Keywords

So far, our findings have attempted to provide the necessary clarity at the theoretical level. We have shown that restrictive interpretations of religions and religious particularism lead to a lack of tolerance. But what are the implications of our study for policymakers in the free world, and what are the consequences for state security agencies and actors charged with protecting freedoms from totalitarian—and in our case, homonegative—political violence? And how great is this threat?

So, the present Chapter advances the horizons reached in the studies, debated in Chap. 3, as well as those of our empirical results, by calculating first the global real threat potential of homonegative political violence around the world. We then will investigate the drivers of homonegativity by using multiple regression results with the data from the World Values Survey 1981–2016. We will then present a parametric index of tolerant gender social norms and democracy (TGSNDI), which is combining the acceptance of gender equality, pro-democracy attitudes, no homophobia and xenophobia, no support for political violence and the willingness to defend the country. Political decisionmakers of democratic societies, and think tanks, associated with them, would do well to study the empirical details of these analyses, including to find indicators of tolerance and “integration” among the huge Orthodox and Muslim religious minorities, now living in the leading Western democracies.

6.1 The Potential of Homophobic Violence, Driven by Religiously Motivated Extremism—Estimated from the Data from the World Values Survey, 2017–2022

So, the aim of this section is to find analytical indicators that estimate the potential not only of homophobia, but also of religiously motivated homophobia and, as an extension of all this, the political propensity to violence of religiously motivated homophobia in the world population. On a population-weighted basis, 52.5% of the world's population covered in this sample based on the World Values Survey, 2017–2022 (which differs from the sample, based on the maximum number of countries considered in Chap. 5) can be classified as homophobic. That is, they disapprove of having a homosexual neighbour. 12.8% of the world's population not only disapprove of having a homosexual neighbour, but also strongly believe that it is an essential part of democracy for religious institutions to interpret the laws. 1.2% of the world's population now not only believe that it is an essential part of democracy for religious institutions to interpret the laws, but also strongly believe that political violence is justified.

Table 6.1 now lists our findings country by country.

Table 6.1 Homophobia, extremist religiously motivated homophobia, and extremist religiously motivated and potentially violent homophobia: estimated share per total population
Full size table

  • Reject neighbours: Homosexuals

  • Essential characteristic of democracy: Religious authorities interpret the laws (7–10 on a ten-point scale)

  • Justifiable: Political violence (7–10 on a ten-point scale).

65,8% of the global population were covered by our investigation.

To summarize the stunning results, of these:

  • 52,5% of the global population covered in this sample based on the World Values Survey, 2017–2022 (which, we repeat, differs from the sample, based on the maximum number of countries considered in Chap. 5) reject homosexual neighbours: (52,5% homophobes)

  • 12,8% of the global population covered in our research reject neighbours: homosexuals and think it is an essential characteristic of democracy that religious authorities interpret the laws (12,8% religious fundamentalist homophobes)

  • 1,2% of the global population covered in our research reject neighbours: homosexuals and think it is an an essential characteristic of democracy that religious authorities interpret the laws and in addition think that political violence is justified (1,2% % religious fundamentalist & violent homophobes).

Table 6.1 summarizes these depressing results, ranked by the incidence of religious fundamentalist and potentially violent homonegativity.

Our following figures (Figs. 6.1 and 6.2) now summarize these results in choropleth maps. For reasons of visibility, 1 is each time the lowest value and 86 the highest value.

Fig. 6.1
A choropleth world map highlights the religious fundamentalist homonegativity. The levels of homonegativity are low to lowest in North and South America, Europe, New Zealand, Australia, and parts of Asia. The levels of homonegativity are high to highest in Asia, parts of Africa, and parts of South America.

Religious fundamentalist homonegativity as a global problem (1—lowest, 86—highest)

Full size image
Fig. 6.2
A choropleth map of the world highlights the level of religious fundamentalist and potentially violent homonegativity. The levels are low to lowest in North America, South America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and parts of Asia. The levels are high to highest in parts of Africa, South America, and Asia.

Religious fundamentalist and potentially violent homonegativity as a global problem (1—lowest, 86—highest)

Full size image

The following section deals with a new index of tolerant gender social norms.

6.2 A Parametric Index of Tolerant Gender Social Norms and Democracy (TGSNDI), Combining Acceptance of Gender Equality, Pro-democracy Attitudes, No Homophobia and Xenophobia, No Support for Political Violence, and the Willingness to Defend the Country

Is it possible to construct an index in the social sciences that summarises, at the click of a mouse and briefly, attitudes towards gender equality, pro-democracy attitudes, no homophobia and xenophobia, no support for political violence, and the willingness to defend the country in times of the necessary defence of democracy? And one that is well enough constructed to produce results not only for the state, but also for members of the Orthodox and Muslim religious communities, who, unfortunately, according to the results so far, often tend towards homonegativity?

So, in the following section we construct a parametric index of tolerant social gender norms and democracy, abbreviated TGSNDI, which uses the weights from our factor analysis listed in Table 6.2 to rank the countries of the world system according to their tolerance and support for democracy. The full results of our comparisons are documented in our Electronic Appendix.

Table 6.2 Parametric Index of tolerant gender social norms and democracy (TGSNDI); weights for the factor analytical scores
Full size table

The results of this procedure are that the most tolerant democratic societies in the world are Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Australia, as well as Andorra and Puerto Rico.

The best scores in the Orthodox world are observed in Albania, Germany, Australia, Switzerland, Greece, Ethiopia, Cyprus, Bosnia, Macedonia, Austria, Bulgaria, and Kyrgyzstan, while the worst scores are observed in Kazakhstan, Russia, Montenegro, Lithuania, Belarus, Latvia, Armenia, Ukraine and Nigeria.

