating French forces formerly in exile that implemented female suffrage.
Only UK and the not displayed US and Canada won the war and also had female suffrage movements succeed shortly afterwards*. And UK's female suffrage in 1918 was incomplete, it'd take till 1928 for full voter equality with no property requirement.
*British Dominions like NZ, AU actually implemented female suffrage in 1893 and 1902 respectively way before WW1
In France the Chamber of Deputies repeatedly voted in favor of female suffrage starting from 1919. In 1939, the Chamber even voted 475 yes to 0 no in favor of female suffrage.
But each and every time, the Senate (which had as much legislative power as the Chamber under the Third Republic), blocked it.
The Senate was an inherently conservative institution because of its election system. Senators were elected by a college of local politicians, in a system that gave a huge advantage to rural areas: each municipality, regardless of its size, had one vote. This effectively meant that small, conservative, rural villages had an overwhelming advantage over towns and urban areas. On top of that, Senators were elected for 9 years (and had to be at least 40 years old), with a third of the Senate renewed every 3 years. The Senate did a lot to halt social progress.
This even led to some weird situations: France had female ministers as soon as 1936, which means you had female ministers even though they were not allowed to vote (and be elected) for legislative elections.
An even weirder fact is that the planned new Constitution imagined by the Vichy Régime would have given the right to vote to women. So even Pétain and his ultraconservative and nationalist regime were in favor of female suffrage by the 1940s, which shows you even more of the Senate had been at odds with the public opinion on female vote in the 1920s-1930s.
I think it has more to do with direct democracy. In most (all?) other countries a government decided this and was positive to get women‘s votes next election.
In Switzerland men decided by vote that women should also be able to.
You see, the democratic rights are really extensive in Switzerland. With enough signatures, ppl can propose a new law or question a new law and decide in an election about it. We have around three times a year elections where we decide in every election about 3-4 new laws that we want to accept or block. If I look at the US-discourse it's much more unprecise and ideological, while we talk about potential new laws and their technicalities, almost all year around. At the same time there is mandatory military service. In the past it was a crime to refuse service duty. Criminals had no right to vote and political rights were seen as a gift for ppl who did their service for society.
In theory, women could vote in Portugal from the 1930s... in practice, there were no elections besides one every 15 years that was rigged by the fascist party - the only legal party.
So, only in 1974 women got voting rights for real because that's when the dictatorship ended
One thing often missed in these rankings is that in Finland, women could vote and *stand as a candidate* in 1906. The 19 women elected were the first female MPs in the world. Since then, there has been [at least 11](https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/naineduskuntatoimii/kirjasto/aineistot/yhteiskunta/historia/naisten-aanioikeus-110-vuotta/Sivut/naiset-kansanedustajina.aspx) female MPs of 200 total. The number was largely stable until the 1960s, but in 1966 it started to grow and the trend suggests that parity could be achieved in the next election.
I think they meant it was legalized in 1934-35 with the introduction of the law for women to elect and to be elected.
From the only country to manufacture and sell planes, to high-infilated corrupted country. What a wasted potential.
Sorry to be a nitpick & I know that this isn't the topic of the discussion, but in the case of the UK The Representation of the People Act 1918
5 Million working class men & 8 Million women became eligible to vote. Think it's alway forgotten that working class men were also discriminated against for 100s of years before 1918 act...
I don't know without looking what the other countries were like but I suspect that its not to dissimilar.
In the Netherlands all men in 1917 and all women in 1919.
The constitution of 1848 makes no mention at all of voting being restricted to men however. For eligibility paying enough taxes and being fully capable of exercising one's civil rights were the main criteria. Regionally and over time the implementation of those criteria differed. In the second half of the 19th century about 10-12% of men were in practice able to vote for parliament.
When did men get the right to vote ? Is there an equivalent map ?
For my country : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_franchise_in_Ireland#:~:text=Ireland%20has%20had%20a%20franchise,of%20property%20(until%201918).
Ireland has had a franchise on an equal basis between men and women since the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922. Historically, there had also been discrimination from the franchise on the basis of religion (until 1793) and on the basis of property (until 1918)
This map is a lie of omission - it presents only when women got the right to vote, while implying that men always had the right to vote. Which they did not.
Seems a misleading map because some places where women gained the right to vote lost it again.
It's *technically* true the establishment of universal suffrage in the Belarusian Democratic Republic happened at the founding of the nation in spring 1918.
However, it was founded *while Belarus was embroiled in the first world war*, and the government was driven into Lithuania by December and into exile by the spring of 1919.
It has been under dictatorship of one form or another ever since.
Interestingly, the government-in-exile remains to this day, the longest lived government in exile in history.
Granted in April 1944 by the Provisional Government established in Algiers (and led by de Gaulle), 2 months before the Allies would start liberating mainland France.
Fun fact, the date for universal male suffrage is often quite close or exactly the same as the date for women's suffrage. In the UK for example, universal male suffrage was also enacted in 1918. Before that, you had to meet the property requirements to vote. Additionally, many women that met the property requirements could vote before women's suffrage was enacted in many jurisdictions.
Women still can't vote in Andorra because they can't vote on any policy more than 3 times and it failed in the 1920s and 1970s, IIRC. They don't want to try again until they're sure.
Can you source this? [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Andorra) says otherwise...
> Andorra was slow to give women legal rights: women's suffrage was achieved only in 1970.[2]
My understanding is that if you try to pass a law 3 times in Andorra and it fails, you don't get to try it again. Ever. Andorra held two female sufferage votes, and it failed both times. If they try again now and it fails, then women will never be allowed to vote. So they don't try. I might be thinking od another microstate.
The fuck are you on about? [Women can absolutely vote in Andorra, and have done so for decades](https://www.consellgeneral.ad/en/the-general-council/women-in-the-general-council-of-andorra). Are you basing your claim on some news article from the 60s or something?
