Home > Politics, News & Issues > International Politics > International Politics (Other)
Are developing countries better served by male or female leaders?
Results so far:
| Male | 44% | 137 votes | Total: 308 votes | |
| Female | 56% | 171 votes |
Male
by Paul Cowan
Created on: April 03, 2008 Last Updated: April 14, 2012
The Third World is awash with examples of women leaders. Countries where women are held in such low esteem that baby girls are murdered have been happy to adore a female leader.
The first woman premier was Sirimavo Bandaranaike in Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon), who came to power in 1960 and was prime minister on three different occasions. She died in a few months after leaving office in 2000, having spent 18 of the previous 40 years in power. Her daughter Chandrika Kumaratunga became both prime minister and president.
In India another powerful woman took charge: Indira Gandhi was premier from 1966 to 1977 and again from 1980 to 1984. At the last elections, another woman, Sonia Gandhi, led the winning party and could have taken the presidency but chose not to because she is not Indian-born.
Further north, in Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto also held office twice as prime minister, from 1993 to 1996 and again from 1988 to 1990. The former East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, has two women leaders vying with each other for power: Sheikh Hasina and Khalida Zia.
In Burma, which now calls itself Myanmar, the last person to be elected to power was Aung San Suu Kyi: unfortunately, the military seized power before she could take office.
In Indonesia, Megawati Sukarnoputri was president from 2001 to 2004 and has announced that she will be seeking election again next year.
It seems paradoxical that the United States, which prides itself on its respect for women, should be struggling with the idea that Hillary Clinton might become president, when all these Asian states, where women's rights are largely denied, are quite comfortable with the idea.
There is one thing that all these women (including Mrs. Clinton) have in common, which has made their rise possible and sometimes almost inevitable: their power is dynastic, every single one of these Asian leaders is the surviving daughter or widow of a famous male leader.
Bandaranaike's husband, Solomon Bandaranaike, was an assassinated premier; Indira Gandhi's father was Nehru, India's first prime minister; Sheikh Hasina's father was "father of the nation" Mujibur Rahman the murdered first president of Bangladesh; Khalida Zia's husband, President Zia Rahman, was assassinated; Benazir Bhutto's father, Zulfiker Ali Bhutto, was executed after being toppled in a coup; Aung San Suu Kyi is the daughter of assassinated independence leader Aung San; Megawati is the daughter of President Sukarno, another toppled independence leader who (uniquely) died of old age while under house arrest.
It is the dynastic nature of the politics that brings women to power in Asia that makes me feel that, on balance, male leaders are likely to serve their countries well than women. Of course, some of the males derive their authority from dynasties, rather than from ability: Bhutto's husband and son are now the leaders of her Pakistan People's Party; but if a woman is in power in a developing country, it is a guarantee the dynastic politics rather than real democracy is at work and that the ruler has been chosen by family, not by ability. A male leader MAY have emerged because of personal ability and political vision.
It may be that these women leaders have been better or worse than male leaders of the same country. Their power and the respect, even adulation, they command is real. Many of them have ruled as harshly as any man (Gandhi's State of Emergency, when she ruled for years by decree, is still remembered with horror by many Indians).
I would not argue that women are less capable of being good rulers in any country, but they need to emerge through a system that recognizes and rewards ability, ideas and excellence, the sort of system that can elevate a Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher (whether you love them or hate them, they were hugely effective leaders), not one that just honors a family name. At present, that is impossible in the developing world because of the status that women have.
And it is an indictment of Asia's women rulers that they have made very little effort to improve the status of their impoverished sisters. One reason for that, of course, is that their power and wealth (usually enormous wealth) is derived from the system and any real reform of the system would threaten their own position. Another reason may be that inherited power carries no assurance that those who wield it are even very competent, let alone visionary in their outlook and what they offer to their nations.
Learn more about this author, Paul Cowan.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Female
by Dr. Deborah Bauers
Created on: March 17, 2008
The concept of potential superior female leadership of developing countries is a theoretical idea at best. It is highly unlikely that women will achieve political prominence in any of the less developed countries of the world in the foreseeable future. In a United Nations Press Release at the beginning of 2008, Secretary Anders Johnsston postulated that the world would likely not see equal male/female representation in parliament before the midpoint of this century.
Sadly, there are several monumental obstacles that must be hurdled before global parity in political leadership can be reached. It will be, potentially, even longer for women to assume leadership in developing countries. Even America, considered progressive and forward in her thinking, has waited for over two hundred years before seriously considering putting a woman in the White House. Currently, over 83% of the seats in both US houses of congress are still held by men.
Thirteen of the world's developing countries have no female ministerial representation in their cabinets. Eight other countries have no female parliamentary representation, while another seven have less than 3% of legislative seats occupied by women. In many of these regions a woman is not accorded the same rights and privileges as her husband and her primary role is bearing children. Still other nations deny women basic human rights and treat them, not as persons, but as chattel. It is not even conceivable that these countries, so far removed from dignifying the role of women in their societies, could possibly sanction women in positions of political leadership. Their governments are years away from recognizing the valuable contributions that might be made by female leaders.
Women have historically involved themselves in social reforms and philanthropic endeavors. This is partly because they have not been permitted to engage in the political and financial fields of their respective governments. However, to be fair, the female sex has always been more responsive to the plight of depressed and downtrodden peoples due to her traditional role as nurturer. Unfortunately, male leaders who have engaged in humanitarian efforts have been lauded as savvy politicians while the same activity, conducted by women, has been viewed as an appropriate venue for the weaker sex to involve themselves in.
In many cultures a man may be verbally assertive, even aggressive, and his actions are seen as an indication of his prowess and strength. But let a woman speak abrasively or even bluntly within a public forum and she is described as "lacking in breeding," or worse yet, "whining."
What might a woman in leadership have to offer a developing country? Would she offer the steady guiding hand needed to birth democracy and grow a stable economy? Most assuredly. Could she use the gift of being a visionary in addressing global issues? Absolutely. Would she find the time to visit orphans and develop literacy programs within her country while being an emissary of good will outside her borders? She would. How could she so effectively do these things? Primarily because being a woman, she is a master at multi-tasking and by nature, a better listener and negotiator than most men. But this is all a matter of semantics, because we are talking about an idea that much of the world is still unprepared to entertain; much less the developing countries of the world.
Cultural bias, the ignorance of those less civilized, and social traditions have historically done women a great disservice. The assertion that women could more effectively lead developing countries is, at best, hypothetical. But do they deserve the equal opportunity to try? You bet! Ask me again in another forty years or so and perhaps I'll be able to back up my theoretical support of women leadership in developing countries with proven success.
References
http://www.usatoday. com/news/world/2008- 02-29-un-women-parli amentarians_N.htm
Learn more about this author, Dr. Deborah Bauers.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley