An old theory exists that war and conflict are a product of male genetics. It has long been asserted, for instance, that the male instinct is to compete, while the female policy is to conspire. Therefore, if women were in charge, the world would/should be more likely to attain peace. This theory led me to look at the case of Bangladesh: a predominantly Muslim nation (about 80-85% of the population) where two of the most powerful people happen to be women.
Bangladesh is home to two main political parties: the Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). The Awami League is led by Sheikh Hasina Wajed, while Begum Khaleda Zia is the BNP honcho. To say the two do not get along is an understatement, yet they actually have a lot in common. Both women became leaders of their respective parties mainly due to nepotism. Khaleda Zia is the widow to the previous BNP leader, while Sheikh Hasina is daughter to the former AL leader and first president of Bangladesh. Both are former prime ministers (Sheikh Hasina from 1996 to 2001 and Khaleda Zia from 1991 to 1996 and then again from 2001 to 2006) and both of their fathers were assassinated. Finally, both leaders are powerful women in a traditionally highly male dominated society.
The rivalry between the two women extends to the two groups of supporters. Every five years during election season it is a safe bet that the two groups of supporters will literally be at each others throats. So too this time around. Since November 2006, about 40 people have died in riots and demonstrations, while millions of dollars of property has been damaged. Interim President Iajuddin Ahmed even felt it necessary to declare a state of emergency and delay the national elections originally scheduled for January 22. This time the trouble started when the AL and her allies announced they would boycott the elections. Sheikh Hasina decided on this measure after Khaleda Zia ended her five-year tenure as prime minister in October and handed power to the interim authority, leaving a number of her cronies in key positions. The AL thus accused interim President Iajuddin of impartiality and favoring Khaleda in the polls, demanding he resign as caretaker president. After weeks of protests, strikes and transport blockades, Iajuddin decided to resign.
Princeton-educated economist, Fakhruddin Ahmed, was appointed chief of the caretaker government on January 12 and immediately announced free and fair elections would be held as soon as possible, after a major crackdown on crime and corruption. Seeing that Bangladesh has been consistently ranked by Transparency International as one of the most corrupt nations every year this century, this is more than just an uphill task.
Either way, the point is that Bangladesh has not become any more quiet, conciliatory or peaceful since Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia began dominating national politics. With an increase in the amounts of female presidents and prime ministers worldwide in countries as diverse as Latvia, New Zeeland, Germany, the Philippines, Liberia, Chile and maybe even the United States in 2008, those who were hoping this might mean a sharp decrease in wars and conflicts will probably find themselves facing a very cold shower. As a firm believer in equal rights, I certainly welcome the increasing participation of women in all levels of society. All I am saying is that this will most probably not translate into a significant shift in global politics, policies, or an increase in the prospect of peace.
Bangladesh is home to two main political parties: the Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). The Awami League is led by Sheikh Hasina Wajed, while Begum Khaleda Zia is the BNP honcho. To say the two do not get along is an understatement, yet they actually have a lot in common. Both women became leaders of their respective parties mainly due to nepotism. Khaleda Zia is the widow to the previous BNP leader, while Sheikh Hasina is daughter to the former AL leader and first president of Bangladesh. Both are former prime ministers (Sheikh Hasina from 1996 to 2001 and Khaleda Zia from 1991 to 1996 and then again from 2001 to 2006) and both of their fathers were assassinated. Finally, both leaders are powerful women in a traditionally highly male dominated society.
The rivalry between the two women extends to the two groups of supporters. Every five years during election season it is a safe bet that the two groups of supporters will literally be at each others throats. So too this time around. Since November 2006, about 40 people have died in riots and demonstrations, while millions of dollars of property has been damaged. Interim President Iajuddin Ahmed even felt it necessary to declare a state of emergency and delay the national elections originally scheduled for January 22. This time the trouble started when the AL and her allies announced they would boycott the elections. Sheikh Hasina decided on this measure after Khaleda Zia ended her five-year tenure as prime minister in October and handed power to the interim authority, leaving a number of her cronies in key positions. The AL thus accused interim President Iajuddin of impartiality and favoring Khaleda in the polls, demanding he resign as caretaker president. After weeks of protests, strikes and transport blockades, Iajuddin decided to resign.
Princeton-educated economist, Fakhruddin Ahmed, was appointed chief of the caretaker government on January 12 and immediately announced free and fair elections would be held as soon as possible, after a major crackdown on crime and corruption. Seeing that Bangladesh has been consistently ranked by Transparency International as one of the most corrupt nations every year this century, this is more than just an uphill task.
Either way, the point is that Bangladesh has not become any more quiet, conciliatory or peaceful since Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia began dominating national politics. With an increase in the amounts of female presidents and prime ministers worldwide in countries as diverse as Latvia, New Zeeland, Germany, the Philippines, Liberia, Chile and maybe even the United States in 2008, those who were hoping this might mean a sharp decrease in wars and conflicts will probably find themselves facing a very cold shower. As a firm believer in equal rights, I certainly welcome the increasing participation of women in all levels of society. All I am saying is that this will most probably not translate into a significant shift in global politics, policies, or an increase in the prospect of peace.
2 comments:
I can agree to your conclusions but I must differ regarding your argumentation. I see a logical flow connecting a statement which is true to the total group of females, hence to the majority of the set, to specific individuals that are an exception in this group. However, your conclusion that the fact that we have female leaders will not bring peace is probably true, but it has nothing to do with your starting point.
I personally believe that if our culture will become more 'female', i.e. there will be many females in top positions and males in positions that are currently typically female, we will have more chance to have a quiet life.
In other words - it is not enough to watch the top.
Women don't exist in a vacuum. When only male qualities (aggression, cut-throat competition) are valued in business and politics, then women in a male dominated society will take on those qualities as well.
But that's only part of it. Business and politics, even if they weren't part of a male dominated society, do tend to reward the most highly competitive.
So expect any woman in power to be just as mean and nasty as a man.
Post a Comment