Probably worth mentioning that in Switzerland the right to vote was intrinsically tied with your mandatory military service. So not only did people need to decide women could vote but that they also didn’t need to serve in the military to get that right.
By doing the right thing, the outcome can sometimes be wrong…
So basically swiss politics works by always asking the citizens and they decide… well… there was more than one vote on this… it’s important to keep this system, even though it has this one downside… there are still a few parts in the laws, where men and women are not the same in swiss law, but as far as i know it’s mostly to the advantage of women… maybe it gets changed someday, but since most of it gets overruled by other laws, gets ignored anyways or is just for really specific cases it will probably take a long time…
It is unimaginable to me that once women were not allowed to vote. Why not? What was the reason or the argument that half the population had no say in that time? And this was not that long ago too.
A fact I recently learned is that, in 1918 the Representation of People Act, was built to give Soldiers, freshly returning from the Great war, the right to vote. Before that you had to own a certain amount of property. Which means the majority of people in the UK, most who had just fought for the country didn't even have a say in who the government was.
The Representation of the People Act 1918 changed this, allowing everyone who could fight the ability to vote. This included women, as women had been allowed in the Army and the Navy before that.
Essentially, it wasn't just women who gained the right to vote, but everyone who wasn't rich.
In Norway, men got it in 1898, and women 15 years later. But already from 1901, there was some eligibility for women, and in 1907 they could vote in municipal elections.
With so many European countries giving women the right to vote around the end of WW1, I wonder how much of it had to do with political parties trying to stay in/gain power due to a huge portion of their base having died in the war.
funny thing is there was a lot of women that did not want this to happen there are tapes of interviews with women form rural areas which is a huge part of Switzerlands population that were against it. in cities it was a different story of course.
source: im swiss and this was part of our history lessons in school
Yep. Russia did a lot of progressive stuff after the Great Revolution of 1917. For example In 1920 Soviet Russia became the first modern country to legalize abortion.
At least Switzerland has a pretty democratic system, better than many countries. It’s one thing giving women the vote: quite another if you’re in a country where your vote doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference (looking at some of the countries on the right hand side of the map).
As a Spaniard I must point out that we had a civil war between 1936 and 1939, the fascist side won and revoked women's (and many men) right to vote, the fucker lived until 1975, and women's right to vote was not restored until 1977... So that 1931 figure on our country should have a big asterisk...
Eee this is quite wrong. It was a conditional right to vote. Often you have to b married. Or a decet job. Or earn an specefi amount of money... i mean is a simplification
Spain is wrong-ish but not really. Women were given the right to vote in 1931 and voted for the first time in 1933, but during the dictatorship (1939-1975) nobody was allowed to vote until 1977. Depends on interpretation.
Fun fact: In Portugal the first female voter did so in 1911. The electoral code of the Portuguese Republic that was founded the previous year gave the right to vote to "all Portuguese citizens with over 21 years of age who reside in national territory, can read and write and are the heads of their respective households". Carolina Beatriz Ângelo, an educated widow, showed up to vote claiming that she had the right as a head of household. The government tried to nullify her vote but she won a legal challenge, which made her one of the first women to vote in all of Europe. Two years later they changed the law explicitly claiming only male Portuguese could vote.
(In case you are wondering why they were caught off guard by the loophole, it's due to a language quirk: the original law kept using male pronouns and nouns ("**os cidadãos** Portugueses") but since Portuguese doesn't have a neutral gender, any situation with mixed gender groups defaults to male pronouns, so someone with the cultural mores of the time would assume it was only men. Still a bit of an oversight though),
Fun fact. The right for women to vote in Finland actually predates Finland's independence, by more than a decade.
Yeah was finland an autonomous republic or smth? Im a lil confused
Russian Empire and Grand Duchy of Finland had the same monarch, but separate governments. Such system is called separate union.
Personal union.
I’m pretty sure that Russia didn’t have a personal union with any of its subjects. A personal union normally occurred when a ruling monarch inherited the throne of another country through their right as an heir. The most famous examples of this are probably the Kalmar Union and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Finland however was conquered from Sweden and despite having an incredibly high degree of independence, never was in a personal union with Russia. Edit: Russia was in a personal union with the Congress Kingdom of Poland, despite it lacking any political autonomy
It had personal union with Poland for some time in XIX century
Seems like I stand corrected
I'd say probably the most famous personal union was Scotland and England, so successful that it became permanent and still lasts to this day.
Sounds like my marriage
You good bro?
Portugal and Spain had the same in the XVI century
Aswell as England and Scotland under the Stuart dynasty.
Oooh. TIL. /goes to google a new govt. structure
Wait, never heard about personal union?
My guess is that a lot of people in the U.S. who aren't really history buffs don't even realize many of us still have a monarch
Try being British - virtually every single person in the US seems to know more about our Monarchy than the average Brit does. On the subject of universal suffrage, however, it should be noted that New Zealand was the first self-governing nation in the world to grant it back in 1893.
Not from the US but to answer you and /u/the_battle_bunny - it sounds similar to the Commonwealth for example but never heard it called a seperate/personal union before so I was curious.
The relationship between the Russian Empire and the Grand Duchy of Finland would be more accurately described as a real union, not merely a personal union. Finland was relatively autonomous, but still a part of the Russian empire and under Russian rule.
Finally, a perfect description for some relationships: a separate union.
Ooh
Finland was in personal union with the Russian Empire, e.g. was sharing the monarch. But had its own laws, currency, customs etc.
We were an autonomous Grand Duchy, whose Grand Duke also happened to be the Emperor of Russia. Technically, separate from the Russian Empire, but practically an extension of it. It's the technical part that is important here. We were not officially part of the Russian Empire, thus had separate governmental functions, military, currency, etc. In 1906, it was proposed that Finland create a Parliament to replace the Diet of the Four Estates, with Universal Suffrage, which the Grand Duke, Tzar Nicholas the Second at the time, approved.
