Women in Power: Females Who Run the World

Margaret Thatcher once said; “In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.” Whether this is true or not is for sociologists to discuss, but through this statement Thatcher raised the issue of women in politics; their role, representation and progress in achieving equality.

The current world political environment has seen a rise in the prevalence of women both in government and as world leaders. Major economies, such as Germany, Australia and Argentina all have female leaders who are tasked with guiding the nations through turbulent economic times and on towards greater prosperity. Female leaders are becoming increasingly powerful in international politics, an industry traditionally dominated by males, however in most regions they still remain anomalies as male powered politics remains the norm.

In the world today there are 20 female world leaders (either in office as head of their nation’s governments or as head of state):

Europe:

• Chancellor Angela Merkel, Germany
• Antonella Mularoni, San Marino
• Prime Minister Johanna Siguroardottir, Iceland
• President Dalia Grybauskaite, Lithuania
• President Atifete Jahjaga, Kosovo
• Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Denmark
• President Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, Switzerland

Africa:

• President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Liberia
• President Joyce Banda, Malawi

Latin American & the Caribbean:

• President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Argentina
• President Laura Chinchilla, Costa Rica
• Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, Trinidad & Tobago
• Prime Minister Sarah Wescott-Williams, Sint Maarten
• Premier Paula Cox, Bermuda
• President Dilma Rouseff, Brazil
• Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller, Jamaica

Asia

• President Pratibha Patil, India
• Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed, Bangladesh
• Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, Thailand

Australia

• Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Australia

When looking at the list of world leaders several world regions appear to be underrepresented; East Asia, North America and the Middle East. However East Asia and North America have both previously had female leaders. In Canada Prime Minister Kim Campbell led the country  in 1993 and in China, Soong Ching-ling became the head of state (1968-1972 & 1981). Both regions have been represented by females in important political roles, including Hilary Clinton as US Secretary of State and Park Geun-hye, a current Presidential candidate in South Korea and neither has a culture that discourages female involvement in politics. That leaves the Middle East as the only major region in which female politicians have little presence.

There has never been a female leader in the Arab World and within the wider Muslim world very few women have reached senior ministerial positions. Benazir Bhutto was famously the first female leader of a majority Muslim state, when she took office as Prime Minister in 1988. However in the core of the Middle East, in the Arab majority states, there have been few female politics. Many attribute this to the dominance of Islam, which has often been seen as a religion that discriminates against women and thus actively seeks, within certain aspects of society, to discourage the involvement of women in national politics.

Several women in the Middle East have managed to break past the gender barrier and achieved ministerial positions in the region. The U.A.E. and Bahrain are examples of countries that have made small steps to increased female representation, with Nada Haffadh appointed as Minister of Health in Bahrain (2004-2007) and Lubna Khalid Al Qasimi appointed as Minister of Foreign Trade (2004-Present). However this progress has been slow to come, as Bahrain only allowed women to vote or run for office in 2002 and the inherent bias against female politicians is still present in much of Islamic society.

Egypt is often seen as a more secular and progressive society and it has tried in recent years to try and increase female representation in the cabinet in order to address the gender imbalance, despite this President Mursi has been accused of failing to achieve adequate representation for women, with only one female member of his cabinet.

Although it appears attitudes towards women may be softening in the Arab World, the Muslim majority states still have a long way to go to reach the progressive politics that is being seen in Europe, where female politicians are a common characteristic of national politics. The religious bias against women appears more apparent when Muslim states compare themselves to their Jewish neighbour, Israel. Israel is the only nation in the core of the Middle East to have been ruled by a women. Golda Meir was the Prime Minister of Israel from 1969-1974, and although Israel is behind Europe in terms of female representation in government, the presence of a female Prime Minister is proof of its political progress compared to that of its Arab, Muslim neighbours.

However to see the progress made in female political representation there are two regions to examine;

Firstly the Indian Sub-Continent, where out of six countries, four have had female leaders. India has had two female leaders; Indira Ghandi and current President, Pratibha Patil. Bangladesh is currently ruled by a female Prime Minister, Sheik Hasina, with many females in key ministerial roles. Pakistan, as previously stated was led by Benazir Bhutto and Sri Lanka has had two female leaders, Sirimavo Bandaranaike and Chandrika Kumaratunga, who hold the records for being the first time a female Prime Minister succeeded another female Prime Minister and the first time a female Prime Minister and female President led a country simultaneously. Although the existence of female leaders does not address much of the gender inequality that is present in more traditional regions of South Asian society, it does show the progressive nature of modern Indian culture in which women, although they do face great challenges to achieve political power, have the ability to break through the barrier and become world leaders.

