Engendering Change

Political scholars weigh in on the matter of women managing government

(page 1 of 4)

While America ponders—and possibly even warms to the idea of—a woman as commander-in-chief, lookers-on across the globe remain puzzled by the hubbub. As one observer put it, “America is unusual because women have a certain stake in the society more generally than what you would see in [other countries], but in terms of the higher echelons of power women have not seemed to quite make it.” No, not quite. It is certainly true that with all its cheek, The Woman Question has retained its thorniness even in corners of the world that have—on some level—let go of its most asinine applications. So does gender determine mettle, dictate moxie or damn the mission right from the gate? We’ve asked a few students of global politics to weigh in their considerations of four heads of state.

India

President Pratibha Patil

• Titular designations: Head of state, First Citizen of India and Supreme Commander of the Indian Armed Forces
• 12th President of the Republic of India and first woman to hold office. Elected July 21, 2007; term ends July 24, 2012

President Pratibha Patil

Pratibha Patil’s supporters feel that her election not only represents a great victory for her political party, the United Progressive Alliance (upa), but that it also stands as a victory for millions of Indian women who still face threats of violence and harsh discrimination. Although much of the country would like to see the unfair conditions that oppress the female population put to an end, the congress opposition parties and certain media sources have stated that her election is not indicative of any potential for real change but a sign that is representative of the same exclusivity that promoted the divisions prior to her taking office. Her detractors are concerned that her unyielding loyalty to Sonia Gandhi (leader of the upa who has been criticized because of her Italian origin) is the primary reason for her rapid ascension in the 21st century. Patil won the election despite these attacks, but to date little has been done to ease the tensions that keep the population at odds.

Sumit Ganguly, Ph.D. Director of the India Studies Program at Indiana University Patil’s election is really of very limited significance. Unfortunately she was chosen mostly on the basis of gender. There are other women in India who could have been chosen, but the Congressional Party chose somebody who they thought was a reliable political figure. So this was very much a political choice rather than a choice made on a person’s remarkable leadership ability, intellectual talent and personal integrity. Some allegations of corruption have been made against her in press reports—including in one of leading news magazines, India Today—none of which were proven. Nevertheless, allegations they are. Also, she was a fairly unknown figure in Indian politics.

She is not the first non-traditional leader; [others] have been in this seat. The first president was an Oxford-trained physician—hardly a typical politician. There have also been a couple of prominent Muslims, members of the minority community, who have been presidents of India. It’s not that India lacks a tradition of putting unconventional people in office. However, in terms of gender, she is the first. Bear in mind that the president of India is a figurehead who wields no real power except on rare occasions when people cannot produce a parliament majority. For the most part it is a power exerted through exhortation and example rather than formal power—sort of a bully pulpit, which a thoughtful and imaginative president can use as a means of advancing a social agenda. The president can also send back a bill that has been sent for consideration, but really cannot refuse to sign.

People can grow in office; I wouldn’t write her off. When the first female Prime Minister Indira Gandhi first came into office some people referred to her as “a dumb doll.” Well that dumb doll showed them a thing or two. I am not one of her admirers but there is no denying her importance to Indian politics. Overall I would give her low marks because she proved to be authoritarian and did much damage to India’s political institution. No doubt those [factors] played a vital role in Indian politics. She has a mixed legacy but stupid she was not. She inspired a generation of women such that people would never engage the asinine debate that we have here [surrounding Hillary Clinton] of whether a woman could hold her composure in an international crisis. You can’t get that argument in India; not even a moron would make that argument. People would ask, ‘Remember Mrs. Gandhi? Do you doubt that she ever lacked courage or steadiness of nerves in an international crisis?’