Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for leadership

leadership

Gender in Politics: Female leadership in times of the Covid-19 pandemic

by

By Rixa Riess

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Arden (https://images.app.goo.gl/28n8hZgHptbh4RdA8)

The Coronavirus crisis amplified the grievances of society through a burning glass. Women’s relapse into the traditional role as caretaker and housewife during the lockdowns received a lot of attention. It confirms that gender equality isn’t reality yet. 

At the same time, however, a more encouraging scientific finding seems to be proved: Women in government contribute more to security and prosperity. During the pandemic female stateswomen showed outstanding crisis management at the top of governments.   ,

First and foremost: New Zealand. Right at the beginning of the pandemic, on March 21st, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern introduced a clear guideline with a country-wide alert system. Four days later the country was put into a nationwide lockdown and by May didn’t record new cases. ‘Going hard and going early’, was the Prime Minister’s motto. She stood out for defensive action and honest communication. Although at this point New Zealand isn’t Coronavirus-free just yet, the style of governance gained respect internationally. It proved successful, besides having a low population density of 18 people per square kilometre. In comparison, the population density of the UK amounts to around 275 people per square kilometre. But, as the example of Taiwan shows (673 people per square kilometre), low population density does not always correlate with the success of virus control. Taiwan’s success story is also not only linked to its geographical advantage of being an island only, but to its rigorous and early actions. Under President Tsai Ing-wen, the government rigorously tracked travel and contact history and independently produced masks to prevent panic buys. 

Finland also managed the pandemic well. Under Prime Minister Sanna Marin, the government drove public life down to a minimum in spring, unlike their much-discussed Swedish neighbours. On May 16th, with less than 300 recorded cases, the country went into lockdown. The interior minister, Maria Ohisalo, outlined the importance of sensitive communication and cooperation within the government to successfully master the crisis.

Now, the successes at the beginning of the pandemic have been forgotten: Voices are raised criticising the inadequate measures after the first lockdown. Even though now, most heads of state can be accused of underestimating the tenacity of the virus, the initial reactions to the outbreak of Covid-19 is of enormous importance in assessing leadership: Dealing with and assessing a new acute emergency is the starting point of crisis management. With regards to this, the female-led countries performed better.

A recent study found that female-led nations suffered fewer Coronavirus deaths than their male-led neighbours: In the face of potential fatalities, female leaders made risk-averse decisions and were willing to take more economic risks at the same time. Other male-led countries claimed to have everything under control or actually denied the existence of the virus. Among them the United States, the UK, Russia, and India. Making false statements to promote their own governance turned out to be fatal. They downplayed the threat and waited for a clearer picture to make decisions. The fear of economic damage and its political consequences appeared to be bigger than the fear of the virus. In times of a pandemic, slow actions mean deaths. They undeniably reveal any faked control. Now, the named countries lament an above-average number of fatalities and additionally experienced a significant economic decline.

One could argue that the subject of a crisis shouldn’t be gender or sex but rather about finding an efficient solution to the problem, especially when the theatre of horrors has not yet reached its final act. At least for once, one could sarcastically add, no one is doubting the person in charge for their suitability for the position because of her sex. 

Some argue, that connecting good leadership to women is in itself sexist, and that female leadership is a symptom of a successful political system. An important argument, but it falls short in view of the fact that there are only 16 women globally leading a country. Now, humanity is (once again) asking itself the fundamental question of how it weighs central things like the economic system, the environment, or social division. So why not put female leadership in politics up for debate as a fundamental necessity for society?

Research perceives politics as a ‘gendered legacy’ (Lockhart & Mollick, 2013), which has been male dominated. It seems like the pandemic breaks traditional leadership approaches open. It lies within the nature of a crisis that society and politics face a new disastrous event of which the outcome can’t yet be grasped to its full extent. Long-term considerations must be made. The Coronavirus crisis has shown: basic human concerns must be taken just as seriously as the fact that a crisis needs clear decisions to be taken by the leadership. The German Chancellor’s unusual emotional plea for an understanding of the situation was exemplary. She connected the necessary enforcement and empathy. It is therefore not surprising that scholars attribute a more transformational leadership style to women. This includes concern, respect, demonstrating compassion, care and equality. Men tend to have a transactional style, which is more direct and achievement-oriented. A report from 2009 shows that women tend to demonstrate more often than men essential leadership behaviour that improves organizational performance. Regarding the financial crisis in 2008, the research found that women more frequently adopt certain leadership behaviour seen as most important in and after the crisis, e.g. motivate action and inventiveness. These skills will be needed during the recovery of the pandemic, too.

The Coronavirus crisis could be a door opener to follow up on the discussion regarding too few women in politics with action. Societies must ask themselves if there has been a fundamental misinterpretation of which characteristics determine good leadership and to whom they are attributed. Since the beginning of statehood, men are associated with leadership. Women often have been overlooked, even though they have the same necessary skills to lead. Thus, new challenges require us to question our traditional associations once again – especially because in states of emergency societies tend to stick to familiar, often traditional patterns. 

However, the re-election of some stateswomen, e.g. Tsai Ing-wen, Angela Merkel or Jacinda Ardern, speaks for itself indeed, and yet society and academia, especially after this crisis, need to contribute to this specific discourse in order to effectively promote this modern political and female leadership in the minds and in practice.

