In honour of International Women’s Day, I am going to discuss whether female leadership can influence global relations and if so, how.
What is labelled as the ‘patriarchy’ in international relations, is the idea that women’s absence in key political positions allows men’s concerns to take precedence and disproportionately influence how society operates. Under the patriarchy, the attribute of ‘masculinity’ has been traditionally associated with dominance and aggression. Arguably, the principle of state sovereignty, highly present in current political structures, is expressed through features that are typically ascribed to men. Features such as strength and power. Therefore, under the premise that ‘femininity’ is likened to being aligned with kindness and empathy, is it fair to predict that if more women were in positions of power, the nature of the global relations would shift?
However, in my opinion, this view is naive. Whether it is a man, woman or non-binary person who usurps a position power, the hierarchical structure of politics may well be maintained. It might seem like a pessimistic view, but I do not believe that having women in power is enough to achieve feminism’s aims of achieving equality because women are as capable of maintaining gender inequality as men. The real effect female leadership has on international relations will not be known until enough women fill foreign policy positions to see the difference. Therefore, this article is not one that has a rounded conclusion but one that uses the slightly negligible sample size of historical female leadership to explore the argument that women will positively influence foreign policy.
A paper by Oeindrila Dube of University of Chicago and S.P. Harish of New York University, found that in Europe between the 15th and 20th centuries, queens were more likely to participate in interstate conflicts than kings were. In more recent 20th-century electoral democracies, female leaders have indeed waged war. Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, and Chandrika Kumaratunga may well have been personally compassionate, yet thousands of soldiers were killed on their orders. Evidently, women are not incapable of starting war in the name of international peace and security just because of their ‘benign femininity’. Also arguably, the capabilities of female leadership cannot, and should not, be bound to the binary understanding of ‘femininity’.
Women are currently Heads of State and Government in only 21 countries worldwide, but their leadership has been lauded for its greater effectiveness in managing the Covid-19 health crisis. Female Heads of Government in Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, New Zealand and Slovakia are being recognised for the rapidity of the response they are leading, which has not only included measures to ‘flatten the curve’ – such as confinement measures, social distancing and widespread testing – but also the transparent and compassionate communication of fact-based public health information. In countries such as Canada, Ethiopia, India and Madagascar, female medical and health experts are increasingly found in leadership positions and taking the lead in daily press briefings and public service announcements. The leadership styles of female leaders in the Covid response have been described as more collective than individual, more collaborative than competitive and more coaching than commanding. It is noteworthy that even in 2019 – prior to the pandemic – nearly half of the world’s population (47%) believed that men made better political leaders than women. Today, lower Covid death rates and effective virus containment policies in countries led by women are disproving the discriminatory social norms driving these beliefs.
Evidently, female leaders have been astronomically involved in solving international crises. Even during the very recent Russian invasion of Ukraine, female leaders have been taking giant strides in uniting to help give aid to Ukraine. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is among the European leaders deciding what sanctions to place against Russia. Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin now says “the debate on NATO membership in Finland will change” as a result of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine.
There is definitely an opportunity for female leaders to help create and promote global peace. The idea of women taking up powerful political positions internationally should not be one that is feared. We are capable, if not more than capable, of creating policies that work in unison with other countries to maintain stability. I think that the nature of female leader’s actions is not dependent on their gender, but rather their political beliefs. There are a larger number of female leaders who are more progressive than not, dominating the political stage. Perhaps this is because contemporary feminist has encouraged women with progressive ideas to be involved in leadership.
This is a complicated topic that should not be looked at through a polarised lens, because there is a lot of contextual background beyond gender that influences how leaders behave. Women, especially women who are leaders, should not be automatically assigned to stereotypically feminine traits because they are women. This unconscious bias is what blinds us from seeing who a politician actually is and what their intentions actually are.
To conclude, perhaps female leadership looks like it has a bright future. I do believe it is naive to assume that all women have the best intentions and simply filling the international stage with female leaders will eradicate all the problems of the world – because it will not. However, women who are brave enough to break the glass ceiling and disrupt the patriarchy may well be more likely to offer innovative and collaborative ideas to resolve global issues.