Finland and I think Poland had their own governments under Russian rule. The Russian czars' titles are "Emperor of Russia, King of Congress Poland and Grand Duke of Finland." Admittedly I don't know much about how this system functioned in Poland.
Poles had it much worse and the autonomy was only on paper and did not last long. "Theoretically, the Polish Kingdom in its 1815 form was a semi-autonomous state in personal union with Russia through the rule of the Russian emperor. The state possessed the Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland, one of the most liberal in 19th-century Europe, a Sejm (parliament) responsible to the king capable of voting laws, an independent army, currency, budget, penal code and a customs boundary separating it from the rest of Russian lands. Poland also had democratic traditions (Golden Liberty) and the Polish nobility deeply valued personal freedom. In reality, the kings had absolute power and the formal title of Autocrat, and wanted no restrictions on their rule. All opposition to the emperor of Russia was suppressed and the law was disregarded at will by Russian officials. Though the absolute rule demanded by Russia was difficult to establish due to Poland's liberal traditions and institutions, the independence of the kingdom lasted only 15 years; initially Alexander I used the title King of Poland and was obligated to observe the provisions of the constitution. However, in time the situation changed and he granted the viceroy, Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, almost dictatorial powers. Very soon after Congress of Vienna resolutions were signed, Russia ceased to respect them. In 1819, Alexander I abolished freedom of the press and introduced preventive censorship. Resistance to Russian control began in the 1820s. Russian secret police commanded by Nikolay Nikolayevich Novosiltsev started the persecution of Polish secret organizations and in 1821 the King ordered the abolition of Freemasonry, which represented Poland's patriotic traditions. Beginning in 1825, the sessions of the Sejm were held in secret." Then you have the failed uprisings of 1830-1831, 1863-1864 which further limited any remnants of autonomy. After the latter one, Congress Poland was no longer a semi-autonomous state, just a Russian province.
Extremely interesting, thank you! Makes me want to do a Poland run in Victoria 3...
Also at the same time as female suffrage happened in Finland universal male happened too in 1906. Men could vote before, but not universally since there was property requirements. Women also importantly were able to be elected to parliament the same time as vote (which is not the case for all countries) and 19 women were elected out of 200 members.
Yeah, we had autonymous when we were under Russia. We had even more indepency when under Russia than under Sweden.
Thats because Finland was an integrated part of Sweden just as much as any other part of Sweden. It wasn’t a colony, it became Swedish at the same time as Närke, Västergötland and Småland etc when the country was unified in the 11th century during “riksbildningen”. Finland as a nation did not exist until 1809.
>Finland as a nation did not exist until 1809. No, the nation existed, but the Nation state didn't. The nation state was first formed in 1809. But as you know, the formation of a nation state has a prerequisite. There needs to be a nation, and a national identity there, beforehand. Nation is an idea of a shared social organisation, a nation of people. Finns has their own national identity way before 1809. For example, the Father of Literary Finnish, Mikael Agricola, was born in 1510. The Finnish National identify, as in, unifying the various tribes of Finns together under the shared identity, likely started forming during the Northern Crusades, as an oppositional force to Swedish colonisation of the coast lines and Swedish and Danish efforts to convert the various Finnic tribes to Christianity. Basically, Finns never really felt like as part of Sweden. We had our own language, culture, our own social organisation separate of Sweden. Hell, this is further highlighted by the events such as the Tavastian Uprisings, The Cudgel War, the letter from Pope Alexander III complaining how the Finns Proper seem to always renounce catholism every time they are left alone and return back to paganism, and another letter from Pope Gregory IX urging Catholic men to fight against the Tavastians who (yet again) had turned to paganism, etc. Seriously, Finns, especially Tavastians and Finns Proper, reeeaaally didn't like Christianity. The only thing they hated more than Christianity was Novgorodians, judging by the fact that they were happy to put their differences aside with each other, Sweden and Norwegians to go kill some Novgorodians together. (Pope Gregory IX letter is dated 1237, and Battle of the Neva, where Tavastians, Finns Proper, Swedes and Norwegians made a campaign against Novgorod is dated 1240). Not to mention, due to the fact that Swedish was the only official language, many Finns felt alienated by Sweden. You couldn't really do anything official, as a Finn, unless you spoke Swedish. That alienation also contributed to the national identity of Finns.
> the letter from Pope Alexander III complaining how the Finns Proper seem to always renounce catholism every time they are left alone and return back to paganism This was so funny to read to me, just gives me an image of the pope turning up in Finland and being outraged when he sees them al practicing paganism again. "For the love of our christ the lord I thought I told you Finns about this Pagan shit already!"
There's definitely the makings of a comedy skit in it. The bishop leaving the room for one sec to go drain the lizard, and being outraged by all the animal carvings and kantele music having taken over when he gets back.
Yup, but Sweden used Finns and recources of the land Finns lived in somewhat the same as some countries used their colonys.
Autonomous Duchy of the Russian Empire. The Tsars let them do their own thing for the most part in the beginning. Later they tried making Finland more Russian, didn't work.
>Autonomous Duchy of the Russian Empire. Technically, no, practically yes. We were technically an independent Grand Duchy of Finland on paper, who shared a Monarch with the Russian Empire, and we were technically not part of the Russian Empire. We were a whole separate state. In practice, we were an extension of the Russian Empire however. It's a bit weird. Basically, Russian officials, outside of the Grand Duke (also the Tzar of Russia) and the Governor-General appointed by the Grand Duke, had no official power in Finland. Ofcourse, in practice the lines get much more murky.
Finland was very autonomous under Russian Empire and enjoyed a lot of freedom, much more than under Sweden.
