Op-ed piece for Jakarta Post, June 1999

Women as National Leaders

by

Julia I. Suryakusuma

With PDI-P leading at the polls in the preliminary election count, the fact that Indonesia will have a female president is a possibility. What does this imply for women, but also 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% of all political leaders are women. Male domination is legitimised 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 US House of Representatives only 5%, in the Senate only 2%, in the British parliament only 7%, in Germany 10%. Norway is the only country which provides a vision to the future — between 1986-89, besides the prime minister and half of the cabinet, women occupied 36% 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 states 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 seculer 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 implementing policies detrimental to women and the people.

However, the case of Gro Harlem Brundtland, Norwegian prime minister three times round (1981; 1986-89; 1990-96), paints a different picture. Brundtland consistently pushed forward feminist issues, campaigning for the liberalization of anti-abortion laws and promoting the political participation of women. She used her position as PM to put into practice her feminist principles. In 1986, Brundtland broke a world record by appointing 8 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‘ 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% of the electorate), with the interests of the military or Islamic fundamentalists?

Megawati and PDI-P‘s strength, and one of the reasons for their mass support, lies in the fact that they have many symbols that are understood by the ordinary people. In the context of the ‚feudal‘ Indonesia (read: Javanese) culture, the dynastic factor — which is antithetical to democracy — is precisely one of Mega‘s main strengths: she is the daughter of Sukarno, who not only proclaimed Indonesia‘s independence and was Indonesia‘s first president, he 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 confrontative, despite the fact that these traits are more rational and consistent with democratic values.

Precisely because PDI-P has received bad treatment from the New Order government, this has served to strengthen Mega‘s appeal as the symbol of the oppressed people‘s. Also, Indonesia‘s political culture is still oriented around personalities and the rivalry between them, and not a 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 Mega 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 another male 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 criticised by her foes — her woman-ness, her simplicity (in the context of the prevailing culture of corruption, collusion, nepotism and conspicuous consumerism), her silence, her attitude towards the oppression and various injustices meted to her by the New Order government, which was free of anger or revenge — were precisely points to attract the people‘s sympathy. However, whether she will become president, it may not be for the people to decide. Instead, this depends more on the Indonesian political system which has yet to truly represents the composition of the populace, i.e. without regional and functional representatives, and the military, in parliament.

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

Jis-22/6/99