The gathering of over 30,000 women from all cultures, countries and climates in Beijing this month marked an historic event for women to let their importance felt around the globe as they expressed their thoughts, feelings, frustrations, and fears openly

The role of women parliamentarians was discussed in light of the historic leaderships of Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi. Margaret Thatcher took a beating for not standing up to the issues of women during her tenure in the chair. Countries like England, US and Japan, along with the rest of the world, were criticized for doing little to reduce the disparity in the wages of women compared to men (from 60% in Japan to 20% in the US). The conference concluded that whereas Margaret Thatcher may have been good for her country, her presence caused a deterioration of women's position in England. Are women parliamentarian good for women, was the question raised? A unanimous agreement followed that they are not. The reasons cited for the failure of women parliamentarians had roots in the record of how women have fared in politics and civic affairs throughout the history of mankind. Women did not get to vote in most of West until the two World Wars; countries like Liechtenstein and Kuwait still forbid women to vote. Given the consistent history of exploitation of women to non-political activities, are they ready to plunge into what is traditionally considered male domain?

From the preliterate cultures to the modern, women have been relegated to second class citizenship throughout the world. The failure of the Equal Rights Amendment to be ratified in the US is a classic example of how women are viewed in the US despite the high literacy rate and social norms claiming equality of sexes. What has this done to the psyche of women? Has this caused a genetic transformation in their brains to makes them good only at micro-management, such as those of households and small community affairs and when it comes to macro-management, creating vision and mission plans, they fail. It is debatable to label women inferior in their ability to manage and visualize, but it is clear that they are not sympathetic to their sisters when they occupy seats where they can make a difference. One reason for this is their own feeling of insecurity. Confronted with male domination in politics, women reaching to the top must act tough to appear at par with them; they are afraid, if they tend too much to women's issues, they may be labeled as feminist and that will dilute their impact as a leader. Call it a handicap, a stereotype stigma, or a genetically disadvantaged position, women can not be as effective as heads of state as their male counterparts. Compounding this socially-induced handicap to women is their innate inability to understand other women, as sociologists argue. The roots of this behaviour again go to the traditional roles assigned to women where other women were seen as rivals.

Women attending the seminar on women parliamentarian issue found it quite amazing that whereas women parliamentarian and heads of state are a rarity in the West, the part of globe least likely to have women represent, Asia, had nothing but women ruling. What makes these leaders stick out is that in their countries the representation of women in politics is almost negligible. The question becomes more perplexing since these are not isolated observations. From Pakistan to Philippines, we are talking about a large variation in cultural values, literacy rates, religious convictions and history. What is the common element among all these countries to deserve women chiefs of state? Unfortunately, the reasons cited are not helpful in justifying their presence. Most of these Third World female heads of state have capitalized on their affiliation to political families. Riding at the coattails of their fathers and husbands, these women have exploited the sympathy feelings of their populace to compensate for their dead fathers and husbands. Only in the Third World could this happen where people are gullible, consider death, natural or inflicted, as an injustice and are ready to repay debts to their conscience, real or implanted. Gandhis, Bhuttos, Naikes, Zias, Aquinos are ample examples to give strength to this theory. Nowhere in these countries are women free, nowhere do you see them in political life, how could they rise to the ultimate leadership when they had no role models to emulate? Except, of course, for unjustifiable exploitation of the illiterate populace.

Leaving aside the debate whether these Asian women should have been in the ruling garb or not, the emphasis shifts to questioning what have these women done for their sisters during their tenure? If Margaret Thatcher took a licking, there is more in coffers for their ladies. The women at the Beijing conference were quite adamant agreeing unanimously that none of these leaders have done anything to help the causes of women; in fact, in their quest to act "manly" to keep their male counterparts happy, these women have acted more ruthlessly in a chauvinistic manner against women than men ever did and have hurt them more.

In a country like Pakistan where less than one percent of school-age girls go to school, no attempts have been made to improve this grassroot situation; maternal mortality at birth is one of the highest in Pakistan, little has been done to improve it? Women continued to be used as pawns in marriage games, mutilated and burned but little has been done to give them legal protection. And only in Pakistan, a woman needs to produce four male witnesses to her rape to accuse someone, laments Time magazine in its 11 September issue. There was however a facade created

There are those who will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that women are equal in intelligence and abilities to men but then there are those who will cite the irrefutable statistics that women have never really excelled in any field, including the fields supposedly considered to be in women's domain like cooking and beauty-care. Can you name women philosophers? Can you name women Nobel Laureates? Can you name women authors and poets of substance? As chauvinistic as this position appears, it has some teeth, even if you remove the flakes of education, suppression of women rights and religious convictions that kept women trailing men. Yes, we can debate the qualifications needed to be a scientist and researcher, an author or a poet but when it comes to politics, what disadvantages did women have in becoming good leaders? Well, one crucial trait that is incumbent upon all successful politicians is their compassion towards their constituency and that's where these ruling Asian ladies have unequivocally failed. Ask any Western woman why she prefers male gynecologists, she will respond that male doctors are more compassionate; a woman gynecologist ends up being "too" understanding, knowing exactly what's wrong with them. Feminists of course would seriously take issue with this thesis but fact remains that most women themselves consider other women as poor listener.

The greatest qualification of a political leader is that he or she should be able to develop a mission and vision for people.

[15 September 1995]