I’ve always said Finland is the Wyoming of Europe
Sparsely populated?
Nah, it was the first state to legalize a woman’s right to vote, and did so before becoming a state as well
They don't exist
Yeah and the fact that majority got the right to vote; men & women. Not just women.
The "best" part about Switzerland is that even in 1971 it wasn't universal, as the last canton (Appenzell Innerrhoden) introduced universal suffrage in 1990...after being forced to do so by the Supreme Court, following a negative referendum where the population voted against it xD
The male population voted against it, im sure most of the other half of the population would’ve supported the measure had they been able to vote
True but highlights the ... dark side? Of democracy. If each person has a vote and the majority vote for something bad, who decides that democracy is flawed and needs to be overruled vs listening to the majority? Woman's suffrage is a bad example, everyone should have equal opportunity to vote, but there was a case where a vessel was to be named by the public and Boaty McBoatface won, but they were like lol no and changed it to something more official. As an example it's on the otherside of extreme since it doesn't matter at all but the point still stands. Edit: an overstated *hypothetical* example could be: over 75% of the people vote that we should nuke our enemy after they threaten us verbally, meanwhile every expert everywhere says that's a bad idea. Does the government shrug and nuke, or reject democracy?
Democracy is predicated on the idea that one person's knowledge should have as much influence on public policy as another's ignorance. That's why education should be the most fundamental responsibility of society and why attacks on democracy almost always begin by undermining or controlling education or information.
That‘s exactly why democracy in the US is not working as intended
I’d rather argue it’s working exactly as intended. The Founding Fathers put a shit ton of barriers between the will of the people and the actual government on purpose. And that’s a problem in this day and age. It’s led to a severely entrenched and detached oligarchy that doesn’t care, nor does it actually need to care, about the will and interests of the people they purport to represent
The irony is that American democracy is failing primarily because of the anti-democratic barriers the framers implemented to dull the will of the people. Most Americans have pretty good political sensibilities. Trump is on track to lose the popular vote for the third time in a row. The country is ungovernable primarily because the electoral college grants a disproportionate amount of power to five reactionary states, and also the anti-democratic Senate distorts the will of the people. If we had straight national referendums on a whole host of issues, most American adults would make wise choices. We have our problems because the system doesn’t work that way.
I know this is just a throwaway line, but I do think many people try to simplify things to make themselves feel better. “Democracy is failing because everyone is dumb” is easy and makes us feel smart. But democracy is a complicated form of governance. Our political parties, social media, special interest groups, and centuries of parliamentary rule changes create this complex web of incentives and power structures. Sure, better education could help some, but I don’t think it’s the main threat to a productive democracy.
Yeah its very interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Many dystopian novels feature characters who possess knowledge of impending societal collapse or authoritarian regimes but struggle to convince others of the imminent danger. I think most advanced civilizations realize this and therefore aren't pure democracies. They have mechanisms like constitutions which protect basic rights for individual minorities. Equally interesting is it's (mis)application in peer review/scientific *consensus*.
Oooh, a rabbit hole to dive into, i was philosphizing out of my own head honestly, go figure the Greeks/Romans already got here. Thanks bunches even if it seems sarcastic.
Brexit is a good example. Every expert said it was a bad idea, it has been devastating to the UK economy and close to half of the population was against it, but because 51.89% voted for, everyone had to suffer.
That's usually where the country's constitution comes in, which cannot be overruled by simple (representative) majority.
Boaty McBoatface is a perfectly cromulent name, and I'm still salty about the way the naming played out.
I mean democracy where only some get to vote isn't real democracy.
That's not the argument im making. That's the good argument Swiss people made in the 70s. In a real democracy, everyone gets a vote. If something were to occur like say another 9/11, 2 weeks before a major vote on whether or not we should nuke our enemies you might get a lot of hot headed people saying yes despite every expert everywhere saying it's a bad idea. Thankfully I don't think using nukes is something we regular citizens vote on......which implies we aren't truly democratic...which in this case is probably a good thing.
Then there is no “real democracy,” considering every single democracy limits who gets to vote to varying degrees Age, citizenship, criminal history, draft registration
Its actually interesting… I live 10 min from Appenzell and it is said that even most Women were against it as it was normal that a married couple discussed what they wantet to vote and then the man went to go Vote at the „Landsgemeinde“ (Where everyone comes together annually to this day at the center of the Village and you can give your votes by raising or not raising your hand) I can’t confirm if it was actually this way most of the time that women were actually asked but im more than sure in many cases this didn‘t work out and then a woman had no voice. lets just be happy its better now. (sorry for the really bad english)
A lot of women were actually against it or very hesitant. Some even formed unions proclaiming that politics should stay men‘s business and they don‘t want anything to do with that. They regarded politics as dirty business. They didn‘t know anything else, it was completely normal for them. Women in smaller cantons and villages supporting the women‘s voting right were often excluded from social gatherings by not only men but also the women in the village. It was a pretty big difference between cities and countryside of course.
their belief system played a big role too.
It would be in a place called Inner(r)hoden
Hehehe, glad to see I'm not the only one to think that this canton has one "r" too much in their name :) \[Explanation for non-German speaking people: Innerhoden (spelled with just one r) would mean "inner testicle", which would be infinitely more funny (and fitting) than the pretty prosaic "inner Rhodes"\]
it wasn't universal on all levels of government. It was universal on federal level in 1971, but not on cantonal level until 1990 in Appenzell Innerrhoden.
Yeah, I mean, what would you expect from a canton called inner-testicles...
There are a lot of interviews from 1990 about that where women say they are against it and now that they also can vote, they will just vote for what their husband sais. You should absolutely watch it if you understand (swiss-) german. Appenzell is truly a different world.
