to promote a more gender-balanced workplace within and beyond the UN system and strengthen the voice of women at the leadership table.

When the United Nations was created in 1945, Member States reaffirmed their commitment to the equal rights of women and men. But it took time to place the question of women’s status centrally on the international agenda, adopt a convention against discrimination of women and agree upon goals and actions to achieve gender equality. And despite the commitments and progress in some important respects, masculine dominance and essential inequalities between women and men have persisted to this day.

Many times, Member States have promised to ensure women’s equal access to and full participation in power structures and decision-making. But in 2010, less than 1/5 of the Members of Parliament worldwide were women and less than 1/6 of the cabinet ministers. Totally, not more than 18 women were appointed or elected as presidents or prime ministers in independent states. In the UN system, that was supposed to be in the forefront, only 1 of 4 top leaders was female.

Mapping out women’s political power globally from 1945 to 2010 the prevailing picture is one of very little progress until the 1990s. Then there is a marked change with increasing numbers of women getting to the top. What was happening? After so many years of male ruling how could women suddenly obtain high political positions? What made this possible, and what effect did it have?

Existing information was very limited. I therefore decided to investigate the 73 women in 53 countries worldwide, who managed to become presidents or prime ministers from 1960, when the first got to the top, to 2010. The research resulted in “Women of Power”, published in Norwegian by Scandinavian University Press in 2012 and in English by Policy Press in 2014. In 2015, the US Library Journal awarded the book the Choice “Outstanding Academic Title”, and by 2019 more than 3000 copies of the book were sold.

When my book was launched in English, it was presented on the websites of the International Alliance of Women, IAW, and the Women’s UN Report Network, WUNRN, in addition to Policy Press. It also received good publicity at the large Nordic Women’s Rights Forum arranged in Malmø in 2014. Well attended meetings were further held by the IAW and UN Women in New York in 2015 and 2016, in connection with the UN Commission on the Status of Women, CSW. In Geneva, the UN Library, NGO Forum, IAW and the World Council of Churches organized several talks and debates based on my book during the following years, covered by European radio stations.

In 2014, I was invited to the United Nations System Staff College, UNSSC, in Turin to lecture. UNSSC is the inter-agency learning organization of the UN system with a great number of training programmes every year. I participated among others in a 3-day “UN Leadership Exchange” for Under- and Assistant Secretaries General from different UN units worldwide, women and men, though mostly men. The aim of the Exchange was to develop the vision, courage and skills of the participants by discussing the leadership lessons of renowned speakers in different areas: a business director, a high-ranking police officer, an orchestral conductor, a professor of psychology, a former UN peacekeeper and a UN agency leader. I was requested to present my research on women heads of state and government focusing on the conditions for female top leadership and how the power was exercised.

Including a gender perspective in the Exchange was quite novel. Even the two female speakers reflecting on their own careers made no reference to the fact that they were women, and the programme participants gave the impression that the UN mandate to promote equality for women was not an essential part of their jobs, and that they were to a great extent unaware of what it should entail for their attitudes and leadership practices.

The UNSSC emphasizes the importance for the UN to credibly lead global efforts towards social justice and equality, and as a consequence of the UN leadership exchange in 2014 and demand from UN colleagues, the College decided to include among their flagship programmes in 2015 a new course on “Leadership, Women and the UN”. The aim of the training is to promote a more gender-balanced workplace across and beyond the UN system and strengthen the voice of women at the leadership table. A 5-day course was developed, aimed at mid to senior level female UN staff, to explore leadership approaches, gender and cultural dimensions of leadership, dynamics of power and negotiation and deeper personal-professional coherence and self-awareness to develop skills for transformative and charismatic leadership.

Since 2015, the course has been organized several times every year. I have contributed not only by presenting my research on women of power. I have also provided historical overviews of the UN and women’s leadership, analyzing why progress globally is so slow, reflecting on my own leadership journey in Norway and the UN and finally discussing how we can achieve gender equality in political decision-making nationally and internationally? From 2015 to 2019 I have lectured at 8 courses in Turin, 7 in Geneva, 3 in Vienna, 2 in Cairo and 1 in Nairobi.

