Every so often (or I suppose, not very often at all), a television show comes along that I not only thoroughly enjoy but that does an important social service – the prime example being ABCs Commander in Chief. For those non-American readers, or those American readers with other plans on Tuesdays at 9, Commander in Chief stars Geena Davis as President Mackenzie Allen, an Independent politician who takes over for the Republican president after he dies. The show has its unabashed moments of cheesiness and ill-thought-out dialogue, but I find it overall thrilling and stimulating. Last week Mackenzie stood up to the Joint Chiefs to prevent outright war with North Korea – hearing and seeing a woman (albeit a fake one) wielding so much political power really gave me chills. The good kind.
I bring up this seemingly innocuous prime-time drama because women leading countries is all the rage these days and all over the news, as Carter-Ann mentioned a few posts back. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf in Liberia, Angela Merkel in Germany, Michelle Bachelet in Chile are just the three most current examples but there are others; currently Latvia, the Phillipines, Ireland, Sao Tome and Principe, Sri Lanka, Finland and New Zealand have female heads of state. There have been more in the past and will undoubtedly be more in the future.
BBC News had readers share their thoughts on the eve of the inauguration of Johnson-Sirleaf to answer the question “Do Women Make Better Leaders?” Overwhelmingly, and to me a bit surprisingly, readers responded Absolutely Not. Many highlighted consequences of the rules of Thatcher or Indira Gandhi. Most argued that politicians are politicians, or people are people, regardless of gender. In short, they don’t think gender matters.
In so many ways I disagree with this statement. I believe it is of vital importance to have a more significant number of women world leaders, and generally regardless of whether or not they agree with my political sympathies. This statement is tricky and not a little controversial, so I break down my argument into three main reasons why the promotion of women world leaders is so vital.
Diversity Of Representation
Anyone who says gender doesn’t matter to them is lying. Traditional notions of women and men, what they think or believe and how they behave are as rampant now as they ever were. Consider a recent piece on supporters of Condoleeza Rice for President in 2008. Even the frame of the debate – Blondie vs. Condi – is one that is implicitly gendered: Would a male presidential candidate ever be referred to by his hair color?
The fact is, gender does matter to people when considering who they will vote for. Supporters of Condi see her as a perfect adversary for Hillary Clinton, but would they put her up against an equally qualified male candidate?
There is a glaring lack of diversity around the world in the highest political offices and parliaments. And not just gender diversity, but all types – and perhaps women aren’t even the worst off (I would wager that a Christian female candidate had a better shot at the US presidency than a non-Christian male). Racial diversity is limited (right now, Barack Obama is the only African-American in the US Senate); socio-economic diversity even more so, particularly in the developed world. Even amongst all the women I listed above, a good chunk come from affluent families or were educated at the foremost institutions in the US or Europe.
This is a large and multifaceted problem that necessitates a clear look at the intersectionality of identity. But one does not need to support women candidates at the exclusion of other forms of identity. I believe that gender is one diversification that can happen in my lifetime – and hopefully one of many.
Potential to Reframe Politics
Perhaps you still ask then how a woman might offer diversity to the political system. All other identities being equal, what would a woman bring to the Oval Office that a man could not?
The best answer to this comes from Cynthia Enloe, a brilliant academic who, in her piece on “Masculinity as a Foreign Policy Issue”, explains how feminist analyses on policy can provide clear insight into how pervasive masculine ideologies are in political decision-making. While we in the US have made strides in asking the right questions of domestic policy (e.g. Will this policy have a disproportionately negative impact on girls and women? Does this policy derive from unspoken assumption about men’s employment / health / etc.?), this type of debate is silenced in the foreign policy arena. Increased militarization and equation of foreign policy with military policy have made being tough and manly a vital prerequisite for political office. Analyses like Enloe’s help us realize that it is not just male leaders but the intrinsic masculinist discourse in the entire political system that is the root of the problem.
Two brilliant movies I’ve seen lately, Syriana and Why We Fight, both tackled the issues of about increased corruption and militarization in American politics. Neither of these movies brought up the fact that ALL of the policy makers or people in power they featured were men. They did not venture a hypothesis that perhaps many of the current problems the US is facing come from the exclusion of women in everything from high government offices to powerful military positions to terrorist training camps. To me, the lack of gender diversity was glaring.
With the newly elected women leaders, there is a sense that people may be starting to realize the benefits of feminizing political power. Now, I hate essentialism as much as the next person – and I don’t like the assumption that because one is a woman she will be kind, generous, peaceful – but frankly, I’d like any leader to have those characteristics. Consider the discourses surrounding the elections in Chile and Liberia. A New York Times article highlighted the maternal rhetoric surrounding their elections and the idea of bringing a woman leader in to unify and heal previously war-torn or dictatorially terrorized nations. This is proof that the discourse can change, that politics can be about something other than war, defense spending, or the military industrial complex. Johnson-Sirleaf and Bachelet are leading the way.
The Role Model Factor
I hope I have established for the reader the complete lack of diversity and the need for a reshaping of political discourse as two important reasons why you should support female political candidates. But this leaves one outstanding issue: the Condi quotient. You cannot simply assume that a woman will support feminist politics. Rice is one of the administration’s loudest screeching hawks and her views on affirmative action are indeed retrogressive. She may not be explicitly pro-life, but her own position within her party would likely preclude her for making pro-choice initiatives part of her platform. Her politics are in many ways far from those of your average feminist. Yet, part of me is excited to have her in a position power.
When I was in kindergarten, we had to complete a project where we cut out a picture of what we wanted to be when we grew up. At six, I clearly thought I had the chops to be President, so I brought in a picture of Reagan – and was promptly laughed at for wanting to be Reagan when I grew up. People though it was ridiculous that a woman would ever be President.
As the White House Project perfectly reveals, “visibility is viability.” Each time we see or experience a woman in high political office, be it on television or in real life, it becomes less strange or out of the ordinary. Perhaps it can almost become commonplace.
The eventual goal is to of course reach a place where gender does not matter, where a candidate is elected on the principles and beliefs and not on their genetic makeup. But we’re not there yet. So I say, bring on Condi vs. Blondie, ’08…and look for me on the campaign trail!
