Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
sidebar-top content-top

Women on Top?

Ralf DahrendorfRalf Dahrendorf, author of numerous acclaimed books and a former European Commissioner from Germany, is a member of the British House of Lords, a former Director of the London School of Economics, and a former Warden of St Antony's College, Oxford. His previous piece on Webdiary was The End of Secularism?.

by Ralf Dahrendorf

What will G-8 summit meetings be like when American President Hillary Clinton and French President Ségolène Royal join German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a formidable triangle of women’s power? The scenario is not altogether unlikely. Indeed, in the United States and France, there are even alternative female candidates for the presidency (Condoleezza Rice in America, Michelle Alliot-Marie in France). Will this mean a new style of both domestic politics and international relations?

The answer is not obvious. After all, some women have long had the strength and the will to make it to the top. Think of Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, or Margaret Thatcher. All three were powerful prime ministers of their countries, though perhaps not the epitome of what might be regarded as feminine values. They all outdid men at their own game and had little time for what came to be called feminism.

Indeed, another trend may be more significant as far as political leadership is concerned. When it comes to the formation of governments, women have managed to break out of the prison of their traditional domains, such as education and social affairs. Foreign policy in particular has become a female aspiration. Both the US and the European Union have women leading their foreign offices; so do half a dozen EU countries, including Britain. Has this changed the style, indeed, the substance of foreign policy?

Undoubtedly, a shift in policy styles is occurring in many parts of the world. In a word, it appears that the Reagan-Thatcher period is over. While opponents of globalization still fight "neo-liberal" policies, political discourse has taken a new turn. Words like "justice" are back in fashion; there is concern about globalization’s losers and the "underclass."

Likewise, the leader of Britain’s Conservatives, David Cameron, startled more old-fashioned supporters of his party by saying that people released from prison "need, above all, love." When Prime Minister Tony Blair described the next election as a fistfight in which the "flyweight" Cameron would be carried out and the "heavyweight" Brown victorious after a short bout, he got much applause from his supporters in the House of Commons, but the remark went down badly with voters. Somehow, people prefer "softer" values than were prevalent in the last two decades.

Yet it is not the leading women who above all represent these values. Merkel may have been softened by having to preside over a grand coalition, but her original stance was more of the Reagan-Thatcher variety. Yuliya Tymoshenko was clearly the most stouthearted among the leaders of Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, and no one has ever described Hillary Clinton as particularly "soft." On the contrary, her possible Republican opponent in 2009, Senator John McCain, while a war hero, is also a man who represents to many Americans the new soft values.

Merkel had a difficult time in the run-up to her recent party conference, because Jürgen Rüttgers, the minister-president of the largest German state, North-Rhine Westphalia, reminded the Christian Democrats of their historical support for strong social-welfare policies. Only Royal may be said to represent softer lines against the hard-liner of the governing party, Nicolas Sarkozy.

So, have women at or near the top made no real difference to politics? Whatever change they have brought has not been obvious. In a sense, women’s advance is simply the normal consequence of the gradual move to effective equality of opportunity that began in the 1960’s. It took decades to become real, and there are still countries that have a long way to go. Despite Tymoshenko’s leading role in Ukraine, it would be surprising to see Russian President Vladimir Putin replaced by a woman, and, while there is a female vice-president in China, there is no sign of a woman becoming Japanese prime minister soon.

Even so, in many parts of the world, women have made considerable headway on the path to the top. Not infrequently this has been helped by explicit policies. David Cameron prides himself on a successful campaign to make 40% of all Conservative parliamentary candidates in Britain are women.

But this is precisely the point. It is not the women at the top who have changed the scene. Rather, it is a more general trend, helped along by open-minded leaders of both sexes, that has changed the political climate in countries. No one, man or woman, can today aspire to setting the tone of public discourse without recognizing that politics is no longer only a man’s game. In other words, normalization by equal opportunity is itself the change. Whatever the particular values of leading candidates, this is undoubtedly progress.

Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences, 2006.

[ category: ]

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

antigravity viruses infucting porcine, and hialry chickenhawk

It's Ok , Hilary will be too afraid too meet President Royal as Ms Royal dared to meet Hamas and that is too scary for Ms Hilary as it may be contagious. Nothing to do with powerful lobbies or anything like that of course.  

But the main problem, said the adviser, stemmed from Ms Royal's association with the Hezbollah official, who denounced the "unlimited dementia of the American administration" and likened Israel's foreign policy to "Nazism".

"Hillary, whose investiture is far from assured, is very vigilant and cannot afford the slightest false move," said the adviser. "She does not want to be associated with Royal's recent remarks. It would not be good for her image."

With Americans?

But Olmert is ok despite the Lebanese warcrimes. Says it all.

Mearsheimer and Walt right again.

Pity the US people, this can't be good for the nation.

Pity the Jewish Americans, seen as always associated with AIPAC/Likud views.

Time to change that methinks, eh Bronfman et al? ... hmm ... 

Independent and varying viewpoints and a widely questioning media would be a nice first step. Pigs flying would indicate this is possible.

Bye bye Hilary whitewater jelly spine.  Bobby for President.

Cheers, and may anitgravity viruses infect all porcine.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 12 weeks 5 days ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 12 weeks 6 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 2 days ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 6 days ago