In the past years there has been considerable progress in the UN system on the awareness of the role of the organization in promoting gender equality. And in 2018, the impact of the Leadership, Women and the UN programme was studied. Over 350 women professionals from 55 UN entities participated in the courses, and in-depth interviews with alumnae gave a 100 % recommendation rate. The last course was in November 2019, and they will continue in 2020.

The post Promoting women’s access to political power appeared first on International Alliance of Women.

Female politicians are often met with skepticism because of their gender, and Clinton was exposed to clearly misogynist attitudes. Whether the two female presidents of Brazil and South Korea were judged more harshly than men is difficult to say. No one wants corrupt politicians, but both of those countries are flawed democracies. It would take deep analysis to determine whether women were more exposed, caught up more easily or criticized more severely for gender-related reasons to explain their downfalls.

What’s clear is that the number of female top leaders globally was small last year, dropping from a record high of 24 in 2015 to 20 in 2016.

My country, Norway, is described internationally as a “gender equality winner,” but we have never exceeded 40 percent of women in parliament and local councils, so the women’s movement here still has work to do. Norway is holding general elections on Sept. 11, and 40 percent of the candidates are women, including the incumbent, Erna Solberg, of the Conservative Party.

Solberg is the second female prime minister of Norway, and we have at times reached gender parity among ministers in the cabinet, yet counting the political advisers and state secretaries reflects a solid male-dominated government. Researchers note that Norway’s gender-equality policy has failed, especially as men control the economy and the media as well.

Throughout the world, bringing women into political power has been a long, slow process ever since the United Nations proclaimed the equal rights of men and women in 1945. Since then, 100 women in total have gone to the top with widely varying impact in 66 countries worldwide. Only North Africa and the Middle East have never had a female national leader, and there has been only one in the Pacific region, in 2016.

Each female leader has her own special story. But studying the 73 women who rose to the top in 53 countries from 1960 to 2010 for my book, “Women of Power,” certain trends can be discerned.

Rich democracies in the forefront

Women rose to power more often in industrial than in developing countries. People’s health, education and income made a difference. Most of the female national leaders had exceptionally high education and professional careers. The improvement of living standards, not least for girls and women, represents a positive factor for women’s participation in politics. Most female national leaders rose to power in democratic systems. Particularly after the end of the Cold War, the number of democracies increased globally, as did the number of female leaders.

In 2016, about half of the world’s nations were democracies, while the rest had authoritarian or hybrid regimes. The great majority of democracies, however, were “flawed,” according to the Economist’s Democracy Index. Even the “standard-bearer” of democracy, the US, was downgraded from “full” to “flawed.”

This means that there were faults in the electoral process, civil liberties, political culture, political participation and functioning of government. These factors led to the election of a US president, Donald Trump, who among other matters, disrespects democratic values and women’s rights.

In democracies, political parties are the routes to power, and most of the female national leaders in the world obtained a position of power through such parties. There is limited research on these fundamental political institutions, but it is noted globally that they are extremely male dominated.

Although 40 to 50 percent of party members are women, women hold only about 10 percent of the leadership positions.  In fact, we see an iron law of power: the more power, the more men. In 2016, there were 23 percent women in the world’s parliaments, 18 percent in the cabinets and 7 percent among the national leaders. Besides the political leadership, the economy and the media were also dominated by men. Misogynistic sentiments permeated public and private spheres, making political participation difficult for women.

In politics, the electoral system is crucial. Considerably more women became national leaders in countries with proportional representation than those with majority vote, as the latter favors men. In parliamentary elections, legislative reform and quotas have helped to increase the representation of women, but more ambitious measures are needed.

Indications show that the general involvement in political parties is declining right now, not least in industrial countries, weakening their position and opening space for monetary power, financial interests and lobby groups. Election turnout is also declining as democratic disillusion is spreading. If a certain democracy is necessary for women’s participation in power structures, it does not mean that it is enough. There must be a demand for women in decision-making.

