Destroy the Table: Barriers to the Electing of Women World Leaders

Written by Leila Koohi

(Source: Erin Schaff / via. NBC News)

2020, though not without its onslaught of tragedy and hardship, witnessed significant achievements in politics and government with Maia Sandu elected as Moldova’s first woman president and Kamala Harris elected as America’s first woman vice-president. Harris, the United States’ first Black and South Asian American vice president, as well as the highest-ranking woman in American history, has broken barriers and laid the foundations for the next generation of women politicians. In particular, her election is a revolutionary swing away from the starkly contrasting election of Donald Trump — the epitome of American isolationism and bigotry. Despite these advances for the feminist agenda, the election of women into office remains a standard outside of the status quo, as patriarchal expectations and misogynistic beliefs that contribute to the disparity of women world leaders in their battle against the rising forces of populism that threatens to undo years of emancipatory efforts.

According to the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, otherwise known as UN Women, 119 out of 195 sovereign states have never had a woman leader and, currently, only 21 countries have women who serve as Heads of State — highlighting the disparity of women world leaders across the globe. Such a gendered divide poses significant questions for the future of equality in international politics, with UN Women calculations predicting that “parity in the highest decisions of power will not be reached for another 130 years.” The current disparity exemplifies the barriers that women face in entering the workforce due to patriarchal narratives and having their qualifications viewed as legitimate.

A recent study observing the gender gap in the workforce by the World Economic Forum found that there are five industry barriers to hiring and promoting women: lack of qualified incoming talent, lack of work-life balance, unconscious bias amongst managers, lack of female role models, and women’s confidence or aspirations. While the study largely focused on corporate hiring, the same five barriers for women are paralleled in the world of politics, with some affecting women’s participation in the field more so than others. Nonetheless, for the purpose of assessing each point equitably, we’ll look at all five barriers.

Although “lack of qualified incoming talent” is listed as a barrier to hiring women, evidence suggests there to be no such “lack” of qualified women. A study from Yale, assessing the gender divide in the workforce found that since 2014 women outnumbered men in university within countries holding membership to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCED). In the United States, for example, which is the largest OECD country, women account for 60 per cent of university graduates, 60 percent of master’s degrees, and 52 percent of doctorates. Despite their degrees, 36 percent of respondents to the World Economic Forum’s survey stated there “weren’t enough qualified women for the positions they were looking to fill” and 10 percent stated they had no barriers within their hiring process.

However, while there allegedly may be “no barriers” within hiring practices for women, there are systemic socio-economic barriers that prevent their applications from being considered such as “lack of work-life balance.” Long-standing messages of women’s roles in society have been reinforced by systems stemming from patriarchal roots. Particularly, law and government were primarily deemed to be exclusively appropriate for men, whereas “a woman’s place” was within the home, as the homemaker and caregiver. This patriarchal standard of the time has continued on in present day in discreet forms, making it difficult for women to enter into the workforce, or into an unconventional job sector such as politics or government. If they choose to begin working, they are automatically designated the responsibility as both a public servant and caregiver, inevitably facing severe criticism on their capacity to serve both roles well. Former Argentinian foreign minister Susana Malcorra contests this perspective:

The role [assigned to] women is very old fashioned and centred on the notion of a family structure led by a man. So the notion of sharing parental leave, being equal partners in child rearing are seen as questionable.

If these two concerns are marginal in the process of electing women into office, why are there not more female world leaders? Ultimately, it comes down to “unconscious bias amongst managers” — with managers being constituents that elected representatives serve. Misogyny is a fickle client and it holds women to severe double-standards that set impossible expectations for anyone to surpass. According to a report published by the Wilson Centre on women’s public leadership, “a woman’s ability to lead is a key driver of how much power they will have while in office,” but public perceptions amongst men and women are that women are “too delicate” to lead. As Alice Eagly, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois points out:

The stereotype is that women aren’t agentic” — or decisive and authoritative — “and their voices aren’t as loud and they’re kind of small. Because those are the types of traits traditionally associated with men and with leaders, notions of leadership have become bound up with perceptions of masculinity.

Consequently, women face challenges of having their qualifications assessed without this sexist bias, and struggle to assert their accomplishments as legitimate. This makes it particularly difficult for them to garner public support in light of the unsolicited criticisms they face.

As though the hurdle was not high enough, an additional force is re-emerging in the world of international politics that stands to undo years of effort in the battle against this restrictive status quo: populism. The election of Donald Trump and the subsequent era of his administration have exemplified the effect of populist rhetoric on marginalized groups such as women. Donald Trump’s misogynistic remarks and inappropriate behaviour towards women is “deeply rooted in populist and fascist ideas that exalt male power and promote misogyny” and create an environment where aggressive white, male dominance is lionized:

A lot of governments and political parties are starting to raise xenophobic voices and question the idea of women’s rights — and also rights at large, but particularly women’s rights — and empowerment.

This misogyny is capitalized upon by the populist rhetoric of opposing parties. The emancipatory concept of a women leader directly clashes with the masculine aggressiveness characterized by populist leaders. Where populist leaders seek to revert their societies back to the eras of their either short-lived or imagined superiority, they also aim to destroy the legitimacy of their political opponents, particularly if they are women, by weaponizing misogynistic positions.

Existing literature presents several misogynistic socio-political systems that stand in the way of women; effectively inhibiting and restraining them from being elected into office or even making it onto the ballot. But in addition to systemic hurdles, the recent surges in populist rhetoric and the lionization of ‘strongmen’ have left BIPOC women in politics to face the issue of flagrant racism from right-wing parties who support the xenophobic and racist “machismo populism” their leaders purport. So while the world attempts to find a seat for women leaders at the “men’s table” — politics rooted in the heteronormative, misogynistic, and patriarchal beliefs of early Western law — perhaps we should look towards destroying the table entirely to rebuild it anew, together.