photo by numlok
Wives/daughters of rulers have been elected for years all over the world. In 60 year old Sri Lanka it’s already happened twice. Today the President is a former first lady, and the power of dynasty is so strong that even the Italian wife of Rajiv Gandhi is the leader of India’s Congress party. Add the late Benazir Bhutto and Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh and the whole subcontinent has been ruled by Queen Regnants. The positions aren’t a triumph of modern-day feminism, they’re a testament to the ancient power of dynasty. There have been women in power from Cleopatra to Queen Elizabeth. They’re were all either daughters or wives of Kings and not independent women per se. The only stand-alone female rulers I can think of are Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher. Hillary Clinton didn’t shatter a glass ceiling for women as much as ride a gilded carriage into a brick wall. Whatever the merits of her candidacy, feminism wasn’t one of them.
Dynasty
In Sri Lanka politicians get blown up a lot, and it’s pretty common for their wives to take over. When SWRD was killed, Srimavo took over. Her daughter later went on to rule as well. That’s dynasty, and it’s been going on all over the world since pretty much forever. I think the technical term is Queen Regnant and many monarchies allow for succession via women, though male sons are often prefered. In the case of someone like Cleopatra they were able to just marry their brothers, simplifying things.
In a modern electoral context the system still works, probably for the reasons that made it salient in the first place. There is a great brand equity to family and insomuch as most people voting are checking off a name, name recognition helps. Most voters in India or Sri Lanka (or anywhere really) don’t know that much about the vaunted issues and they seem to go with what they know.
In America this hasn’t happened as much, but it did happen with George W. Bush, and almost happened with Hillary Clinton. These are people who wouldn’t likely be running for President without their last names. The latter because she’s long lacked the charisma and social touch, and the former because he didn’t have the resume or intelligence. Mirror opposites kinda. Only difference is that he won, and she has now lost the nomination.
In her withdrawal speech Hillary framed he progress as a victory for women and a hope for daughters, but it’s pretty much the same hope any female has had throughout history. Marry a powerful guy, hang around, and maybe inherit the power. That’s how it works in Sri Lanka, India, whatever. Most women end up getting a deal they never wanted – dead husband and power – but it works out for some. That is not to say that they’re necessarily bad leaders. Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma, for example, is the daughter of a major independence leader. They are not, however, champions of the abstract cause of feminism (whatever that’s worth).
Feminism is a lot of things, but it generally means women having some equality with men. And dynastic women are not really equal. For one thing, they can’t really get power till their husband/father is dead or abdicates. That is, the men eat first. Feminism is also about women not being denied opportunity for the way they are born and having control of their sexuality and reproduction. Dynasty, however, is part of an age-old system (generally patriarchal) of very tight genetic control which denies people rights based on their birth. That is, even the women who gain title and power are still part of a system that they can’t really get out of because of blood or marriage. Get kicked out of the family or divorced and the power goes too, regardless of how capable you are.
Female are effectively placeholders in a much larger system operating at the family level, not liberated individuals. In Asia that family system is far more operational than in the West, perhaps why you see many female rulers here, and yet not much women’s rights. Marriages (especially arranged) operate here on a family level, and family often trumps individual.
Anyways, this system of dynasty is very old and, on the whole, kinda bad. Elections make it palatable, but it is generally better for a society when a broader base of the population has opportunity rather than hoping to get lucky with the crib or bed-mates of the few.
Getting back to Hillary Clinton, she rode on her years with President Bill Clinton as a sign of her own experience, and on her name and that ‘Clinton’ brand. Not so much on the stuff she’d done on her own, but the patina of the Clinton years. She’s certainly very capable, but many Queen Regnants have been. She had more opportunity than her individual condition merited (by whatever abstract metric) – enough dynastic force that it definitely outweighed any drag from being a female. She ran as a Clinton more than a woman, and her campaign was more about dynasty than feminism. I don’t think she broke any glass ceilings that ancient Egyptians, Victorians and modern Sri Lankans haven’t already passed through. The wife of a former ruler running for office is nothing new. Hearing it framed as feminism is.
Indi Hamu is bang on target!
Women who ride a slipstream (be it their father’s or husband’s) to power and/or prominence are not feminists, they are opportunists.
