Girl Power

A hero has emerged on the global stage in the aftermath of the shootings in Christchurch New Zealand. Ms. Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s Prime Minister has become something of an international star through her handling of the crisis. She somehow managed to find the perfect combination of compassion and steely determination. The global media, particularly the “liberal” media can’t seem to get enough of her and when you compare her with the likes of her British Counterpart, Ms. Theresa May or the incumbent of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Ms. Ardern can’t help but look like the image of what a leader
should look like as can be seen from the following press clippings:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/26/jacinda-ardern-brexit-theresa-may

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/26/the-difficult-love-of-jacinda-ardern-cannot-be-easily-emulated-not-by-white-australian-culture-loving-itself

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/opinion/jacinda-ardern-shows-world-a-glimpse-true-leadership/ 

Ms. Ardern’s display of leadership was such that a good friend of mine remarked that we should let her become a global statesperson, especially when you consider how badly the men have messed up the world.

While I agree with the fact that Ms. Ardern has been exemplary and some of the prominent male leaders around the globe have been disasters, I believe it’s a case of Ms. Ardern being pretty good and some of her male contemporaries being awful rather than a case of female leadership being better than the male variety.

There is no evidence to support the fact that women make better leaders than men. If you define a leader as someone who has done something to improve the lot of the people under him or her, the record of women in power hasn’t been terribly impressive. Sad to say, this has been especially true in Asia, particularly in South Asia, where societies take patriarchy to an extreme.

Perhaps the closest thing to a decent leader in Asia was Mrs. Indira Gandhi, who proved to be very good at using power but slightly less good at doing good things with it. Mrs. Gandhi followed her father’s socialist leanings and the results are probably best summed up by recent comments from India’s finance minister, Mr. Arun Jaitley (though, to be fair to the Gandhi family, this is an election month in India and comments made by politicians will be exaggerated):

https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/2019-lok-sabha-election-rahul-gandhi-promises-rs-12000-to-poor-under-minimum-income-scheme/story/330726.html 

Mrs. Gandhi was capable of making hard decisions, as was shown when she sent the troops into the Golden Temple in Amritsar, Punjab (the holiest place in Sikhism) and paid for it with her life. While Mrs. Gandhi did help India develop a space program, the lot of ordinary Indians only started to see progress when PV Narasimha Rao started to dismantle the “License Raj.” It would seem that Mrs. Gandhi’s legacy was to ensure that her foreign-born daughter-in-law would inherit a well-oiled party machine that would make her the most powerful woman in South Asia for the better part of a decade.

To be fair to Mrs. Gandhi, she was probably better for India than Benazir Bhutto in neighboring Pakistan or the Two Begums in neighboring Bangladesh. Ms. Bhutto looked stunning and spoke exceptionally well, which made her the darling of the Western Media for a time but her record in office was such that the Economist, which prides itself in supporting democracy, actually applauded when she was dismissed by Farooq Leghari, the President she installed.

The two most notable women, who have come to power and seemingly done some good for their people are Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Angela Merkle in Germany. Both ladies were in power for the better part of a decade (Mrs. Merkle is still in power) and on the scale of things have not been disasters for their nations.

Mrs. Thatcher in particular deserves credit for transforming Britain into a fairly dynamic economy. As my Uncle Nick (who is English) said, “Thatcherism has made people in England work harder.” While there was much to disagree with her over, one cannot deny that she did help create a certain level of prosperity, which her predecessors could not do.

So, what does it say about the state of things that the better lady leaders come out of the “developed world?”

Let’s start with the fact that while fields like politics and business are primarily male dominated, it is possible for women to rise to the top. While the ladies I’ve mentioned were in politics, the business world is seeing a rise of women in traditionally male areas. One has to think of Mary Barra CEO of General Motors, Dhivya Suryadevara the CFO of General Motors and Ginni Rometty the CEO of IBM.

However, it’s still tougher for a woman to climb to the top than it is for a man in many fields. The result of this has been that the women who reach the top have to work harder than the men. In some ways, the women who reach the top, end up sacrificing what we perceive to be “feminine” values to become as “aggressive” as the men around them. One could argue that the women who reached the top in places like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh needed to become more ruthless.

Secondly, in some parts of the world, families still count. I can’t think of a lady politician in Asia who didn’t have a prominent husband or father. Indira Gandhi was the daughter of India’s first Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto was also a daughter of a former Prime Minister and Corazon Aquino was the wife of a prominent politician. These ladies had a head start in terms of “brand” recognition and the power of the family brand overcame any disadvantages of gender. Question remains, would a Margaret Thatcher or Jacinda Ardern be able to climb up in “developing Asia?”

Opportunities for women, who happen to be ruthless and hardworking are there for the taking. However, women, particularly the ones from less privileged backgrounds will need freer cultures. While, India has made strides in educating a portion of its women (I think of my clients in the IIT and IIM Alumni, who were all very brainy), corporate culture in India remains pretty closed, as is described by this article from my friend, Andy Mukherjee:

https://www.bloombergquint.com/global-economics/india-business-fiascoes-show-crony-system-must-change#gs.32xav6

If its tough for a guy without the backing of money and connections to crack the inner circle, it will be tougher for women. It should be noted that the most prominent Indian women in business, namely Indra Nooyi, former CEO of Pepsico and Dhivya Suryadevara of General Motors made it big in America. To be fair, there have been women like Chanda Kocchar, former CEO of ICICI Bank and Arundhati Battacharya, former Chairperson of State Bank of India. However, they remain in a very tiny minority. What is tough for a man is inevitably more so for a woman. 

The point remains, many parts of the developing world, need to look at unleashing the potential of their women folk.  I take Vietnam as a good example of an Asian nation that uses its women folk very effectively. A good portion of Vietnam is run by women and the Vietnamese economy is regarded as one of the most dynamic in South East Asia. 

There is, as they say, no evidence to show that women make better leaders than men, even in women dominated professions. However, as Ms. Ardern and Mrs. Thatcher have shown, when women reach the top, they are as capable as their men folk. Societies that create opportunities for their women folk do prosper. 

Let’s go back to the example of India, which was for many years closed itself from the world. While the first lady to run the country was the daughter of its first Prime Minister, women did get educated. While, in many parts of India the lot of women can be pretty miserable, the growing number of highly educated women is helping the nation prosper in an increasingly globalized world.