 

Rixa Riess holds a Bachelor in Culture and Economy from the University of Mannheim and is currently studying towards a Master degree in International Relations at KCL. Find her on Twitter @Rixariess.

After the European Elections: It’s time to make the case for Europe

by

By Claire Yorke:

EU-UK

Waking up to the European election results this morning I was drawn to a book of Historic Tables by S. H. Steinberg from 1949 that documents the history of the world from 58BC to the end of the Second World War. Through its pages it charts the key dates and events that shaped Europe before the two World Wars that marked the start of the 20th century. In the hundred years before 1914, each page tells a story of aggression: of empires shifting and expanding, of defeats and military alliances. Not one goes by without a nation fighting to pursue its own interests at the expense of another. How different, then, is our modern experience of Europe from the European Coal and Steel Community of 1952 to the European Union of 28 member states today. It is an evolution marked by efforts to build stability, where cooperation and political and economic union have been the guiding force. Yet the case for the successes and strengths of Europe as a unified entity has never really been made.

Politicians in Britain have often shied away from this task, aware that Europe is one of those toxic issues, particularly within certain sectors of the media who like to whip up fear over the loss of sovereignty and national values that come from closer ties to the continent. During the recent election campaign, out of the three main parties only the Liberal Democrats came out as pro-European. Labour and the Conservatives appeared to hedge on Europe – a strategy that is hardly inspiring to voters, but which gives them room for manoeuvre, at least on the domestic front.

There is a danger that in response to last night’s results these parties may move to appease wandering voters, andmake concessions to the rhetoric and politics of UKIP in order to bolster their votes in next year’s General Election. This strategy would be counterintuitive. Instead, what is needed is genuine leadership that does not play to the lowest common denominator but makes the case for Europe in a constructive and positive way.

Perhaps it is unsurprising that the more populist messages of the anti-Europe campaign have had greater traction. It is far easier to highlight faults and limitations than to prove the successes we take for granted: The ease with which we can travel or work in Europe without a visa; the access to foreign markets and investment that support the economy; the ability to project power and influence beyond our own capabilities through security and defence cooperation. Yet these are just a few of the achievements that should be championed. Cooperation, rather than isolation, remains the best means by which to face future challenges that do not observe sovereign boundaries or national interests.

This is not to say that Europe is without fault. It is a large institution in need of genuine reform: not least to update European institutions after its recent expansion and new members. Yet given its size, this is will not happen over night and will require the effort of all members actively involved in the process, including the United Kingdom. Withdrawing from that process will reduce our influence and ability to shape change. Nonetheless, criticisms of European bureaucracy point to a deeper issue: How much do people really know about the roles and functions of European institutions? The answer is not enough. Yet, no one from the political establishment, whether through desire or ability, seems able to articulate the role and importance of the Union in a way that makes it relevant to the wider British electorate.

As political leaders and supporters of the three main parties reflect on the results that gave Nigel Farage’s UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) almost 28% of the vote and made his party the largest British party in the EU, David Cameron’s remarks this morning that people are “disillusioned” with the European Union may hold some truth. However, it does not follow that a knee-jerk reaction against Europe will do anything to improve the real issue of voter disillusionment or disengagement with politics.

Indeed, it is interesting to examine what makes Nigel Farage so popular in spite of the revelations of his own views and those in his party, as showcased in his interview on LBC radio on 16 May. In an age when PR and media spin create a glossy veneer around the other party leaders, Nigel Farage appears, for all intent and purpose, as a typical man down at the pub. Through his willingness to speak his mind he has managed to connect with parts of the general public who view politicians as adept at platitudes and empty sound-bites. This in no way means his views are correct, far from it, but for some voters, conviction and sincerity are lacking from modern British politics and Farage is filling this gap. Party leaders appear reluctant to provide a vision and court unpopularity, although both are necessary attributes of leadership.

Looking ahead, there should be an honest debate about Britain’s future in Europe. This should not focus on the practicalities of an ‘In-Out’ referendum, which is unlikely to succeed when the debate is so unbalanced. Instead, discussions should revolve around where Europe does and does not work: what steps are needed for change and how reform can be achieved. What can the UK do to push for that change? Some of the core issues that have been revealed by the results, such as immigration and economic security, should also be tackled, while recognising that the concerns may have domestic, rather than European roots. How can concerns about immigration be addressed in a way that distinguishes fact from fear? How can Europe help rather than hinder economic recovery and job prospects? Politicians and leaders should articulate the purpose Europe serves for British interests, and the opportunities it provides for people rather than resorting to the populist messages that come too easily.

In his essay The Lion and the Unicorn written in 1940, during the Second World War, George Orwell writes: “Nothing ever stands still. We must add to our heritage or lose it, we must grow greater or grow less, we must go forward or backward”. The European project, begun after the Second World War is not yet finished. A lot needs to be done to move it forward in a way that is fit for the 21st century, but it would be foolish to undo the significant progress made by retreating into an isolationist and backward policy before the story is complete.

 

________________

Claire Yorke is a doctoral researcher in the War Studies Department at Kings College London and a member of NATO’s Young Leader’s Working Group. Prior to her PhD Claire was programme manager of the International Security Research Department at Chatham House in London and worked as a Parliamentary Researcher in the House of Commons. You can follow her on Twitter @ClaireYorke.