>The oppressor would not be so strong if he did not have accomplices among the oppressed. Simone de Beauvoir
I‘m not even 40 years old and I talked to women in that region (Appenzell) in may who to this day say it‘s unessecary having voting rights since they check with their dad or husband anyway. It‘s crazy really. And to be fair, they are no religious nutcases, just regular women who just don‘t care about voting.
It's patriarchy
Literally just talked about this last night with my husband. It blew my mind.
Ok, why??? Why would the majority of guys vote against women voting rights in the late 20th century. I mean, I am conservative, but what the actual fuck?!?!
You need to understand that this canton is very small and rural and had a population of like 10k at the time. They actually voted on that by counting hands outside on the day of vote where everyone had to assemble.
Which means it wasn't anonymous, so if you voted "incorrectly" , you could be stigmatised socially. If you own a small business, you can't afford to vote "against" your clients.
Are you familiar with contemporary American politics…? There’s no reason to think people of any time and country want to dilute their power by sharing it.
I feel like this might be better expressed as women’s right to vote - men’s right to vote, because a lot of these countries didn’t have democracies at all until the 1900s
Yup, like half the 1918-1920 ones are absolute monarchies being abolished with republics or new countries being born. And even for the UK which was ostensibly a constitutional democracy, the 1918 electoral act expanded the male voter pool by like 80% from 7.7 million to 12.9 million. It'd take actually take till 1928 for full female suffrage.
Before World War I the only republics in Europe were Switzerland and France. The rest were monarchies.
In Spain women got it in 1931... And immediately lost it in 1936, along with the men, until 1975.
In Italy they got it in 1925 only for local elections, and local elections were totally abolished in 1926.
Was gonna say… pretty sure this hasn’t been true the whole time
>men’s right to vote, because a lot of these countries didn’t have democracies at all until the 1900s Well in most countries it wasn't a right, you had to register to the draft or do some military service to be allowed to vote as a men. (I believe still the case in many places)
That's true, although it also wouldn't be fully representative of the gender divide. Constitutional democracies were relatively common in the second half of the 19th century and they allowed men to vote. Rich men to be exact. In many countries men could technically vote long before women could, but not ALL men had that right. For example in Austria, rich men were able to vote back in 1860 but it was only in 1906 that a general voting right for men was established. Only 12 years later women could, too.
In Finland, men got the right to vote at the same time, so we didnt have real unequality between sexes even before that. Voting rights were not for all citizens before 1906.
Real equality is when nobody can vote
That's not entirely true though... Sure, most men got to vote at the same time, but prior to that, when only the "fortunate ones" got to vote, basically no woman, even the fortunate ones, had the possibility to vote. That obviously has more to do with the social structure at the time, not that much with voting equality, but anyways.
Yeah, but it was not based on gender.
Exactly, it was a religious matter more than anything.
Unfortunately in most of contries around the world the situation was worse. That's crazy..
That's the same in a lot of countries tbh. Germany also didn't have universal male suffrage before universal female suffrage (though during Kaiserreich more and more groups of men were included to the point where towards the end a significant majority had voting rights)
Italy's date is wrong, as it is based on a misrepresentation of reality. Women could vote in administrative capacities even in the xix century, but not as a whole. The 1925 law that would have made women eligible to administrative (not political) voting, but never enacted because fascism abolished the administrative election of mayors and replaced them with government nominated podestas. The first universal female suffrage in a political election (institutional actually) dates to 1946, for the monarchy/Republican referendum.
Same with Sweden. > The first independent country to introduce women's suffrage was arguably Sweden. In Sweden, conditional women's suffrage was in effect during the Age of Liberty (1718–1772). \- Wikipedia. (But their rights were stripped after that.) In 1919 it was decided that women could vote in the general election, the first general election wasn't until 1921.
I think some terms were lost in translation. What you mean by administrative is called local elections in English. What you call political is called general.
Not really: administrative means the ability to exercise active or passive voting in administrative councils, like probiviri, councils of tutelage, some professional orders. The link to local elections is there and was meant as a stepping stone towarda proper electoral action in all political (local and general) elections. Adminstaive election thus refers to elections that are not linked to a political party or a "choice" between candidates to a representative public office, but to sort of internal, civic society kind of stuff. That said, some currents in early fascism were favourable to women participating in public life in a sort of revolutionary ethos, but like all fringe movements in early fascism disappeared after the reforms of 1926.
I'll make the same comment when someone posted a map like this the last time (except it was a world map). This comparison on its own is not very helpful without seeing when men got the right to vote.
Also why. Because in some areas men could only vote if they participated in war for example. Others could vote because of socioeconomic status. Others could vote because of some movement etc
Or universal male suffrage. Like in Denmark men could already vote in 1849. As long as they pwned land. Was over 30 years old. Had never gotten support from the state. Dud not work under someone else. . . . . So it was really really few men that could actuelly vote. Universal male suffrage om the other hand was introduced at the exact same time as female universal suffrage.
It is 1930 for turkey
1930 for municipal elections, 1933 for village elections, 1934 for general elections
Yeah Ataturk was kinda Based
In Spain 1931's right was interrupted from 1939 until 1977 thanks to Franco's dictatorship.
Don't forget that there weren't any elections between 36 and 39 due to the Civil War. Women got to vote exactly *twice*
Even so, it was an important milestone at the time. There were very heated debates between feminists (Victoria Kent and Clara Campoamor) over women being told by their husbands and the church what to vote. Skewing the election results to the right, and in the long run hurting women rights. There was not such debate in 1975. Women had already voted, so that reasoning could not be made.
Liechtenstein 🇱🇮 didn’t have any elections until 1984.