Norway would never attained so many women in parliament and the cabinet and two female prime ministers without the efforts of a persistent women’s movement in place over many years. The UN, in collaboration with the women’s movement have been driving forces for gender equality internationally and nationally. The great majority of female national leaders benefited from female voters and female activists requiring more women in leading positions. And most of the female leaders did something to support women. They made a difference, though it was often limited.

Read the whole article, which was first published by PassBlue, which is a nonprofit journalism site wholly dependent on donations.

The post As Democracies Weaken Globally, Women Fail to Win Top Political Posts appeared first on International Alliance of Women.

Political systems must change to get more women decision-makers

The meeting room was full when IAW organized a parallel event on women decision-makers in the Church Center in New York during the UN CSW 60 session in March. Though the world’s governments have promised to ensure women’s full and effective participation at all levels of decision-making in political life, women remain a small minority – and the more power, the fewer women. In parliaments globally women still only constitute 22 per cent, in cabinets 18 per cent and among top leaders not more than 7 per cent. Seventy years after the UN confirmed the equal rights of women and men the organization has never had a woman Secretary-General, only men.

The human rights organization Equality Now has launched a campaign to change the closed and secretive process of selecting the UN Secretary-General and get a woman in the position for the first time. Women’s organizations, advocates and ambassadors have got together and the process in the UN now has become more open and transparent, Antonia Kirkland reported at the meeting. 30 000 letters have been sent and so far three of the current seven official nominees are women. The election will take place in the course of 2016.

Studying the 73 women presidents and prime ministers in 53 countries from 1960 to 2010 Torild Skard in her book “Women of power” (Policy Press) noted that women must not only be exceptionally well qualified to rise to the top. The country must have a democratic political system and an active women’s movement demanding gender parity in the political leadership. On the basis of her research Laura Liswood , Council of Women World Leaders, noted that the women who rose to the top, faced an uphill battle and had to carry out a hero’s journey showing great courage. In addition, the country often was in crisis. But with women around women had a chance.

Since 1990 the number of democratic nations around the world has increased dramatically, but not the participation of women in decision-making. The speakers at the parallel event focused on how the political systems, particularly the political parties function. The parties are the gateway to power, but in practice they undermine democratic governance by preventing women from making progress in politics.

Globally the parties are extremely male dominated with only 10 per cent women on the average in the executive leadership. These old boys’ clubs promote the interests of men, prefer male candidates for election, particularly to high positions, uphold voting systems favoring men and assist in the financing and media coverage of male politicians. To counteract these undemocratic processes it is essential to adopt affirmative measures such as competence and confidence-building of women, consciousness-raising of men, quotas and electoral reforms in addition to continuous research and analyses of the political system and equality policies. Everyone must be involved, top and bottom.

America was built on the idea of representative democracy, but those who hold elected political office nationwide look very little like America, Brenda Choresi Carter pointed out. White men have 8 times as much power as women of color. The great majority of voters want change, but candidates and elected officials are decided by the parties, not the voters. Women lack networks and relationships, parties don’t recruit women and women don’t have access to donors. Presenting groundbreaking data and structural changes the Reflective Democracy Campaign hopes to make the political system more democratic.

India has a federal form of government with devolved powers. The village level local government is one of the biggest democratic structures in the world. To make it work, rural women must be empowered, Asha Gambhir from the All India Women’s Conference, underlined. Health, education and socio-economic development are necessary and self-help groups give women self-confidence. Not less than one third of the members and chairpersons at different levels have to be women. At national and state level, however, the representation of women is much smaller.

With a male dominated political life the question arises if women top leaders can make a difference? Torild Skard found three different categories of women. Some conformed to the norms and values of male-dominated politics and acted in the same way as their male colleagues, while others, on the contrary, challenged male domination and explicitly promoted woman-friendly policies. About half of the female leaders, however, compromised between men’s and women’s interests, trying to look after both. In spite of the difficult circumstances, women politicians made a difference in the governance of the nation. But the difference will be greater with more women in political office and stronger women’s movements.

