The Paradox of Women in South Asian Politics

One of the central themes of debate in women’s studies is the vast disparity of female representation in electoral politics and in positions of political power across the world. Compared to Western democracies, South Asia claims some of the most powerful female leaders of the world. Yet, the overall participation of women in national electoral politics remains dismal. There persists a counter-trend in Western democracies where we see fewer women in the position of heads of state, but a larger representation of women in overall electoral politics.

The South Asian region and its politics and the treatment of the symbolical woman and the real women who occupy the social spaces remain a topic of great debate, spectacle, and confusion. How is it, that two Islamic states, Pakistan and Bangladesh, scoring near the lower range of the Human Development Index, with past histories of insurgencies and military hostilities, social instability and stark examples of third world backwardness managed to have elected female heads of government but the United States of America, bastion of the liberal world has not one elected female head of state? South Asia, thus presents itself as a paradox

Many women in European countries have served as heads of state and heads of government, and European countries, especially the Nordic lead the way in gender equality. In some European countries, female leaderships have been so long-lasting that an entire generation has known little less. In addition to gender equality in society, most European countries also have quota systems, in the form of political party quotas, reserved seats and legislated candidate quotas, which help women enter the political system.

On the other hand, dynastic party structure has often been the ladder for many women in the South Asian region, where familial ties through blood or marital relations to a former prime minister, president or leader of the opposition that has to lead a woman to become the head of government or state. Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, all were first given the opportunity to assume the power as heads of government of their states India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka respectively after the deaths of their fathers and husbands who were also Prime Ministers of their countries. Sheikh Hasina was elected as leader of the Awami League after her father was assassinated in 1975. She served as leader of the opposition from 1981 until she was elected as prime minister in 1996. Incidentally, Hasina’s arch political rival, Khaleda Zia, also a woman, who served as prime minister of Bangladesh before her, was exposed to the blood raged politics of the country, after the assassination of her husband, Ziaur Rehman, the seventh president of Bangladesh.

At the same time, there are also women in Indian politics such as Mamata Bandopadhyay, Uma Bharti, Mayawati, and Jayalalitha who had no familial political affiliation and who emerged as the chief ministers of their regional states in India. In Pakistan, while there are reservations in the parliament, the number of seats reserved changed from regime to regime, and the move somewhat remained a tokenistic gesture. Bangladesh has many women in the parliament and bureaucratic posts apart from women in the top leadership and opposition offices, societies in all the above-mentioned countries remain extremely patriarchal who believe men to be most suitable in leadership and administrative posts. However, on a micro-scale, there exists a great dearth of female politicians and elected officials at the local, rural and ‘panchayat’ level, where the ‘village square’ has always been male-dominated. The reason behind this is firstly starkly shown by Amartya Sen’s criteria of ‘missing women’ that showcases the low sex-ratio in south Asian countries. Often women who are elected at the local level are political puppets of their husbands and families with a large political affiliation of their own. The woman thus gets reduced to a pawn of the larger political game, with very little ability to bring about changes in the society.

While this remains the case, the question also arises then why societies with such a paternalistic and patriarchal mindset elect women to the supreme leadership position as heads of government and state. The answer to this can probably be traced to the way women are viewed by the people. The societies are so patriarchal that firstly, familial relations take precedence over gender prejudice and there seems to be an understanding that the competence, charisma and capabilities of the male political leader can be posthumously transferred to women. The death of a father or a husband who was a political leader therefore gives political legitimacy to these women.

The political emancipation and establishment of a female leader often comes from her helplessness, a sense of homelessness that she pleas to the public (such as Sonia Gandhi’s rise from a foreigner with no personal connections to Indian politics to the widow of the nation’s prime minister while led her to become the Indian Congress Party’s President). A woman’s political legitimacy in South Asian society comes at the price of her celibacy. All of these women in some way or the other are sexually repressed while at the same time portrayed as the Mother or given the maternal, feminine and loving image. Most of these women are widowed single mothers, or divorced or single with no personal lives of their own. For South Asian cultures to accept women as political leaders, they need an image or a representation of a woman unlike any other normal woman in these societies. Sexuality which is seen as a man’s dominance is seen as a woman’s weakness and hence her sexuality is stripped away from her altogether.

Indira Gandhi was separated from her husband and Sirimavo Bandaranaike became prime minister only after the assassination of her husband and Sheikh Hasina and her chief rival Khaleda Zia are both widows. Both Sheikh Hasina and Benazir Bhutto also interestingly rose to power on the basis of the deaths of their fathers, the merciless orphanhood as young girls, both establishing their campaigns on regaining and rebuilding the legacies of their fathers. Mamata Bandopadhyay, Jayalalitha, Uma Bharti, and Mayawati, on the other hand, have nothing in common but for being single women in the public eye who are chastised and thus ironically fit to rule the people at large. The conservative South Asian societies that operate heavily on family relations end up calling Jayalalitha as “Amma” or Mother, Mayawati as “Behenji” or sister and Mamata Bandopadhyay as “Didi” or Elder Sister. In the public eye, they must serve the people, as the ultimate maternal and womanly figurine, who must give up her entire life to the people at the cost of her own life, otherwise, a woman will not be deemed politically fit in these societies.

While South Asian countries have been able to achieve what many developed countries in the world have not been able to, the underlying ideologies and factors that lead to a woman’s rise in the socio-political scenario in these societies are heavily patriarchal and sexist. While these women are as capable as their male counterparts, their political careers had to be at the cost of their intimate personal lives. While a woman head of state seems progressive, societies at the end of the day remain extremely power-imbalanced and disadvantageous to women. Ultimately women in South Asian politics remain a great paradox of an interplay of perceived womanly vulnerability, chastity, and helplessness that needs to be fed to the public in order for a woman to gain political and electorate power, emancipation and legitimacy.

Shromona Jana (Intern AGA)

16/12/2019