Strangely enough, whilst real feminst icons are hard to find at a national level, they are in abundance in rural settings where women compete with men as entreprenuers (especially in Sri Lanka). Of course thats not good news to the Barefoot satchel totting, handloom kurtha wearing, british council workshop attending, ‘kumari jaywardena wannabe’ feminists who are fighting to liberate their poor oppressed sisters.
Haiyoo… Now Appu asking for parippu. Better take the koodey out to fend off the beating
http://parippuplease.blogspot.com/
I voted Hilary Clinton, and only support Hilary Clinton, No matter what Hilary Does suspend her campaign concede her campaign. No matter what Hilary does she could even support Obama and campaign for Obama I will never Vote for Barack Obama, I do think Amercia is ready for a black president, just not Barack Obama,,, The way The Democratic party handle this election with the Corporate Media propaganding this whole election, Turned this election upside down,, Obama could of ran over someone,, like Haley Berry, No one would care and still vote,, Obama..
There several million Voter right now like my self, will not ever vote for Barack Obama, Many like my self will be Voting for McCain, my reason is simple,, the Obama voter came on CNN & MSNBC and said if obama does not win the primary, Obama supporter will vote for McCain, Democratic party did not do anything to the obama camp to stop ,, why is obama party splittin the party in half, Now pelosi and many other are blamming Hilary and kept on with the propaganda Corporate Media, Obama Said on the new so many time,, does not Matter, if your Democrat or Republican,, you want the right person for the right Job,, He is so right,,when He said that we wanted Hilary,, Well Congrats to Obama his supporter got him to the primary,,,but He will never win the election,, for Prisident, I will not stop with my blogging,, who is the best man for the job between Barack & McCain,, will vote for McCain he will be way better than Barack Obama, I can put up for McCain for 4 years and Hilary Can run again, Pelosi and the rest of the democrat party,, days are number at this point, For pushing Hilary out and ruining her Career, Even now During Clinton Exit speech,, Democratic party Told Hilary if she does not back there little puppet Barack Obama they will ruin her career,, In my opinion They all ready Ruined Hilary Clintons Career, Right Now I am goint listen to one thing Barack Obama said, and that is, like I said, it does not matter if your Democrat or republican who is the right person for the job,,,, Hillary supporter need to stick together, Vote for McCain or just not vote for we need the right person,,, Hilary is up on stage right now saying what pelosi and the democratic party are telling her what to do,, or Economy is down and the way the propaganda Media is,, we are turning into a 3rd world country,, by rigging the election thru the media, Hilary Supporter who really want Hilary to be president Need to vote for McCain or just not Vote for Barack Obama, let McCain win,, there nothing more he can do as president, Congress will not let him it Congress who controls everything,, not the president, Pelosi and the a lot of the democratic party ruined Hilary Career, If all Hilary Voter, stick together, than We can restore Hilary Career and make her President, in 4 years. if you vote for Obama we have to wait maybe 8 years or 4 years and republican will be office, if Obama wins the presidency he will only be 4 year term,,, I say give all your supporter not to the democratic party, but to Hilary Clinton.. democratic party needs all of them need to leave office and get fresh people in there, who can unite the party not keep it separated and force unity, to who they want not who the voter want,, Hilary would of won this election, DNC screwed her with floriday and Michigan if those vote were counted at the beginning she would of won this race along time ago..and for the sexest Media, Like CNN & MSNBC… will continue to not report the new but Make it up as they see fit, All Hilary supporter need to unit together.. and stick together,, Margaret Thatcher was prime Minister 30 years ago,, but American Men and New Bias, is keeping woman down for personal gain, Like Keith Oberman, & Chris Mathews Who are the biggest Sexest on this MSNBC stations,
I guess the statistics that show ‘educated’ democrats flocking to Obama has just been proven by the atrocious spelling, grammer and syntax of the previous comment.
