Dynasties and Female Leadership in Asia

Dynasties and Female Leadership in Asia

Project sponsored by the German Science Foundation (DFG), April 2003-May 2005.

Project directors: Dr. Claudia Derichs (Duisburg) and Prof. Mark R. Thompson (Erlangen-Nürnberg)

Summary:

It is striking how many governments or opposition movements in Northeast, Southeast, and South Asia have been, or are led by women given the fact that these countries are widely considered patriarchal and paternalistic in character. Our study encompasses fourteen women leaders from ten countries (Bangladesh: Sheikh Hasina Wajed and Begum Khaleda Zia; Burma: Aung San Suu Kyi; India: Sonia Gandhi*; Indonesia: Megawati Sukarnoputri; Japan: Tanaka Makiko; Malaysia: Wan Azizah Wan Ismail; Pakistan: Benazir Bhutto; Philippines: Corazon C. Aquino and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo; Sri Lanka: Chandrika Kumaratunga*; South Korea: Park Geun Hye). There is no doubt that the rise of female leaders is linked to their being members of prominent families: they are all the daughters, wives, or widows or former government heads or leading oppositionists. These women share dynastic origins and "inherited" political leadership. As a general phenomenon political dynasties are not unusual. What is less usual is women being the beneficiaries of their family's political inheritance. It is not just a "shortage" of men that leads women to be selected as successors within the family, but also their ability to symbolize a non-partisan alternatives to corrupt (male) leadership. In addition to the question "why women leaders" this project will consider what difference female leadership makes. Finally, we will examine what the results of this study can add to discussions of the concepts of gender, development, and democratization.

The phenomenon of women leaders in Asia is independent of levels of economic development, cultural differences, and types of political systems. Most cases of female leadership are found in developing countries in the region. But Japan is a highly developed industrial nation and South Korea is a leading newly industrialized economy (NIE). Malaysia is a middle-income country which already has a major industrial sector. Women leaders are found in predominantly Buddhist (Burma and Sri Lanka), Christian (the Philippines), and Hindu (India) countries. Most surprising – given widespread stereotypes about Islam – is female leadership in the heavily Muslim states in Southeast and South Asia. Except for Afghanistan and Brunei, women lead, or have led, governments or opposition groups in all predominantly Islamic countries in this region (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan). Women have both led struggles against dictatorships and participated in competitive, democratic elections. These differences in economic development, culture, and political systems provide an opportunity to seek out important similarities through a "most different cases" methodology.

Why so many women leaders in Asia?: in part because male relatives were unable, unwilling, or unsuited to take over the leadership of a family-based political faction. But women were not chosen simply because of an absence of a suitable male relative. They appeared less threatening to potential rivals, who thus could support their leadership without sacrificing their own ambitions. Although they enjoyed a dynastic aura, it was expected that real control of the party, movement, or faction would be retained by men. Female leadership was perceived as largely symbolic. Their ability to unite the faction through their integrative character was considered more important than their actual political skills.

Another reason for the rise of women leaders is that traditional stereotypes about their gender were not a hindrance, but proved to be to their political advantage. In the feminist literature the rarity of female leadership is commonly explained by the cultural construction of the role of women which is traditionally based in the family. But such a patriarchal ideology did not hinder women from achieving leading political positions in these Asian countries. Women leaders were often perceived as apolitical. They were best suited to lead a moral struggle against male machiavellis. As the wives, widows, or daughters of male martyrs, these women rose to political power "over his dead body," in Diane Kincaid's ironic phrase. Murdered, imprisoned, or discredited Asian male politicians became political martyrs (at least for their supporters); their often ambivalent political backgrounds were conveniently overlooked as "their" cause was taken up by their female successors. At the same time the experience and abilities of these women was left unquestioned. (Once in power, however, the competence of women leaders often became a question of great political importance, the answer to which was often given by men.)

Women leaders portrayed themselves as fresh, uncorrupted alternatives to the male-dominated political "club." Their gender made this claim more plausible. It enabled them to achieve the apparently paradoxical: while they were the heirs to a political dynasty - which in few cases was renowned for its commitment to good governance or its upholding of lofty political morals – they appeared to be politically virtuous with a sincere commitment to reform. Because they claimed to offer a moral alternative, any indication of missteps once in office led to rapid disillusionment in the population. This is, for example, the background of Benazir Bhutto's rapid fall from grace (and power) in Pakistan. Grave accusations of massive corruption against her administration (directed primarily against her husband) contributed to the erosion of the country's democracy.

We do not only ask why so there are so many women leaders in Asia, but also what difference they make once in office. In this regard, we will pose the following questions:

-Have female leaders' efforts to bring about social, economic, cultural, and political changes transformed gender relations in any meaningful sense?

-In particular, have women leaders put emphasis on strengthening female involvement in economic development?

-Is their a link between female leadership and the promotion of democracy/democratization?

-Does the example of female leadership and their political agenda promote increased political participation by women generally?

More generally, we hope to use the comparative findings of this study to critically re-examine gender in relation to issues of development, culture, and democracy. We do not share the view prevalent in political science and feminist studies that the phenomenon of female leadership is merely a trivial consequence of dynastic politics. It is of relevance both for the understanding of the perception of gender during political crises or reformist periods as well as for assessing the impact of female leadership on the transformation of gender roles in the course of social, economic, and political change.

* These women can already refer to a female tradition of political leadership, since Indira Gandhi in India and Sirimavo Ratwatte Dias Banadaranaike in Sri Lanka were two famous political leaders. We will deal with this fact in a special section of the analysis.