The Centre for Civic Education (CCE) has carefully read the response of the Gender Studies programme at the University of Montenegro (UoM) to our post, “Rush to Elect Rector Raises the Question of Whose Interests Are Being Protected.” It is noteworthy that, in its lengthy response, Gender Studies does not once address the question at the heart of CCE’s post: why was the procedure for electing a rector launched as many as 11 months before the expiry of the current rector’s term, and whose interest justifies such haste?
Instead, the entire debate has been shifted to the accompanying visual, which Gender Studies describes as sexist and misogynistic. CCE rejects that characterisation. The visual does not call into question the academic achievements of Prof. Dr Irena Orović because she is a woman, nor does it suggest that she attained her professional position thanks to a man. What the visual satirically addresses is something entirely different – the relationship between two specific public figures, the current Rector and Vice-Rector, in the context of the election of his successor.
This is precisely why the context entirely omitted from the Gender Studies response matters. CCE did not dispute any of Prof. Dr Orović’s academic credentials, nor was her scholarly work the subject of our post. The subject of criticism is the unusually early launch of the rector election procedure, the current leadership’s opposition to democratising the election model, and the legitimate question of whether the election timetable is being tailored to a candidacy planned in advance and to existing power relations. Recasting criticism of such power relations as an alleged attack on a woman’s professional success means attributing to CCE a claim it never made.
Freedom of expression, particularly when it concerns matters of public interest and the conduct of public figures, also encompasses satire, caricature, exaggeration and provocative artistic expression. Through its case-law concerning Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights has afforded particularly broad scope for criticism of public figures and institutions, including through satirical forms of expression. This, of course, does not mean that any visual is exempt from criticism, and Gender Studies has every right to offer its own interpretation. However, the right to interpretation does not amount to a monopoly on interpretation, nor can casually labelling criticism as misogynistic serve as a way to evade the questions raised by that criticism.
It would be problematic to accept the principle that a power relationship between a man and a woman holding public office may not be depicted satirically because any portrayal of a man’s influence on a woman’s professional position would automatically be misogynistic. Gender equality does not mean exempting women in positions of power from criticism, but treating them equally as political, academic and institutional actors whose decisions and relationships are subject to the same public scrutiny as those of men.
CCE believes that the terms sexism and misogyny must be used responsibly, precisely because of the seriousness of the problems they describe. Extending them to every critical or satirical representation of a woman in a position of power does not strengthen the fight for gender equality. On the contrary, it risks diminishing the weight of these concepts in situations where women are genuinely exposed to discrimination, denigration, violence and exclusion from decision-making processes.
From Gender Studies, as an interdisciplinary academic programme, we would expect precisely the ability to critically analyse both gender stereotypes and relations of institutional power at the same time. In that regard, it would be useful for their public engagement to focus more strongly on the many real challenges to gender equality in Montenegro – from violence against women and sexist public discourse to the insufficient representation of women in places where key political and institutional decisions are made.
CCE will continue to critically monitor the work of UoM, its leadership and all candidates for public and academic office, regardless of their sex. Gender equality implies equal standards of accountability for everyone who holds power or seeks to attain it.
And we are still waiting for the UoM leadership to answer a much simpler question, one that no controversy over the visual can make any less important: why was the rector election launched 11 months before the expiry of the current term, and what academic or institutional interest justifies such haste?
The debate over the visual must not become a smokescreen behind which the key question disappears – who is accelerating the election of the UoM Rector, why, and in whose interest?
Daliborka Uljarević, Executive Director