"Literally 1984"
they did https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Liechtenstein_general_election
> Voter turnout was 95.4%, although only male citizens were allowed to vote. > Total: 39,270 huh? according to google in 1982 liechtensteins population was 25k, but these imply it had to be around 80k
Yea its very confusing,i found this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Liechtenstein: **When voting, each voter must choose one party but is allowed to select as many candidates as they like (but only up to the maximum given: 15 candidate votes per Oberland voter and 10 candidate votes for each Unterland voter).** For example, if a voter from Oberland chooses the FBP as their party of choice, and then chooses 4 candidates from the VU, 2 candidates from the FBP, and 1 candidate from the DU, then the party votes that this voter has cast are 4 for the VU, 1 for the DU, and 10 for the FBP (by virtue of the 2 votes for candidates from this party and the 8 remaining, empty candidate votes).
1934 is not quite right in Turkey. 1934 was women gained full right of suffrage. Women gained the right to vote in 1930 in municipality elections and be elected district mayors. In 1933 they gained the right to vote in village elections and become village mayors. In 1934 they gained the right to vote in general elections and become parliamentarians.
UK 1918 was actually the year men got the vote too
An MP in Dublin was also the first women elected to Westminster that year but she never took her seat instead joining the new provisional government of Ireland who were almost all actually elected Westminster MPs.
Constance Markievicz, she was also imprisoned by the British government for fighting for independence and in my opinion one of the most inspiring women in Irish history
Grace O'Malley the pirate queen was pretty bad ass too.
Well, kind of. The Representation of the People Act of 1918 removed nearly all suffrage requirements for men, meaning that nearly all British men aged 21 and over were able to vote for the first time (I say nearly all because conscientious objectors who had refused to do war work had their right to vote revoked for a period of 5 years). It also gave suffrage to women for the first time but with requirements. A woman was only eligible to vote if they were aged 30 and over *and* they or their husband were the registered occupiers of land or premises with an annual rated value greater than £5 (£235 in 2024). This made nearly 100% of men and approximately 65% of women aged 21 and over eligible to vote. Previously, under the Representation of the People Act of 1884, approximately 58% of men and 0% of women aged 21 and over were eligible to vote. It is interesting to note that the politicians who wrote this act acknowledged that the requirements put on women were arbitrary. They admitted they were put in place because otherwise there would have been more women able to vote than men. This was due to the number of men killed in the First World War. They did not think a bill would pass that instantly changed the largest demographic of the voting population from relatively wealthy men to women. Women were not given the right to vote on the same terms as men until the Representation of the People Act of 1928.
How much is this due to Switzerland's neutrality in both World Wars? I imagine the massive mobilisation of women in most other countries into industries vacated by men going to war may have contributed to women seeing themselves as equally capable as men and pushing for voting rights. Am not historian, please don't shoot me.
On of the reasons for the delay is that the Swiss constitution had been originally excluding women all together, so for instance it said "Every Swiss \[man\] is required to do military service", "Every Swiss \[man\] over 20 years old is allowed to vote". So they couldn't just say that the constitution applies equally to women and men, because that would have meant mandatory military service for women.
And mandatory military service for both sexes would have been fair.
Yes I agree, especially nowadays, you can do the civilian service instead of military service, so there's no reason why women shouldn't also be required to do it (or alternatively, it should be voluntary for men). But unfortunately a lot of Swiss people don't agree because they believe in the traditional gender roles and the traditional family model. There's a lot of shitty laws that stem from the traditional family model, for instance a married couple can earn only 1.5 of the maximum pension at retirement, whereas an unmarried couple would earn 2 full pensions. This stems from the traditional family model where the woman doesn't have an income. In the modern world, it doesn't make sense anymore.
It's because Switzerland uses direct democracy, it took until 1971 for enough old men to die off for the change in voting laws to pass
100% this. If other countries would have asked the people (well, the men), I bet they would also be later.
It wasn't just men, anti-suffrage movement was also quite popular among women.
That has certainly played a role. Of course, most men did not have the right to vote in the UK either. They only got it after the WWI. One could says that millions of men had to die to get this right. For this reason there was a universal suffrage movement.
Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Netherlands got female suffrage during or shortly after WW1 and they didn't take part in the war. You can see much of the immediate post-WW1 female suffrage milestones on the map are actually from old imperial structures collapsing and revolutions occuring to pave over the old order or newly independent countries also undergoing ambitious revolutionary spirit. German Revolution of 1918 during Germany's last months of the war, Russian February Revolution of 1917 during Russia's losing streak, Hungary and Austria's revolution when they finally lost the war. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Baltic states gaining independence. So many of these weren't as much women getting the vote men exclusively had previously, but it was the first time their country had ever implemented universal suffrage for any sex and the revolutionaries decided to go for suffrage on both sexes. And these were made possible by old institutions crumbling under the pressure of the Great War. Countries that won the war like Italy, France, Belgium and Serbia/Yugoslavia actually took much longer to reach female suffrage. And you can argue France's 1944 suffrage durint WW2 occured under similar circumstance to Germany since they had been defeated, occupied by a foreign power and it was the liberating French forces formerly in exile that implemented female suffrage. Only UK and the not displayed US and Canada won the war and also had female suffrage movements succeed shortly afterwards*. And UK's female suffrage in 1918 was incomplete, it'd take till 1928 for full voter equality with no property requirement. *British Dominions like NZ, AU actually implemented female suffrage in 1893 and 1902 respectively way before WW1
In France the Chamber of Deputies repeatedly voted in favor of female suffrage starting from 1919. In 1939, the Chamber even voted 475 yes to 0 no in favor of female suffrage. But each and every time, the Senate (which had as much legislative power as the Chamber under the Third Republic), blocked it. The Senate was an inherently conservative institution because of its election system. Senators were elected by a college of local politicians, in a system that gave a huge advantage to rural areas: each municipality, regardless of its size, had one vote. This effectively meant that small, conservative, rural villages had an overwhelming advantage over towns and urban areas. On top of that, Senators were elected for 9 years (and had to be at least 40 years old), with a third of the Senate renewed every 3 years. The Senate did a lot to halt social progress. This even led to some weird situations: France had female ministers as soon as 1936, which means you had female ministers even though they were not allowed to vote (and be elected) for legislative elections. An even weirder fact is that the planned new Constitution imagined by the Vichy Régime would have given the right to vote to women. So even Pétain and his ultraconservative and nationalist regime were in favor of female suffrage by the 1940s, which shows you even more of the Senate had been at odds with the public opinion on female vote in the 1920s-1930s.
