What I learned from the Republic of Gilead

Margaret Atwood's novel, "The Handmaid's Tale" was undoubtedly gripping; although dark, it was also, I hesitate to say, easily comparable to today's world. The Republic of Gilead is the fictional totalitarian, patriarchal, militaristic, theonomic autocracy that readers are immersed in throughout the novel. The Republic faces problems of procreation, and so handmaids are essentially seen as walking uteri, as they are the most fertile - the future of the Republic is reliant upon them. Speculative fiction is one of the most intriguing genres, and it becomes more so, particularly when there are parallels which can be drawn so easily to so-called liberal, constitutional democracies, which I will attempt to examine.

The protagonist, Offred, describes in detail the regime's rise to power, and how the state almost overnight, monitors, limits, and ultimately, oppresses women. It begins with compulsory identification needed to purchase daily essentials and make a monetary transaction from the bank. This progresses onto the removal of this right completely; women's funds are frozen temporarily or are transferred to the accounts of either their fathers, husbands, or brothers. Panic then begins to ensue, when people realise what is happening. But do we realise what is happening? Our state has access to a plethora of information about ourselves, which we don't consent to - addresses, location, political affiliations, and what may seem basic; our search history. The uncodified nature of the British constitution, as well as there being no presence of an entrenched Bill of Rights, could in theory, allow any government which comes to power to impose an ancient draconian style regime upon us, which we would not be able to refute; this hypothetical state could simply legislate our rights away. Though this may be highly unlikely, it is still a possibility, and thus cannot be dismissed. We undoubtedly live in a surveillance state, and the truth is, we do not know how much information the state collects per person - to what extent are we being surveilled? The only way to be completely sure that the state cannot, in any way, track you, is to go "off-grid"; though Criminal Minds has proven that even this sometimes proves insufficient.

And, now addressing the disappearing rights of women: Offred once used to have a life: a relationship, a family, and a job, but all that belongs to her is ripped away from her, and she is eventually demeaned by her own name; "Offred", she is literally "of Fred", as she belongs to the Commander named Fred. Needless as to whether it must be written, the regressive abortion law recently passed in Texas, due to the incessant campaigning of bigoted televangelists and some despotic "conservatives", is easily comparable to the erosion of women's rights in The Republic of Gilead. The US Supreme Court, with its strict constructionist stack, has refused to block the law, and although it is willing to hear arguments and decide whether the federal government has the right to sue, it is wholly frightening to see how willing even the judiciary is, to oversee the gradual demolition of what should be considered a woman's civil right. The issue, thankfully, is not as controversial and motivated by religion in the UK - but the religious motivation draws another similarity between today's world, and the Republic of Gilead.

From what I understand, the dictatorial and theonomic society upon which The Republic of Gilead is based on seems to be a hypothetical Christian form of government which rules society by "divine law". For whom this law is truly "divine" is questionable; nonetheless, the intensity of the permeation of religion within the speculative society isn't wholly shocking - the abortion rights debate in the US has been infiltrated by the ignorance of some religious sects, groups, and individuals, who seem intent on projecting their views in order to diminish the rights of others. Moreover, the fact that any handmaid who commits a "crime" in the eyes of the Republic (namely being adulterous, being unchaste, or attempting to escape) is hung, is eerily similar to the limitations set on the climate protesters attempting to increase the scrutiny of the government through civil disobedience during COP26. The right to protest has been limited to an alarming extent; protests may be prevented "to protect...morals"; leading one to question the credibility of the legislation being proposed by the government of the day - why should other "morals" be at stake from a demonstration of democracy? Furthermore, what constitutes a "peaceful protest"? Is there a such thing as a "very disruptive protest"? And if there may be, is it not the point of protests to be disruptive? Though the parallels may seem minuscule now, the gradual erosion of our civil rights, and the seeming myth of democracy which we seem to live beneath, will one day prove very taxing, as did the Republic's ridiculous dresscode and "morals".

Whether one day we will end up in some version of the Republic of Gilead is an answer for the future - all we can hope for now is that we realise what is being hidden from us, what is being taken from us, and what the consequences of this are. Until then: ignorance is bliss.