French Royal signals feminisation of western politics

Royal signals feminisation of western politics
By Gideon Rachman
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Published: November 17 2006 18:24 | Last updated: November 17 2006 18:24


In a couple of years, it is entirely possible that the presidents of France and the US and the chancellor of Germany will all be women. Ségolène Royal’s success in securing the French Socialist party’s nomination for next year’s presidential election is evidence of a historic shift. Women may no longer be at a disadvantage when they stand for the highest political offices in the western world. In fact, being a woman can now be a considerable electoral asset.

Previous generations of women leaders had to play down their femininity. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir needed to show they were tougher than the men surrounding them. Meir is said to have remarked that: “I’m the only one in this cabinet with any balls.”

But the new generation is different. Ms Royal (now universally known as Ségolène) has deliberately played up her feminine qualities. She has campaigned as what Le Monde called a “mummy candidate”, introducing herself to audiences as the mother of a family of four and announcing that: “I want to do for the children of this country, what I was able to do for my own children.” In her book The Truth of a Woman, published in 1996, she argued that a world run by women might be a less violent place. At a time when many French people seem to be longing for change in a generalised sense – but are frightened by specific social and economic reforms – the very fact that Ms Royal is a woman offers the promise of novelty and a fresh start.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has played much less deliberately on the fact that she is a woman. But her consensual and low-key style was a definite electoral asset when she ran against her macho, cigar-chomping predecessor, Gerhard Schröder.

Could the feminisation of politics also work on the other side of the Atlantic – and help propel Hillary Clinton to the White House? There are signs of change. Nancy Pelosi, the new speaker of the House of Representatives, is the first woman to hold the job and campaigned explicitly as a “mother and a grandmother” – making a point of saying that if her pregnant daughter went into labour in the final stages of the campaign, she would break off whatever she was doing and rush to the hospital.

Mrs Clinton can also play “mummy politics” if needs be. This, after all, is the author of the book It Takes a Village (to raise a child) – and the woman whose first significant political project was a doomed effort to introduce universal healthcare to the US. Mrs Clinton, Ms Merkel and
Ms Royal have all campaigned on a policy of incremental, step-by-step reform, rather than sudden, wrenching change. Mrs Clinton’s campaign manager for the Senate in 2000 called it the “school of smaller steps”. Ms Royal’s supporters have called it pointillist politics, after the school of painters who built up a big picture through lots of little dots.

Ms Royal’s success in winning the Socialist nomination owed something to her ability to bring new women members into the party. Mrs Clinton may also attempt to rally women’s votes. In her recent book The Case for Hillary Clinton, Susan Estrich, a law professor and political operative, presents voting for Mrs Clinton as a feminist duty.

Of course, there are many people in the US who believe that Mrs Clinton cannot win. No senator has won the presidency since 1960; she is a north-eastern liberal with little appeal in the south and west; and she is regarded as a divisive and chilly personality. All true – but she is also the leading Democratic candidate, at a time when the Republicans are reeling. What would once have been considered the biggest barrier to her bid – the fact that she would be the first woman president – may be turning into an advantage. After a macho president who has taken America into an unpopular war, a more cautious woman may have a certain appeal.

Of course, women running for the highest offices in the land are always going to face questions that are simply not asked of men. Why – for example – have they chosen this most demanding of careers? Give the wrong answer and you risk antagonising someone. There are American women who have never forgiven Mrs Clinton for apparently scorning those who choose to “stay at home and bake cookies”.

But skilfully played, the question can be turned to advantage. Laurent Fabius, a Socialist rival, harmed himself far more than Ms Royal when he asked of her: “But who will look after the children?” Mr Fabius heatedly denied making the comment – but Ms Royal trumpeted it in her final campaign rallies.

Perhaps the biggest gender question that both Mrs Clinton and Ms Royal will have to overcome is whether France or the US is ready for a woman as commander-in-chief. Ms Royal’s biggest stumbles in televised debates came when she appeared not to understand the Iranian nuclear issue. Mrs Clinton has tried to neutralise the national security question by securing a place on the Senate armed services committee.

A “woman’s touch” may appeal on social issues, and even in some diplomatic contexts – but are American and French voters ready to accept a feminine finger on the nuclear button? My guess is that the answer to that will be – why not?

The writer is the FT’s international affairs columnist. He writes regularly through the week at www.ft.com/rachmanblog