I recently read an interesting article by The Economist on women in South Asian politics. The Economist points out that India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka have all elected women Prime Ministers (unlike the US!). Interestingly, Sri Lanka was the first country in the world to elect a female leader in 1960 and Bangladesh has had a female head of state for 22 out of the past 25 years.
However, The Economist asserts that women's success at the highest levels of government are highly misleading. For instance, India's parliament is constituted of only 12% women. Many female politicians in India feel obligated to "make a point of acting tough" in order to be respected by their male colleagues. Also, many female politicians do not marry because they claim to be married to the cause (sound familiar?).
This article prompted me to think about many issues regarding women in politics. Immediately after reading the article, I googled how many women were in Congress and in the Senate. In Congress women comprise 19.6% of the members, and in the Senate 21%. Although American female representation in politics is greater than in India (although one can argue not great enough), America's female representation pales in comparison to its Western counterparts. In England's Parliament, 32% of MP's are women. Why does America have such low female representation in Congress? Is it because America is fundamentally a really conservative nation that still suppresses women? Or is it because American politics is sexist and therefore women have chosen to enter other, less sexist fields?
This article also prompted me to think about why political empowerment comes before social empowerment in many countries. For example, I know of many powerful past and current female politicians in India (something to note: I am half Indian). Yet, Indian society still severely oppresses Indian women. In America, I would argue that the opposite phenomenon is true. Although American society is far from a gender equitable one, it has made great strides in getting rid of sexism. Yet, this is not reflected in American politics. America has yet to elect a female President--and when one women did come close to being elected, she was subject to astonishingly sexist criticism. What causes social empowerment and political empowerment for women to move at different speeds?
The full link to the article is below:
https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21717409-despite-many-prominent-female-politicians-big-sex-divide-endures-women-south-asian-politics
However, The Economist asserts that women's success at the highest levels of government are highly misleading. For instance, India's parliament is constituted of only 12% women. Many female politicians in India feel obligated to "make a point of acting tough" in order to be respected by their male colleagues. Also, many female politicians do not marry because they claim to be married to the cause (sound familiar?).
This article prompted me to think about many issues regarding women in politics. Immediately after reading the article, I googled how many women were in Congress and in the Senate. In Congress women comprise 19.6% of the members, and in the Senate 21%. Although American female representation in politics is greater than in India (although one can argue not great enough), America's female representation pales in comparison to its Western counterparts. In England's Parliament, 32% of MP's are women. Why does America have such low female representation in Congress? Is it because America is fundamentally a really conservative nation that still suppresses women? Or is it because American politics is sexist and therefore women have chosen to enter other, less sexist fields?
This article also prompted me to think about why political empowerment comes before social empowerment in many countries. For example, I know of many powerful past and current female politicians in India (something to note: I am half Indian). Yet, Indian society still severely oppresses Indian women. In America, I would argue that the opposite phenomenon is true. Although American society is far from a gender equitable one, it has made great strides in getting rid of sexism. Yet, this is not reflected in American politics. America has yet to elect a female President--and when one women did come close to being elected, she was subject to astonishingly sexist criticism. What causes social empowerment and political empowerment for women to move at different speeds?
The full link to the article is below:
https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21717409-despite-many-prominent-female-politicians-big-sex-divide-endures-women-south-asian-politics
I'm actually from Sri Lanka and the fact that we had the first modern female head of government has been something that I have been excited about. Yet, like you mentioned above, Sri Lanka has very few women in parliament currently. One of the reasons I think why Sirimavo Bandaranaike become the first female prime minister in a similar way to how many women first entered the US Congress. Her husband, who was the prime minister, was assassinated by a Buddhist Monk and she was seen as his successor. She led her party to victory by pledging to carry on her late husband's policies, many of which were very nationalist which probably contributed to the tension that eventually led to Sri Lanka's Civil War. However, many of her critics called her a "weeping widow", and said that she used her tragedy to get herself elected.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of what helped her get elected (and later her daughter Chandrika Kumaratunga, whose politician husband also got assassinated) was name recognition and also being members of a politically involved family, giving them the exposure they needed to politics that would eventually help them run successful campaigns.