The results for Muslim communities around the world are the following. The tolerance and democracy indicator is highest in France, Albania, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the United Kingdom, Bosnia, Georgia, Ethiopia, Canada, Singapore and China, while it is lowest for the Muslim communities in Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Nigeria, Pakistan, Myanmar, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Northern Macedonia and Russia.

Table 6.2 explains the methodology of our index construction from the promax factor analysis of Sect. 5.8.

An Orthodox population with a higher Tolerant Gender Social Norms and Democracy Index than the total population of the country is to be found in Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Albania, Ethiopia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia (North Macedonia), Kazakhstan, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Russia, Romania, Belarus, Armenia and Georgia.

An Orthodox population with a lower Tolerant Gender Social Norms and Democracy Index than the total population of the country is to be found in Canada, Austria, Switzerland, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Australia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Serbia, Greece and Cyprus (Table 6.3).

Table 6.3 Tolerant Gender Social Norms and Democracy Index (TGSNDI) and religious diversity—comparisons of the Orthodox population with the total country population
Full size table

A Muslim population with a higher Tolerant Gender Social Norms and Democracy Index than the total population of the country is to be found in: Georgia, Montenegro, France, Russia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Pakistan.

A Muslim population with a lower Tolerant Gender Social Norms and Democracy Index than the total population of the country is to be found in Macedonia (North Macedonia), Thailand, Bulgaria, Kenya, Canada, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Philippines, Nigeria, Singapore, Austria, Germany, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, China, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Burma (Myanmar), Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Maldives and Albania (Table 6.4).

Table 6.4 Tolerant Gender Social Norms and Democracy Index (TGSNDI) and religious diversity—comparisons of the Muslim population with the total country population
Full size table

There is a straightforward and linear relationship explains more than 88% of Muslim homonegativity. This means nothing more and nothing less that in general terms Muslim homonegativity does follow the patterns of homonegativity of the society around Muslims.

Figure 6.3 now projects these results onto a choropleth map.

Fig. 6.3
A choropleth map of the world highlights the Tolerant Gender Social Norms and Democracy Index. The level are high to highest in North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and part of South America. The levels are low to lowest in Asia, part of Africa, and part of South America.

Tolerant Gender Social Norms and Democracy Index (TGSNDI)

Full size image

6.3 The Partial Correlations of Tolerant Gender Social Norms and Democracy

Table 6.5 presents the partial correlation results of the Tolerant Gender Social Norms and Democracy Index (TGSNDI) in the countries of world system with key socio-economic country-level indicators constant: HDI 2018 & HDI (2018)^2, latest edition of the World Values Survey.

Table 6.5 Partial correlations of the Tolerant Gender Social Norms and Democracy Index (TGSNDI) in the countries of world system with key socio-economic country-level indicators constant: HDI 2018 and HDI (2018)^2, latest edition of the World Values Survey
Full size table

Our results safely suggest that on the positive side, policy interventions on the following fronts will lead towards more tolerant gender norms and support for democracy:

  • gender empowerment

  • Labour force participation rate of migrants (both sexes)

  • closing the political gender gap

  • LFPR (Labour Force Participation Rate) 55–59 of the year olds

  • Environment Sustainability

  • closing of global gender gap

  • Rule of law

  • Corruption avoidance

  • world class universities

  • social security expenditure

  • public education expenditure

  • % women in government, all levels.

On the negative side, structures of civil and political liberties violations, the carbon dependent economy, and support for Putinism all are not conducive to a climate of tolerant gender norms and support for democracy.

6.4 The Catastrophic Global Situation of Restrictive Social Gender Norms in the World System

This Section briefly discusses our research findings in the context of the United Nations Development Programme's work on restrictive social gender norms, which unfortunately has received far too little attention in the public and social scientific debate, especially in Europe. A very welcome counter-tendency is to be noted in the literature, published in the world’s leading medical and human development journals, which debates restrictive social gender norms as a problem of public health (see Connors et al., 2023; Divan et al., 2016; Jain, 2020; Mukhopadhyay et al., 2019; Nabhan et al., 2023; Zarocostas, 2023). The UNDP has presented its indexing of the GSN Index for 91 countries, representing more than 85% of the world's population. The GSN I Index is based on the variables of the World Values Survey on the following statements.

  • It is essential for democracy that women have the same rights as men,

  • Men make better political leaders than women,

  • University education is more important for men than for women,

  • Men should have more rights to work than women,

  • Men make better business leaders than women,

  • justifying domestic violence against women.

Figure 6.4 now shows the catastrophic global situation of restrictive social gender norms in the world system; hardly any other indicator separates the worlds of the Global North from those of the Global South as much as this United Nations Development Programme indicator. The shocking reality is that in many countries of the global South and East, restrictive social gender norms abound.

Fig. 6.4
A choropleth map of the world highlights the U N D P, Gender Social Norms Index. The levels are low to lowest in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. The levels are high to highest in South America, Asia, and parts of Africa.

The UNDP GSNI Index (Gender Social Norms Index) in the world system

Full size image

6.5 The UNDP Gender Social Norms Index and Our Tolerant Gender Social Norms and Democracy Index

Figure 6.5 now shows the relationship between the UNDP Gender Social Norms Index and our index, i.e., our new index of tolerant gender social norms and support for democracy, and the non-linear relationship explains no less than 78.15% of the total variance.

Fig. 6.5
A scatterplot of the T G S N D I versus U N D P Gender Social Norms Index. A decreasing trend is plotted from (25, 4.7) to (100, negative 3.5). Data are estimated.

The UNDP GSNI Index (Gender Social Norms Index) as a determinant of the Tolerant Gender Social Norms and Democracy Index (TGSNDI)

Full size image