Universal suffrage will always be the bane of Democracy. While I agree with most Democratic values and I do think it is still the best out of the political models available (to paraphrase Churchill), I find it hard to understand how a (hypothetical) unemployed, 18 year old junkie has the same vote as a 30 year old PhD earning $100k+
Oh come on you can do better than that,, not only that ,, it barack who is capitalizing on poor and middle class uneducated voter,
The people voting for Barack still think OJ Simpson is innocent, and Coby never raped that girl,,
A mind is still a terrible thing to waste, still don’t .. like I said only barack voter are the one who were talking about Rioting at the convention if he didn’t win, or His voter were the one on CNN & MSNBC saying, if he loses the primary,
The Voter, are going to vote for McCain ,, Barack voter only want unity if Barack win, does not work that way,
Even barack know this said today on the new,, he going to need a lot of work even now , and Hilary voter are so
Mad how she was treated, even if he did put her as Vice prez, it still mite not help him,
they rather, see Barack Lose, and and hilary run again in 4 years,, ….. all I know the double standards of black are coming to an end,, make me laugh if only the educated were voting for black barack would not have any votes,,
Funny how Barack never one a big state other than his own state, need to think before you put people down
They are not who you think they are,,,just look at it this way,, Coby still playing and OJ is still free, you can’t have it all
While many female politicians HAVE ridden their fathers’/husbands’ coattails into power, there are many who prove it isn’t a rule — Margaret Thatcher for one, and Angela Merkel for another. Segolene Royal would’ve made a very hot French prez too, and I don’t think she married or was fathered by a politician. It’s true that these are all European women, but I personally think that Europe is the seat (as well as the leading edge) of western culture and democracy, and its women have proven they don’t need to ride anyone’s slipstream. I think believe will be one day be the rule worldwide and not the exception.
Considering the fact that Paul V continues his/her incredibly bad spelling, even after attention has been drawn to it, leads me to the conclusion that Paul V is just trying to antagonise.
So I shall ignore – and move on to Indi’s actual post…
DB, I agree that Europe seems to throw out quite a few non-dynastic female leaders. I think Ireland has a female president and speaking of ‘hot’ heads of state, don’t forget Yulia Tymoshenko of Ukraine :)
I think one of the reason why the EU has more female leaders is partly attributable to the historical monarchies of several EU states. Having had Queens for hundreds of years, I guess a female prime minister is not that much of a stretch. Additionally, it may have something to do with the fact that ‘masculinity’ is not as important and attribute in Europe, in comparison to the US. I never got the feeling that Europeans stereotyped their men as ‘beer drinking, head butting and dry-walling’ their way through life.
For the same reason, I think the EU would be far more excepting of a gay head of state. Whereas such a thing would be impossible in the US.
As for other non-dynastic females, I almost forgot my own prime minister… Helen Clarke. Not the hottest female politician around, but her father was a farmer and she’s been prime minister of New Zealand for 9 years.
Can only hope that this person had a faulty keyboard….
Yes, yes… Thatcher and Merkel are good examples of independent kusumas as was Golda Meir – a true nation builder.
Unfortunately, Meir’s Israel turned out to be a curse for the rest of the World and Thatcher was a foreign policy nightmare.
Merkel is yet to be tested properly but it would be good if she proves to have at least some of those remarkable qualities that “apparently” women possess, if the PPT with that mind numbing Celine Dione song, (that Appu keeps getting) is anything to go by…
Then again, after the Sirimavo experience, what were we thinking when we cheered Chandrika to office? ‘eh?
I know…
http://parippuplease.blogspot.com/
Jim Johnson has stepped down from his post on Barack Obama’s vice presidential search committee
Jim was involved in the country wide loan scandal ..so it not new He step down,,
Why does barack have so many corrupt working in his campaign, ,, so many the guy Rezko the slum lord leader,
Rev Wright, but yet Barack Obama during the campaign Barak only talked about Hilary and her dealing
So did Msnbc,, but won’t talk about this,, Why does Barack Obama have so many criminal working with him
Or involved in his campaign,
WHat did Barack Say about Jim Johnson on the news, Barack states He can not take the blame
Every one in his campaign that does somthing wrong,, what kind of Judgment does that show barack Obama has
NONE,
He wants to lead yet he can not lead or check his own campaign dealing,,, For Barack Obama still the same old
Double standard, want everyone to listen to everyone of his excuses… and want them to think it the truth…
And yes Half the Democrats who voted,,, For Barack they do Listen,, The other half who voted for Hilary,, ,
Well we know what we are going to do, that is not vote for Barack Obama, “Elitist ” who don’t have an agenda
And dwell on the simpleton of Voter, Soon the truth will be out about Barack Obama and His Magic Show..
