Democracies and Dictatorships and Women in Government
Garance Franke-Ruta snarkily digests this Reuters article lamenting the lack of women in Chinese government. While it is a little funny that Reuters would represent 20% female representation in parliament as some kind of great problem afflicting a non democracy, while the US can’t get 20% in our own congress, Garance’s commentary also shows the downside of a too intense focus on the number of women in power.
One large difference between China’s parliament and our Congress is that, well, our Congress is elected by people and has real powers. Our congress also allows multiple parties. So while we may have proportionally fewer parliamentary women, they actually have power vis a vis the executive branch (hypothetically anyway). It’s also possible to gain real power (for men and women) in the United States through paths that don’t go through the legally mandated, single Communist party.
This also brings up one of the least enlightening statistics or examples about women in government people bandy around. Oftentimes it’s pointed out that so and so country has had a female head of government or state while the backwards United States has not. And while I think that we ought to have more women in government, if for no other reason than that political talent and intelligence is probably distributed roughly equally among the sexes and so smart women aren’t in government while some dumb men are, I don’t think it is very indicative of anything that Pakistan has had a female Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, and we haven’t had a female president. Is Pakistan better off than us, in any way? It’s worth pointing off that in parts of Pakistan, women are sentenced to gang rape by tribal courts. And while rape and the legal system in America is hardly perfect, it sure isn’t as bad as in Pakistan. The question we should really be asking is whether or not women, as a class, can pursue careers in government and elected service without debilitating personal and societal constraints. The US hardly passes with flying colors in this respect, but it’s still a better evaluative criterion than gross numbers of women in power.
The problem with a democracy is that it will only be able to accept as many women in power as the people and society are willing to support freely. This means that legal equality and “representative” equality (a dodgy category on its own) will not always be in perfect accordance with each other. China doesn’t have these same fetters of people picking their own leaders, and it’s not better off for it, for women or anyone.
It’s also worth noting that Bhutto (as well as Indira and Sonja Gandhi of India) comes from a dynastic political family, which further diminishes her “representative” value.
John Cain
September 13, 2007 at 11:46 am
The reason people shake their heads and comment that “Pakistan/Turkey/India has a had a female leader,” is precisely that Pakistan/Turkey/India are all incredibly patriarchal societies that are very hostile to women as a class. And yet, they have all accepted a woman as leader, while in this country, we are still debating whether or not we are “ready” for a female president. No one’s shocked that countries like Finland or Norway have had female leaders. Personally, I was holding my breath to see whether France (which is notoriously hostile to female politicians) would actually manage to elect a female president before us. But they did manage to have a *serious* female contender before we did.
Keep in mind that the highest ranking woman in US government EVER is Nancy Pelosi, who assumed that position a mere nine months ago.
M. Gemmill
September 16, 2007 at 7:16 pm
This is all true BUT the reason Pakistan and India had female leaders was that Bhutto and Ghandi were just the representative of powerful political families, at the time, neither countries democratic instincts were particularly strong. So the female president was more hoisted onto the country than the other way around.
And with France, they had a serious contender before we did because of the vagary of the election cycle, not due to particular cultural differences. This isn’t to say that having a culture that allows women to pursue powerful roles in government isn’t important, but that because such patriarchal, not very democratic countries managed to have female leaders, it’s a metric that only has demagogic or propaganda value instead of being a real sign of a country’s political culture towards women.
Matt Zeitlin
September 16, 2007 at 10:54 pm
“Vagaries of the election cycle”? Does that mean that for some reason the second half of the first decade of the 21st century is, at long last, the Right Time, by strange and previously unheard of coincidence, to have a serious female candidate in both France and in the US?
Yes, Bhutto and Gandhi were both members of prominent political dynasties. The same goes for Corazon Aquino and Gloria Arroyo.
So how many serious female presidential contenders have there been in the United States who don’t have a close familial connection to a male politician? (Hint: what do Hillary Clinton and Liddy Dole have in common?)
Political dynasty is still the most effective way for women to enter the US Senate (wife and/or daughter of prominent politician). Dennis Thatcher, at least, is a political non-entity, and I’ve never seen Angela Merkel’s husband mentioned in the US press ever.
So, why are we still talking about whether or not the US is “ready” for a female president? This isn’t about the overall position of women in American society (which is non-trivially better than in Pakistan, India, Turkey, Chile, the Philippines, etc.). This is about the garbage conversation about whether or not this country could be willing to accept a female leader. The very fact that this conversation even occurs validates the premise that women are weaker, less capable, and less qualified for leadership. And, yes, this remains a widely held belief in the United States, despite our pretensions to being a more “advanced” society. If a country that treats women as the chattel property of their fathers and husbands can handle a female leader, why is it even a question in this country?
M. Gemmill
September 20, 2007 at 9:45 am
[...] 2007 Kerry Howley links to this Bhutto interview with New York in which Bhutto kinda-sorta makes the argument that I made a few months ago, namely that just because she inherited the leadership of her [...]
Bhutto Was Prime Minister, Pakistan Isn’t A Feminist Utopia « Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper
December 29, 2007 at 10:37 pm