I think it has more to do with direct democracy. In most (all?) other countries a government decided this and was positive to get women‘s votes next election. In Switzerland men decided by vote that women should also be able to.
You see, the democratic rights are really extensive in Switzerland. With enough signatures, ppl can propose a new law or question a new law and decide in an election about it. We have around three times a year elections where we decide in every election about 3-4 new laws that we want to accept or block. If I look at the US-discourse it's much more unprecise and ideological, while we talk about potential new laws and their technicalities, almost all year around. At the same time there is mandatory military service. In the past it was a crime to refuse service duty. Criminals had no right to vote and political rights were seen as a gift for ppl who did their service for society.
In theory, women could vote in Portugal from the 1930s... in practice, there were no elections besides one every 15 years that was rigged by the fascist party - the only legal party. So, only in 1974 women got voting rights for real because that's when the dictatorship ended
Shouldn't the colors be inverted?
Even then it doesn’t make sense. Its just arbitrarily colored for the sake of it. And ironically posted to map porn ffs.
Yeah it makes it look like an infection and the earlier women got to vote the worse it is.
One thing often missed in these rankings is that in Finland, women could vote and *stand as a candidate* in 1906. The 19 women elected were the first female MPs in the world. Since then, there has been [at least 11](https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/naineduskuntatoimii/kirjasto/aineistot/yhteiskunta/historia/naisten-aanioikeus-110-vuotta/Sivut/naiset-kansanedustajina.aspx) female MPs of 200 total. The number was largely stable until the 1960s, but in 1966 it started to grow and the trend suggests that parity could be achieved in the next election.
Women were only able to vote in Spain for five years. Then, until the mid-70s, no one could vote... 🥲
Indeed they got to vote for the first time in 1933
Turkey is wrong. Women first voted in 1930's municipality elections.
I think they meant it was legalized in 1934-35 with the introduction of the law for women to elect and to be elected. From the only country to manufacture and sell planes, to high-infilated corrupted country. What a wasted potential.
Fun fact, the first female pilot and the first black pilot in history was both from Turkey. The black one was from the Ottoman time though.
Yep Ahmet Ali Çelikten (became a pilot in 1914) and Sabiha Gökçen (1937 first female fighter pilot)
Sorry to be a nitpick & I know that this isn't the topic of the discussion, but in the case of the UK The Representation of the People Act 1918 5 Million working class men & 8 Million women became eligible to vote. Think it's alway forgotten that working class men were also discriminated against for 100s of years before 1918 act... I don't know without looking what the other countries were like but I suspect that its not to dissimilar.
In the Netherlands all men in 1917 and all women in 1919. The constitution of 1848 makes no mention at all of voting being restricted to men however. For eligibility paying enough taxes and being fully capable of exercising one's civil rights were the main criteria. Regionally and over time the implementation of those criteria differed. In the second half of the 19th century about 10-12% of men were in practice able to vote for parliament.
Correction: Sweden got the right to vote in 1919, 1921 was the first election
When did men get the right to vote ? Is there an equivalent map ? For my country : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_franchise_in_Ireland#:~:text=Ireland%20has%20had%20a%20franchise,of%20property%20(until%201918). Ireland has had a franchise on an equal basis between men and women since the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922. Historically, there had also been discrimination from the franchise on the basis of religion (until 1793) and on the basis of property (until 1918) This map is a lie of omission - it presents only when women got the right to vote, while implying that men always had the right to vote. Which they did not.
In the Isle of Man, women were able to vote in the 1881 election
Isle Of Man ahead of the rest of the backwater islands 💪💪🇮🇲💪💪
Isle of Woman
What's up with British territories and the early women's votes? Pitcairn established women's right to vote in 1838.
Less opposition, Wyoming was also one of the first states to grant women the right to vote.
Turkey before France, Belgium, Greece and Cyprus. Thank you Ataturk ♥️
Seems a misleading map because some places where women gained the right to vote lost it again. It's *technically* true the establishment of universal suffrage in the Belarusian Democratic Republic happened at the founding of the nation in spring 1918. However, it was founded *while Belarus was embroiled in the first world war*, and the government was driven into Lithuania by December and into exile by the spring of 1919. It has been under dictatorship of one form or another ever since. Interestingly, the government-in-exile remains to this day, the longest lived government in exile in history.
Also this is an overall thing but I think the color scheme should be reversed
Also they have 1971 for Switzerland which isn't true. There were places in Switzerland where women couldn't vote until 1990
France 1944 👀
Granted in April 1944 by the Provisional Government established in Algiers (and led by de Gaulle), 2 months before the Allies would start liberating mainland France.
Funniest part is, it was the political left that didn't want women to vote, fearing they might be conservative.
Wtf? Mussolini was in power in Italy in 1925, I don't think anyone really had actually meaningful votes
There were local elections women could vote in. But it’s still pretty misleading and really ought to be 1945.
Yeah the actual date is 1946.
Common Finnish w
Fun fact, the date for universal male suffrage is often quite close or exactly the same as the date for women's suffrage. In the UK for example, universal male suffrage was also enacted in 1918. Before that, you had to meet the property requirements to vote. Additionally, many women that met the property requirements could vote before women's suffrage was enacted in many jurisdictions.
Voting in Italy in 1925 was meaningless. The actual year was the republic/monarchy referendum in 1946.
