Putin asks employees to have sex during work breaks to boost Russia’s declining birth rates. But this isn’t the first time a leader has addressed the fertility crisis weirdly.

Very recently, Metro reported that Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered citizens to have sex at work during lunch and coffee breaks owing to the declining birth rate in the country. With a fertility rate of 1.5 children per woman, Russia’s numbers are far below the 2.1 replacement level needed for population stability.

“The preservation of the Russian people is our highest national priority,” Putin emphasised, framing the birth rate decline as a matter of national survival. Russian Health Minister Yevgeny Shestopalov echoed this urgency, dismissing busy work schedules as an excuse and urging citizens to prioritise procreation during their breaks. This is not all, other Russian politicians also spoke of how women should start having babies as soon as they’re of legal age to circumvent fertility issues.

But this extreme tying of a country’s birth rates to nationalism is hardly new. The decline of global fertility rates has sparked a concerning trend: the resurgence of pronatalism. From Russia to Turkey, China to the United States, governments and influential figures are increasingly advocating for policies that encourage couples to have more children. This shift, often cloaked in nationalist rhetoric, poses a significant threat to women's rights and autonomy.

A global dilemma

Countries around the world, from Europe to Asia, are grappling with falling fertility rates. According to a study by the University of Washington, global population growth is expected to plateau, projecting a total population of 8.79 billion by 2100 — significantly lower than previous estimates. As governments face this demographic crisis, they are turning to a mix of financial incentives, social pressure, and restrictive reproductive policies.

Three years ago, China intensified efforts to reverse the effects of its long-standing one-child policy by introducing benefits and discouraging abortion. Similarly, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has championed procreation as a "national cause," incentivising larger families to combat population decline. In 2020, Putin revived Russia’s "Mother Heroine" award, granting it to women who give birth to 10 or more children, underscoring the Kremlin's aggressive stance on boosting fertility.

Pronatalism meets nationalism

The rise of pronatalism often intertwines with nationalism. Leaders like Putin, Orbán, and even US politicians such as JD Vance, argue that motherhood, national identity, and state strength are inseparably linked. To them, women are seen primarily as bearers of national continuity, carrying the responsibility to ensure population growth. This form of "reproductive nationalism" shifts the burden of solving demographic challenges onto women, while often neglecting broader socio-economic reforms that could naturally encourage family growth, such as affordable childcare or work-life balance initiatives.

The rhetoric around pronatalism is also often exclusionary. As leaders advocate for higher birth rates, their focus is often on the native population. This approach aligns with anti-immigrant sentiments. Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán, for instance, rejects immigration as a solution to population decline, advocating instead for incentives to encourage native births.

The unintended consequences

History has shown that state-led pronatalist policies can have devastating effects on women’s rights and health. Coercive pronatalism often leads to the erosion of reproductive rights, as seen in the USSR during the 1930s when Stalin restricted access to birth control and abortion to increase birth rates. More infamously, Nazi Germany employed racist eugenics programs as part of its broader pronatalist agenda, weaponising childbirth for political ends.

One of the most severe cases of state-enforced pronatalism occurred under Romania’s communist regime, where the government, under Nicolae Ceaușescu, banned abortion and birth control, imposing harsh penalties for non-compliance. Families unable to care for their children resorted to placing them in state orphanages, leading to a humanitarian crisis. These extreme measures failed to produce lasting demographic gains and instead left a legacy of trauma and poverty.

Moving forward

While global fertility rates continue to decline, coercive and state-driven pronatalism is unlikely to solve the underlying socio-economic factors contributing to smaller family sizes. Pronatalist policies that prioritise nationalism over women's autonomy often lead to adverse health and social outcomes. Instead, governments should consider holistic approaches that focus on improving economic stability, work-life balance, and access to reproductive healthcare. These solutions could naturally encourage families to grow without infringing on individual rights.

The resurgence of pronatalism across the globe highlights a growing anxiety about the future of national populations. Yet history teaches us that forcing reproductive choices through state control is not only ineffective but harmful, especially to the women who bear the brunt of these policies. As the world grapples with demographic decline, the focus must shift from coercion to creating environments where families can thrive by choice, not by decree.