In the wake of Socialist Ségolène Royal’s defeat in France’s presidential election, the WSJ has a fascinating article on the dynamics involved in electing women in modern politics. Voters polled across the developed world overwhelmingly say they aren’t opposed to a woman as president. But if Royal shows anything, it’s that wearing your gender on your sleave does not help:
“I want to urge those who hesitate to make a bold choice,” Ms. Royal said at the end of a televised debate against Mr. Sarkozy days before last Sunday’s election. “I know that for some it’s not easy to imagine that a woman can exercise the highest responsibilities.” But many say that in the end, she may have tried a little too hard to play the gender card.According to exit polls Sunday, Ms. Royal pulled in 48% of the female vote, compared with 52% for Mr. Sarkozy.
By comparison, the final vote count was 53.5% for Sarkozy and 46.5% for Royal. In other words, the female vote almost perfectly matched the national vote, i.e. women vote like men (or vice-versa, if you prefer). The article notes that, in contrast, Ms. Merkel won in Germany by not even mentioning so-called “women’s politics.” And in the U.S., Mrs. Clinton’s refuses to apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing force in Iraq, and emphasizing her capacity to take on the role of Commander in Chief are steps in the right direction (at least if she wants to be a viable candidate).
And personally, I found this to be absolutely fascinating:
Women have had an easier time reaching the top in parliamentary systems of government, where heads of state are chosen by their colleagues in the ruling party, than in places—like the U.S.—that pick leaders through national elections. Parliamentary governments produced some of the best-known female heads of state of recent decades, including Mrs. Thatcher, Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto, Indira Ghandi of India and Golda Meir of Israel.That same dynamic—in which a woman is chosen from among political colleagues who have seen their leadership potential first-hand—helps explain why the U.S. has its first female House Speaker—Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California—before it has elected, or even nominated, a woman to be president.
A very, very interesting look at different types of democracy in action.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Towards more rigorous analysis
- » Holiday planning?
COMMENTS / 13 COMMENTS
Sean added these pithy words on 11 May 07 at 5:05 pmi am afraid that Margaret’s Iron Hair is going to get me ;-)
also, it’s like Chris Rock said: if white women are the majority in this country, why don’t they elect a white woman?
(cf answer above ;-)
shakuhachi added these pithy words on 11 May 07 at 6:02 pmThere was a study done a while ago that showed that both men and women preferred male politicians, and both men and women preferred male bosses.
Sonagi added these pithy words on 11 May 07 at 9:14 pmNeither Chris Rock’s joke nor that “study done awhile ago” explain why the US has not yet had a woman president. It’s the money, stupid. Hillary is the first real female contender because she has the political network and the networking skills to raise the enormous amount of money needed to run a viable campaign. Emily’s List was created back in the 80s to put money into the hands of women candidates for public office. The very fact that Hillary has amassed a huge war chest makes me inclined to vote against her.
Rommel added these pithy words on 11 May 07 at 11:28 pmMoney is not everything. I know plenty of people – including women – who believe that a woman should not be commander-in-chief. Granted, this is anecdotal evidence from mid-town conservative Texas but I think it is worth considering. Gender bias should not be discounted.
Also worth considering is that the United States has yet to see many or any formidable, strong women contenders. Nancy Pelosi is slightly more palatable than Hillary Clinton, and both make me shudder. If Lady Thatcher reincarnates in the next life as an American woman than maybe this will change.
Curzon added these pithy words on 12 May 07 at 1:44 amSonagi, I think you have the cause-and-effect relationship backwards. Individuals, corporations, and interest groups only give money to candidates who stand a chance to win, who are taken seriously by voters, and are real contenders for the race. Let’s face it, the female candidates to run in recent decades such as Elizabeth Dole and Carol Moseley Braun didn’t past the basic prerequisites of notable political experience (which today is defined as governor or senator with national recognition) or a history of executive leadership, and that was the biggest hurdle to their candidacy, not their gender.
Your statement that,
The very fact that Hillary has amassed a huge war chest makes me inclined to vote against her....sounds noble, but naive and misguided. How much money a candidate gathers from the party faithful is directly tied to the factors above, not how much they are bought and paid for by special interests (although that is an issue, it is ultimately true about every politician, regardless of how much money they raise).
Phil (Pacific Empire) added these pithy words on 12 May 07 at 10:56 amInteresting post, and the points you make apply to some extent in New Zealand, where the last two Prime Ministers have both been women, and we haven’t had a man in charge for nearly a decade.
NZ is of course a parliamentary system, and Jenny Shipley came to power in 1997 after orchestrating a leadership coup within her party. On the other hand, NZ elections have become progressively more presidential in style, focusing more on the personalities of the main contenders rather than party policies. And Helen Clark won the last one, although just barely.
Most other female leaders, including Isabel Peron, Bhutto, Gandhi and Sukarnoputri have been the daughters, wives or widows of national leaders. Clinton would fall into this category – suggesting another way for female leaders to gain power. But attitudes are changing around the world as more female leaders have proved themselves. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia is one spectacular example.
Sonagi added these pithy words on 12 May 07 at 12:33 pm“Sonagi, I think you have the cause-and-effect relationship backwards. Individuals, corporations, and interest groups only give money to candidates who stand a chance to win, who are taken seriously by voters, and are real contenders for the race. “
I think you misread my point. I talked about “political networking” and “networking skills.” Obviously, people who donate money aren’t going to throw it away on candidates who have no chance of winning, but the fundraising starts way before the actual campaign, and the candidates must tap the right resources and convince those resources that the candidate is viable. That’s what I meant by Hillary’s political networking. Owing to her former roles as first ladies, she’s been hobnobbing for years with campaign contributors and thus has a large network of financial support.
RE: the war chest quip. I was being facetious.
Sonagi added these pithy words on 12 May 07 at 12:54 pmI would not penalize a candidate for raising the enormous amount of money needed to run a viable campaign.
Ken added these pithy words on 12 May 07 at 7:54 pmCurzon, I think you’re right. Money certainly factors into things, but it’s not going to be easy for any female candidate to build their war chest when the big donors see little chance of a victory (after all, big political donors are looking for some form of ROI, right?)
I also agree that not voting for someone because they (have the skills to have) raised a lot of money seems simplistic, almost to the point of being ideological. Is there some bankrupt candidate this poster would like to vote for?
Curzon added these pithy words on 13 May 07 at 2:12 amPhil: I think the point is also emphasized in New Zealand in that you’ve now had proportional representation for a decade now, which really sets up barriers to parties to win absolute majorities on their own, and, I expect, made the leadership selection process even more internal as minority parties had to form coalitions.
Phil (Pacific Empire) added these pithy words on 13 May 07 at 9:48 amRight, so leaders have had to be acceptable to potential coalition partners, as well as the general public. Negotiating and coalition-building skills might even favour women leaders in that context.
However Helen Clark predates MMP (ie proportional representation) as leader of her party, and has been very popular with the public (no idea why! :-) ) While proportional and parliamentary systems seem to favour women leaders, I suspect she could have won a US-style presidential election as well.
Lexington Green added these pithy words on 13 May 07 at 8:17 pmA key local detail is missing from the discussion. In France, somewhat atypically, for many years, the female voters have tended to vote more conservatively than the men. This goes back to the early twentieth century, and to some extent to living memory, where families would send the girls to Catholic schools, and the boys to the (anti-clerical) public schools. When France allowed women to vote, politics lurched to the right. So, Segolene was trying to reach into the female voting ranks, counting on being a woman to do it, rather than on being on the left, which was not a strength for getting French women voters.