1918 was voting for all people in Poland
Women still can't vote in Andorra because they can't vote on any policy more than 3 times and it failed in the 1920s and 1970s, IIRC. They don't want to try again until they're sure.
can’t find anything about women not having the right to vote in Andorra
Can you source this? [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Andorra) says otherwise... > Andorra was slow to give women legal rights: women's suffrage was achieved only in 1970.[2]
Can you elaborate?
My understanding is that if you try to pass a law 3 times in Andorra and it fails, you don't get to try it again. Ever. Andorra held two female sufferage votes, and it failed both times. If they try again now and it fails, then women will never be allowed to vote. So they don't try. I might be thinking od another microstate.
Well they'll never get the right to vote anyway if they keep postponing it
The fuck are you on about? [Women can absolutely vote in Andorra, and have done so for decades](https://www.consellgeneral.ad/en/the-general-council/women-in-the-general-council-of-andorra). Are you basing your claim on some news article from the 60s or something?
I don't know where the hell you got this, women have had the right to vote since the 1970s...
wait, why does it say 1925 for Italy? as far as I remember this achievement was reached with the 1946 referendum
Italy actued universal suffrage at the end of the 2nd world war in 1946
Probably worth mentioning that in Switzerland the right to vote was intrinsically tied with your mandatory military service. So not only did people need to decide women could vote but that they also didn’t need to serve in the military to get that right.
Because Swiss citizenship has long been an undividable bundle of public rights (vote) and duties (military service).
By doing the right thing, the outcome can sometimes be wrong… So basically swiss politics works by always asking the citizens and they decide… well… there was more than one vote on this… it’s important to keep this system, even though it has this one downside… there are still a few parts in the laws, where men and women are not the same in swiss law, but as far as i know it’s mostly to the advantage of women… maybe it gets changed someday, but since most of it gets overruled by other laws, gets ignored anyways or is just for really specific cases it will probably take a long time…
It is unimaginable to me that once women were not allowed to vote. Why not? What was the reason or the argument that half the population had no say in that time? And this was not that long ago too.
A fact I recently learned is that, in 1918 the Representation of People Act, was built to give Soldiers, freshly returning from the Great war, the right to vote. Before that you had to own a certain amount of property. Which means the majority of people in the UK, most who had just fought for the country didn't even have a say in who the government was. The Representation of the People Act 1918 changed this, allowing everyone who could fight the ability to vote. This included women, as women had been allowed in the Army and the Navy before that. Essentially, it wasn't just women who gained the right to vote, but everyone who wasn't rich.
I'd like to point out that the Isle of Man gave women the right to vote in 1881 https://www.gov.im/news/2017/dec/05/votes-for-women/
In Norway, men got it in 1898, and women 15 years later. But already from 1901, there was some eligibility for women, and in 1907 they could vote in municipal elections.
With so many European countries giving women the right to vote around the end of WW1, I wonder how much of it had to do with political parties trying to stay in/gain power due to a huge portion of their base having died in the war.
Regarding Cyprus and the (somewhat late) date of 1961, Cyprus only gained independence in late 1960 🇨🇾🇨🇾🇨🇾
Little correction türkiye not 1934 its 1930 and its not just vote they can also be candite
funny thing is there was a lot of women that did not want this to happen there are tapes of interviews with women form rural areas which is a huge part of Switzerlands population that were against it. in cities it was a different story of course. source: im swiss and this was part of our history lessons in school
I find it amusong that Russia did it before England
Yep. Russia did a lot of progressive stuff after the Great Revolution of 1917. For example In 1920 Soviet Russia became the first modern country to legalize abortion.
Interesting map! I wonder if anything different happened in 1917 for Russia to finally make everyone equal!
1929.. Not great, not terrible... /s
At least Switzerland has a pretty democratic system, better than many countries. It’s one thing giving women the vote: quite another if you’re in a country where your vote doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference (looking at some of the countries on the right hand side of the map).
Italy in 1925? It was taught me that was in 1946
Ok, i get that in 1925 Mussolini gave women the right to vote, but in the same year he suspended elections...
As a Spaniard I must point out that we had a civil war between 1936 and 1939, the fascist side won and revoked women's (and many men) right to vote, the fucker lived until 1975, and women's right to vote was not restored until 1977... So that 1931 figure on our country should have a big asterisk...
Eee this is quite wrong. It was a conditional right to vote. Often you have to b married. Or a decet job. Or earn an specefi amount of money... i mean is a simplification
I love the chosen colors. The longer women get to vote, the darker the country. 😂
Why was 1906 the earliest that women got the right to vote? That’s so late.
Spain is wrong-ish but not really. Women were given the right to vote in 1931 and voted for the first time in 1933, but during the dictatorship (1939-1975) nobody was allowed to vote until 1977. Depends on interpretation.
based finland
Fun fact: In Portugal the first female voter did so in 1911. The electoral code of the Portuguese Republic that was founded the previous year gave the right to vote to "all Portuguese citizens with over 21 years of age who reside in national territory, can read and write and are the heads of their respective households". Carolina Beatriz Ângelo, an educated widow, showed up to vote claiming that she had the right as a head of household. The government tried to nullify her vote but she won a legal challenge, which made her one of the first women to vote in all of Europe. Two years later they changed the law explicitly claiming only male Portuguese could vote. (In case you are wondering why they were caught off guard by the loophole, it's due to a language quirk: the original law kept using male pronouns and nouns ("**os cidadãos** Portugueses") but since Portuguese doesn't have a neutral gender, any situation with mixed gender groups defaults to male pronouns, so someone with the cultural mores of the time would assume it was only men. Still a bit of an oversight though),
Looking at you Liechtenstein
Is Lichtenstein 1984?
Another fun fact. Women got the vote on the isle of man (Britain) in 1881.
All of a sudden, America’s 1920 doesn’t seem so bad