This paper explores the rhetoric and actions of Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, and Indira Gandhi regarding feminism and their gender before they became prime minister. The paper finds that none of the leaders identified as feminists, and did not actively focus on women’s issues or elevate the status of women while in office. Yet, all of these leaders called for women to mobilize and pursue careers, either via their actions or speeches. Thatcher, particularly in the crucial period in which she rose to power, explicitly encouraged women to mobilize as voters and pursue work outside the home in her formal speeches, public statements, letters and interviews. Through their organized activities before they obtained office, Meir and Gandhi worked to mobilize women politically, although their rhetoric did not explicitly encourage women over men to participate politically. The paper explores nuanced ways that each leader associated with her gender and preached for other women to pursue careers. Looking ahead at one case study shows that women now are not necessarily averse to explicitly associating with their gender. Tzipi Livni, the candidate for the Kadima Party in the 2009 Israeli election, used her gender as a campaign tactic. Hopefully this paper helps lay the groundwork for future study on women candidate’s rhetoric and actions regarding feminism before they are elected.

Anti-corruption movements play a vital role in democratic development. From the American Gilded Age to global demonstrations in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, these movements seek to combat malfeasance in government and improve accountability. While this collective action remains a constant, how government elites perceive and respond to such agitation, varies. My dissertation tackles this puzzle head-on: Why do some democratic governments respond more tolerantly than others to anti-corruption movements? To answer this research question, I examine variation across time in two cases within the world’s largest democracy: India. I compare the Congress Party government's suppressive response to the Jayaprakash Narayan movement in 1975, and the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government’s tolerant response to the India Against Corruption movement in 2012. For developing democracies such as India, comparativist scholarship gives primacy to external, material interests – such as votes and rents – as proximately shaping government behavior. Although these logics explain elite decision-making around elections and the predictability of pork barrel politics, they fall short in explaining government conduct during credibility crises, such as when facing nationwide anti-corruption movements. In such instances of high political uncertainty, I argue, it is the absence or presence of an ideological checks and balance mechanism among decision-making elites in government that shapes suppression or tolerance respectively. This mechanism is produced from the interaction between structure (multi-party coalition) and agency (divergent cognitive frames in positions of authority). In this dissertation, elites analyze the anti-corruption movement and form policy prescriptions based on their frames around social and economic development as well as their concepts of the nation. My research consists of over 110 individual interviews with state elites, including the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, party leaders, and senior bureaucrats among other officials for the contemporary case; and a broad compilation of private letters, diplomatic cables and reports, and speeches collected from three national archives for the historical study. To my knowledge this is the first data-driven study of Indian politics that precisely demonstrates how ideology acts as a constraint on government behavior in a credibility crisis. On a broader level, my findings contribute to the recently renewed debate in political science as to why democracies sometimes behave illiberally.