In America politics is a fast paced game, where the stakes keep shuffling and issues come and go. In order to stay on top, the parties spend big money on pollsters, pundits, pitch-men and spin doctors in an effort to keep as many sections of the voting public on their side as possible. As elsewhere, loyalties are not easily broken and a complicated weighting system and the Electoral College mean that predicting winners to make a living makes your amateur weatherman look good. Election years are feverish times when people get swept up in rhetoric, buzzwords are generated, newspapers become battlegrounds for smear campaigns and big network pundits are treated like rock stars.

The year 2008 is an election year of particular note with the scene cast over nearly a decade. This was a great opportunity for the Democrats to put their man in the oval office; what made it more exciting though, was the possibility that their man might have been a woman. Hillary Clinton was the first woman from a major party in the United States of America who seemed to have the wherewithal to hold her own and give as good as she got in the tough race to the White House. Also, being prominently billed in the limelight was Sarah Palin, a political nobody, plucked from relative obscurity in Alaska where she served as Governor and Mayor of Wasilla. Why Sarah Palin on the ticket with that maverick septuagenarian John McCain? The answer was not too difficult to fathom. Both Obama and Hillary were historic potential presidents with their own private vote banks that tagged along with what made them historic. Obama was African American and young, educated and ambitious. Hillary was a woman and an old hand at statesmanship (states-woman-ship?) as former First Lady. The republicans had to come up with something to make their ticket look anything apart from dyed in the blue, old school republican (White, middle aged/old, conservative and rich). Enter Palin; she was young and good looking (former Miss Alaska runner up ) and had strong religious and family values (Anti-abortion, pro-hunting, five kids) . She was the ideal vice presidential candidate, her good looks and strong conservative streak ensured that the Reps would not alienate their traditional vote bank (White, middle aged/old, conservative and rich), while adding excitement and glamour to the ticket. The network coverage of the race was a shambles whenever the topic turned to Sarah Palin. The pundits brought in to talk about her were not political pundits at all – they were fashion pundits. The figures being quoted nationwide were not popularity or opinion poll numbers, they were about the cost of her wardrobe and makeover.

In short, the Republican vice presidential was being treated like a contestant in yet another pageant, the winner of which would wear the title of Vice President of America. Why was Sarah Palin being treated like this? Is it yet another example of the “Sexist bigotry” towards women in politics? This is very much a question open to debate, so let’s mull over both sides of the question. A cursory glance reveals that a long line of strong female politicians, both past and present, have graced the corridors of power in the Indian subcontinent. Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Chandrika Kumaratunga, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Shaikh Hasina and Khalida Zia have all been heads of an elected office in systems of Parliamentary democracy here.  Apart from the sub-continent, women have also been in power elsewhere, and have served with distinction. The names Margaret Thatcher, Isabel Peron also readily spring to mind when one thinks of figures that shaped entire national policies and left long standing marks on national consciousness. The point behind enumerating all the noteworthy female leaders in contemporary history is to deflate the most sexist sort of argument; women can be and have done well as leaders as these examples more than amply illustrate.

But are women really taken as seriously as men when it comes to politics? It is now that the waters become murky and unclear. Herein lies an undercurrent that smacks of double standards. Italy recently had popular elections which saw a major party (the ruling party nonetheless) fielding good looking women candidates. When accused by first lady of unfairly taking advantage of gender while sidelining real political issues by fielding these “political-bimbettes”, the Prime Minister’s answer was that the Italian parliament could do with a little bit of glamour. This answer is revealing as to attitudes that the political establishment holds towards women as serious political candidates. If these politicians who are to become our leaders look upon women in this way, what hope have we or our children of seeing a world free of distinction based on gender?

The vast majority of women seem to have to have some sort of crutch in order to have some hope of coming into power; for Palin it was her beauty and background. This holds true for leaders like Indira Gandhi, Kumaratunga, Bhutto and Peron who all came from a strong lineage of political leaders. This reveals flaws in the attitude of the voters towards female political candidates. Other women making their own mark are frequently subject to questions over their chastity and image. Why is it that a woman cannot win an election unless

a) She fills out a satisfactory cup size and can walk without spilling a book on her head?

b) Her daddy was a good prime minister?

c) She panders to age old women related cultural stereotypes (mother, homemaker etc)?

Here, again the Presidential election of 2008 is historic. What makes it so is not the fact that a black man won thousands of multi color votes and was swept to the white house, but that a mature society is in the making. What was clear was the difference in the way that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were received and taken by the public. Hillary Clinton was seen as a powerful candidate with strong foreign policy credentials, who was not soft on homeland security and had the brains to solve economic uncertainty that loomed over the future. This proves beyond doubt to me again that women in the first place must make an effort to be taken seriously. The more the women who come into power cashing in on their good looks and their ability to change diapers, the less respect they will be accorded. The fight for empowerment is far greater than any political fight in its scope and meaning, however it is the more obvious, more publicized areas like politics and media that are responsible for creating the image of a woman that needs to be seen by our future generations, who is not only able to care and nurture but also able to make epochal decisions on a world scale.

Pic Source: USmagazine

---

The Author
 Suresh is a research engineer at North Carolina State University.

---

Related Articles

• She’s the man! – The Assumption of female passivity
• Talking about Sarah