In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the democratic presidential primary, some bemoaned “subterranean sexism” in America, where voters would not vote to elect a woman to the highest office. Truth be told, this may have less to do with the American voters than with the form of direct democracy in America. A global perspective shows that indirect democracy such as in a parliamentary systems — where a prime minister is selected by elected peers — is far more likely to produce a female head of government.
Looking at a list of elected female heads of state, of the 52 elected leaders, 42 were elected through parliamentary elections. And of the other 10 presidents that were directly elected heads of government (not head of state), that’s only 7 countries — the Philippines, Liberia, and Argentina have each elected two presidents.
This phenomenon is not even remotely regional, and is seen in every corner of the globe. From Margaret Thatcher in the UK to Golda Meir in Israel, from Yulia Tymoshenko in the Ukraine to Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, it is parliaments that tend to elect female leaders. That’s notwithstanding the fact that Pakistan is a country where women in some regions are forbidden to even leave their homes without a male escort.
Why? A direct electoral system such as in the US presidential election permits an unknown to campaign out of nowhere on the basis of a campaign against the system. Just look at the last three US presidents, who were all relatively unknown until they ran for president. By contrast, in countries with parliamentary systems, all leaders must be selected by their colleagues. This typically means a gradual rise, based on an accumulated record of achievement, requiring a base of support among fellow legislators. Popular support doesn’t come into play until this requirements are met. This system typically gives women and minorities a better chance to make their case.
What does this say about democracy? To me, although no system is perfect, this is another pro about less democracy. Dissapointed supporters of Hillary Clinton can be somewhat comforted by the fact that, if America was a parliamentary system where the head of the House of Representatives was the prime minister, America would have seen its first female head of government in 2007 when Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the house.
For me I would never trust legislators to make a choice for me. One person, one vote suits me just fine. As a Dem, I find the fact that Reid and Pelosi have been chosen to lead the Senate and HofR to be nauseating. Both are completely useless. It’s also very hard to say Clinton lost because of sexism, especially when an African American is the one that beat her. I’d argue that the US is far more racist then it is sexist and on that basis alone she should have won the nomination. Hillary lost because she offered nothing new and was clearly not the best candidate for the job.
I believe the four examples you cite were all Head of Government, not Head of State.
Hello, I must thank you for teaching me the idea of “Indirect Democracies,” I have been musing this idea around in my head for years. As I feel and see the world, women are the indirect leaders of the majority of families on planet earth. They also deserve to run the governements of the planet. Brute force and size is becoming a moot point in arguments as the world becomes civilized.
(If all equal, the bigger person wins an argument.)
The confusion of some lesser developed nations often opens the doors for me equality.
Thanks from Andy of HoboTraveler.com Travel Blog
I believe tdaxp is correct. The president of Israel never makes the news (except when he’s accused of rape) but he does exist, albeit in a powerless ceremonial position.
Likewise, if, in your scenario, we had ended up with Prime Minister Pelosi, there would possibly still be a president to elect, since for some reason there is this odd obsession with having a ceremonial head of state position even in parliamentary systems where the PM exercises all meaningful executive functions.
If you look at the list you will see many Prime Ministers are in Westminster-style systems where they have a lot of executive power and where the head of state is more of a figurehead (such as in the UK with Thatcher as PM and QEII as the head of state). But other states on the list have much more powerful heads of state (one that pops out is Ukraine, where Yulia Tymoshenko is head of government and Viktor Yuschenko is head of state, and the two of them are using every lever they have to get at each other). But so there are apples and oranges in the mix. In a way this serves Curzon’s point, but I am not sure that if the US were to have a parliamentary system in a parallel universe that Pelosi would have made it to the head of government stage. Plus the Majority Leader in the House of Representatives is not the same as the “primus inter pares” but vastly more powerful Prime Minister you have in the Westminster system, for example. In countries like the UK, Canada and Australia, even though in theory your PM is simply the leader of the largest faction in parliament, what is happening nowadays is that people are voting for a Party and its leader first and individual members of parliament second. Just look at the reaction to the Canadian proposed coalition government (where the Head of State – the Queen of Canada, and her representative, the Governor General, both happen to be women and the PM and all his main rivals are men):
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/viewpoints/story.html?id=819de06e-25c7-423b-b5f7-5baa9842c589 …
What supporters of Hillary don’t realise or maybe don’t want to admit is that it was woman voters who ended her presidential bid. In America, when a woman competes against a man for political power it’s not a level playing field, men and woman are held to different standards. Woman voters intuitively know that and thus don’t respect those who get that far.
Bangladesh is an interesting case — its constitution states that 15% of the seats in its parliament must be occupied by women (selected by parties through proportional representation), and at one point both of its main political parties were led by female MPs.
Is it fair to PM Yuschenko to note that his arch-rival is a babe . . .?
On Madam Pelosi: Would her Dem colleagues have chosen her if they knew she could get real power?
Having got that lascivious wisecrack out of my system, Dan’s observation does bring up a larger point: How well do indirectly-elected executives work as Executives? Are there areas of governmental endeavor where they fall short? If so, what methods (if any) of choosing the Executive produce better results in those areas?