I don’t think the debate over whether women possess the qualities to govern or not has anything to do with the female ability to reach that position on their own merit.
If you want things to stay the same Vote for McCain, if you want things to get 100% worse, Vote for Barack Obama
Appu can’t see how anybody could possibly argue that women don’t “possess the qualities to govern.” Its just that the few who percolate to the top under their own steam, seem to have qualities that are stereotypical of males, and not those of women. Perhaps thats a reflection of the socio-political filters that they permeated?
Since you point out that the qualities some female leaders possess are stereotypical of males, perhaps those aren’t really qualities that are masculine or feminine, but simply those of a leader, which we, through our sexism, attribute to men.
However, my point was in response to your comments on the quality of leadership displayed by Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, etc. You have declared that their terms had negative impact on the world, and I stated that the female ability to lead (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with their ability to reach a leadership position. I believe the latter was the crux of Indi’s post.
I wasn’t contesting any of that. Just lamenting the fact that the “stereotypical” qualities of women were not evident in the women who made it to the top on their own.
The fact that Hilary is married to a former President does not mean that she (almost) rode into the White House on his coat-tails. Certainly, nostalgia for the Clinton era has been a factor, particularly given disaffection with the current administration. But Clinton’s campaign had very little to do with evoking the sort of ‘let his reign continue’ sentiment that seems to be behind many of the female leaders in South Asia. Hilary Clinton had an extremely difficult time as First Lady precisely because she was not interested in revelling in her husband’s glory; she won the Senate seat in New York entirely on her own steam; and her Presidential campaign has had a lot more going on than merely drawing on Bill. Indeed, if anything, Bill Clinton’s various antics and serious campaign mis-judgments harmed her (see the Vanity Fair profile on the former President).
Clinton led a very strong campaign, and faced a significant degree of sexism in the US. There are many good reasons why she didn’t win the nomination – I would say mostly because she was running against an extremely charismatic candidate – but she ran, and lost, as her own woman. With the exception of the Kennedys, the dynasty-adoration one sees in India, Pakistan, and possibly SL was simply not in play in the US.
I agree that Hilary is not an automatic feminist, and certainly many major women’s organisations did not endorse her. I don’t think this is because Hilary is not actually a feminist – her life, ambition and success would suggest that she is – but that in order to be successful in public life as a woman in the US, you cannot be seen to be a feminist. It is less easy for Hilary to take ‘pro-women’ stances than Obama; similarly, Obama’s appeal amongst middle white America is largely that he isn’t ‘too Black’, doesn’t talk about racism as much as he could, is ambivalent on affirmative action etc. Recall the outcry about Reverend Wright, who does have very strong views on racism etc., and Obama’s having to disown him.
I’m surprised at the ready dismissal of Hilary as ‘somone’s wife’. Certainly, the level of media attention (and hysteria) around her suggest that she was taken by the public very much as her own person. In fact, I would be willing to guess that if she were more willing to play the role of ‘Bill’s wife’ she would have been more popular. America is not going to have a woman President anytime soon, but when it happens, I think HIlary’s campaign, sheer perseverance (many would say complete denial of reality!) will have made it all that more easy, and likely.
Apologies for the lengthy post, but I think it’s unfair to dismiss the substance of Hilary’s campain, and of the woman herself, as a formidable public figure in American politics.
V
As much as I’d like to be true, being the wife of a former President definitely played a role in all of Hillary’s campaigns. On the most basic level because she changed her name from Rodham to Clinton, and because simple name recognition is a huge part of voting.
Also, she used Bill Clinton widely while campaigning, much of her campaign staff was Bill’s, and the Superdelegates they depended on (and many of whom let them down) were at one point given jobs by Bill. It’s not a huge limb to say Hillary would not be Senator of New York or a viable Presidential candidate without her time in the national spotlight as first lady. Even she cited that experience.
Finally, to act like dynasty doesn’t play a role in American politics is (now) just willful thinking. This is the way leadership has been determined for centuries and the psycho-social forces are very very strong. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. To quote Hillary,
It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush”
Perhaps that is because the stereotypical qualities attributed to women don’t necessarily manifest themselves in the role of national leader.