The second region is one that has surpassed all others in the pursuit of female political representation, and that is Scandinavia. Denmark, Iceland, Finland and Norway have all had female leaders and all Scandinavian countries have high female representation (around 40%) with females frequently reaching key ministerial positions. Here there are few qualms about giving women political power and their rise to power clearly has far few barriers that those leaders in the Indian Sub-Continent.

Ultimately though, the position of women in politics, across the world, is still in need of further development and progress. There are multiple regions where female political representation is still very low and the issues that have prevented women from taking part in the political process, be they social or religious, need to be addressed. In addition despite the rise to power of women in key global economies, including Brazil, Germany, Argentina and Australia, other developed nations also have more work to do. Many European states have never seen a female leader and others, such as the UK, are yet to build on the progress made by their only female leader, Margaret Thatcher.

What needs to happen in world politics is a move away from female leaders being an anomaly, to female leaders being a norm within global politics.

By Peter Banham

Sport: An Important Political Tool in World Affairs

With the London Olympics only a week away, much of the attention is on the political importance of this sporting event for international relations. Sport has often been an outlet for expressing political views, settling scores and renewing bonds and world events, such as the Olympics are the biggest forum for global politics.

The London Olympics, like many events before it, has been made a political issue focusing in particular on the participation of Middle Eastern states, whose political structure has been heavily scrutinized by the international political scene.  In particular nations, such as Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Libya have all come under close scrutiny and criticism from international players forcing Britain to respond accordingly.

Following the civil war in Libya many believed that it would be unable to put together a team to compete at London 2012, especially as the former head of the Libyan Olympic Committee was a son of Colonel Gaddafi and fled to Algeria following the Civil War. However even though Libya has put forward a small team to compete they continue to face difficulties as the new head of the Libyan Olympic Committee was abducted this week.

Saudi Arabia has seen the London Olympics being used as a forum to discuss the role of women in Saudi society and there has been an intense media focus on the decision to send, for the first time, female athletes to London 2012.

For Syria and Bahrain, however much attention is not on whether the nations could produce a team and in what form the team would be, but rather whether the team or officials should be allowed to take part in the events. For Syria the decision has been taken that any officials subject to an EU ban on travel, as a result of internal conflict, will not be allowed to attend the events, although the team itself can compete and this has been supported by the international community. However Bahrain has proved to be one of the biggest controversies. Prince Nasser bin Hamad al Khalifa is the President of the Bahrain Olympic Committee and for many, both in Britain and internationally, his involvement in London 2012 is seen as an endorsement of the actions of the Bahrain government, which has been accused of violence, repression and torture. Many have threatened action if the Prince arrives in London and political tensions over his continued involvement remain very high.

London 2012 is by no means the first Olympic games to deal with controversial political decisions. Beijing 2008 was marred by Free Tibet protests and activists who protested against China’s human rights record and attacked TV presenter, Konnie Huq, whilst she carried the Olympic torch in London. Many Olympics, particularly those in developing nations or with controversial regimes, have seen great protest by activists who resent these states being gifted such a prestigious event. Most famously, however, it was the 1980 and 1984 Olympics which highlighted the role of politics in sports.

The 1980 Summer Olympics was held in Moscow, then the capital of the USSR. This was a move rejected by officials in the USA and many other Western countries, including West Germany, Japan and Canada, who ultimately boycotted the event in protest at the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan. This move by Western nations was replicated in 1984 by communist nations, led by the USSR, when the Olympics was held in Los Angeles.

However the Olympics, although one of the largest sporting events, is not the only sporting occasion in which nations play out global issues. Tours by national teams have often been used as a symbol of cross-border friendship and co-operation. Most notably this has been seen in tours by the national cricket teams of Pakistan and India, countries that have a difficult history. They have often used sport as a way to soften relations between the two presenting a forum to settle scores between the two states, without resorting to violence or military action. Following the Mumbai bombings in 2008, in which Pakistan was accused of involvement, sporting ties were cut between the two, however in recent weeks, details of a tour by the Pakistan team in India have emerged illustrating a thawing in relations.

Sport has also come under fire for its ability to over involve itself in political affairs, as was highlighted in 2012 with the Formula 1 Bahrain Grand Prix, when the decision was made to go ahead with the race despite calls from within Bahrain and from around the world to cancel the event in light of the crackdown, implemented by the government, on protestors. By undertaking this action Formula 1 opened itself up to criticism from international commentators and accusations that the people in charge believed sport transcended politics.

Clearly the role of sport in international politics is huge. It can be used both to encourage relations between two nations and to bring nations together on a global scale to participate in something greater than national politics, as the Olympics aims to do. Sport is intrinsically linked with politics; with participation being used as a bargaining chip and governing bodies coming under attack when the political actions of sport differ from the political actions of nations they represented or are involved with.

By Peter Banham