What can a woman leader offer?

What can a woman leader offer?

By Julia I. Suryakusuma

JAKARTA (JP): With the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle
(PDI Perjuangan) leading the polls in the preliminary election
count, it is possible that Indonesia will have a female
president.

What does this imply for women? And for the people and the
nation in general? What are the characteristics of a woman
leader, specifically as head of state?

Not many women attain political leadership positions.
According to Blondel (1987), only 0.005 percent of all political
leaders are women. Male domination is legitimized by law and
traditional values; politics which is public in nature is
considered the natural domain of men, whereas it is considered
natural for women to be in the private sphere.

Even in advanced countries with open parliamentary systems,
the underrepresentation of women is dramatic: in the U.S. House
of Representatives only 5 percent, in the Senate 2 percent, in
the British parliament 7 percent, in Germany 10 percent. Norway
is the only country which provides a vision to the future.
Between 1986 and 1989, besides the prime minister and half of the
Cabinet, women occupied 36 percent of seats in the parliament.

There are three factors identified as the primary cause of
women's underrepresentation in government and politics in
general: political socialization, structural/situational factors
and active discrimination against women. These factors, combined
with others, place women at the margins of power. Given this
context, how do women become heads of states and what is the
characteristic of their leadership?

The majority of women who become heads of state are from
developing countries (about 17 out of 31); many are from
countries with a democratic orientation; most came to power in a
period of social and political unrest; most ruled in secular
regimes.

Why did these women rise to the height of power in their
political system? One striking feature that they all had in
common: very few rose on their own account. Many emerged in times
of crisis and inherited their family power, usually a father or
husband (e.g. Aquino, Chamorro, Gandhi and Peron). Very few women
(e.g. Thatcher and Meir) rose to power without the help of
connections from powerful families.

The road to power also varies with the level of national
development: women from developing countries are more dependent
on their husband's or family's position compared to women from
advanced countries. This is what is referred to as the phenomenon
of Asian leadership which is often dynastic in nature.

Is there a male or female style of leadership? A masculine
style of leadership is associated with hierarchy, domination and
order, whereas a feminine one with cooperation, persuasion and
empowerment. However, as heads of state, there is no clear
pattern of female leadership: some have strong styles, some
softer. On matters of policy there is also no clear pattern.
However, there is a tendency for women to be more liberal.

From all the female leaders that have existed, none can be
said to be revolutionary -- none has questioned the patriarchal
power structure of their society -- to do so would be akin to
political suicide.

So, do women as national leaders have the potential to develop
a political culture and system which is pro-women and pro-people?
Do women have the potential to become transformative leaders?
Looking at Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Isabel Peron, the
answer is a resounding no. They were downright conservative,
reactionary and often implemented policies detrimental to women
and the people.

However, the case of Gro Harlem Brundtland, Norwegian prime
minister three times round (1981-1985; 1986-1989; 1990-1996),
paints a different picture. Brundtland consistently pushed
forward feminist issues, campaigning for the liberalization of
antiabortion laws and promoting the political participation of
women. She used her position as prime minister to put into
practice her feminist principles. In 1986, Brundtland broke a
world record by appointing eight women in her 18-member Cabinet.
The effect of this step created a ripple not only in the
government but also throughout the country. The women ministers
in turn strove to improve the position of other women. For
example, Helen Bosterud as the minister of justice increased the
number of female judges in Norway. If women have a reputation for
being more just and not so prone to corruption and bribery, then
surely the presence of more women in the judicial system can only
be beneficial for the nation as a whole.

However, the transformative leadership of Brundtland was not
only limited to women's issues, but also to environment -- which
earned her the title of the green goddess -- and nuclear
disarmament. As she often not only consulted with experts, but
also with ordinary people, she introduced a new approach to
global issues, and in doing so demonstrated her commitment to
open, participatory politics.

How about Megawati? Clearly Indonesia in its current reformasi
(political reform) era is far from being a Norway. The economic
crisis, a weak political culture (sectarian and superficial,
relying heavily on personality cults, symbols, physical
attributes, show-of-force, money politics and violence;
furthermore, a weak relationship between political parties and
the electorate), with diverse groups class-wise, religiously,
ethnically -- with equally diverse interests. How does a leader
reconcile the interests of say, women (who comprise 57 percent of
the electorate), with the interests of the military or Islamic
fundamentalists?

Megawati and PDI Perjuangan's strength, and one of the reasons
for their mass support, lies in the fact that they have many
symbols that are understood by ordinary people. In the context of
feudal Indonesian (read: Javanese) culture, the dynastic factor
which is antithetical to democracy is precisely one of Megawati's
main strengths: she is the daughter of Sukarno, who not only
proclaimed Indonesia's independence and was Indonesia's first
president, she has also been endowed with mystical qualities.

Sukarno is a known populist, unlike Amien Rais who is not only
relatively unknown, but whose political culture is considered too
direct and confrontational, despite the fact that these traits
are more rational and consistent with democratic values.

Precisely because PDI Perjuangan has received bad treatment
from the New Order government, this has served to strengthen
Megawati's appeal as a symbol of the oppressed. Also, Indonesia's
political culture is still oriented around personalities and the
rivalry between them, and not competition between party platforms
and policies that could potentially pull out Indonesia from its
crisis, to eventually achieve a more prosperous and democratic
society.

Another symbolic value of Megawati is her gender; her motherly
persona not only induces a feeling of security, but also signals
a more fundamental change; not only the change from a male leader
to a female leader, but the perception of a shift to a more
feminine culture (just, peaceful, honest, able to listen and
cooperate, empowering, being a role model), which all this time
has been very distortedly masculine.

The traits which are criticized by her foes; her womanliness,
her simplicity (in the context of the prevailing culture of
corruption, collusion, nepotism and conspicuous consumerism), her
silence, her attitude toward the oppression and various
injustices meted out to her by the New Order government, which
was free of anger or revenge, were precisely points to attract
the people's empathy.

However, whether she becomes president may not be for the
people to decide. Instead, this depends more on the Indonesian
political system which has yet to truly represent the composition
of the populace, i.e. without regional and functional
representatives, and the military, in the legislature.

For now, we are not yet able to judge the quality and
characteristics of Megawati's leadership, as leadership can only
be assessed in the long term. All leaders, and certainly anyone
who leads Indonesia, faces immense constraints to be successful
both policywise as well as politically.

Megawati is no exception. As president, we do not know whether
she will display the authoritarian tendencies which she has been
accused of by her opponents, whether she will be a weak leader
who is too dependent on her advisors, or whether she can be the
transformative leader that Indonesia so desperately needs now.

The writer is a social commentator and woman activist.