Parallel event programme

The post How can we get more women top leaders? appeared first on International Alliance of Women.

Female conscription  was adopted by the Norwegian Parliament on 14 June 2013 with only the Christian Democrats voting against, and now female conscription is being implemented.

Among  the feminist organizations protesting against female conscription,  were the Norwegian Association for Women’s Rights (Norsk Kvinnesaksforening, NKF, the Norwegian Section of the International Alliance of Women, IAW) and the Norwegian Section of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, WILPF.   

On 3 February 2007 and 27 April 2013 the National Board of the Norwegian Association for Women’s Rights, NKF (Norwegian  member of the International Alliance of Women) adopted the following statement: 

The Norwegian Ministry of Defence has for a long time been determined  to recruit women. In 2004, Parliament set a goal of 15 percent women in the armed forces and 25 percent in the officer candidate schools by 2008. To achieve this, women were called up by the draft board to do voluntary military service. If voluntariness did not produce the desired results, the Minister of Defence would propose compulsory military service for women.

The Norwegian Association for Women’s Rights (NKF) is not opposed to women voluntarily seeking a career in the military if they want to, and the way the system works today, women have the same opportunities as men to join the armed forces. Conscription is something else – it includes everybody and entails the use of force. NKF strongly warns against the exertion of pressure to get women into the military and particularly the introduction of female conscription.

It is difficult to understand why the Ministry of Defence tries to recruit more women in a situation where only a small minority of men actually performs military service. The arguments are put forward that women and men must be treated equally, that women will help maintain the legitimacy of conscription and that they will contribute to better defence.

Misconceived equality
The Norwegian Association for Women’s Rights (NKF) considers female conscription as a misunderstanding of the concept of gender equality and the intentions of the Law on Equality. Gender equality implies first and foremost that women and men should have the same human rights and fundamental freedoms. Women should be valued and allocated power and resources on equal terms with men. But women and men do not have to be alike or do the same things to be equal.

To ensure gender equality it is important in many cases that women and men are treated equally. But they should not necessarily be treated equally in all situations. In some cases, the underprivileged gender must be favoured to be able obtain similar results. Actual differences between the lives of women and men must be taken into account. Women make an important contribution to society by becoming pregnant, giving birth and breast-feeding. Despite many years of active equality policy in Norway, women still bear the heaviest burden for children, sick and old people. Their efforts in this area are extensive and socially beneficial. But although women often are double working, they still earn less than men, own much less than men, have lower pension and are underrepresented in positions of power and influence. To impose a new burden such as conscription on women in this situation is unreasonable, and it can increase the economic and social gender gaps in society. Instead of equality the result will be greater inequality.

In NKF’s view, real gender equality implies more than the incorporation of women into a social structure formed by men. Women should have the same opportunities as men to determine the organization of society. In the efforts to promote equality there is a risk that the stronger party shapes the weaker in its image. Over the past decades, women’s roles have changed significantly more than men’s. Thus values ​​and practices that have traditionally characterized men’s roles, have been strengthened, while values ​​and practices that women traditionally have taken care of, have been weakened. In the current situation, however, the challenge is to strengthen women’s power and influence and promote better care practices and values such as equal status.   

Militarization of women
Forcing women to do military service to legitimize it is completely untenable. Problems related to conscription must be resolved on their own terms, not by bringing in a new, hitherto outsider group.

It is unclear what is meant when it is stated that the recruitment of women should lead to “better” defence. It is an illusion to believe that the inclusion of  women in the military machinery at a low level, will lead to a significant change of structures and attitudes. Although women can increase the diversity, they are not supposed to change the strictly hierarchical organization of the military, which is characterized by absolute obedience on the grounds, that the soldiers should learn to defend themselves, use violence and, if necessary, kill. Newcomers are integrated into the system and the prevailing culture, and women are particularly exposed in such a male dominated organization. The result is that women are militarized, and the military is essentially not changed.

Important to focus on non-violence
It is the view of NKF that in today’s world it is more important to increase the focus of both women and men on disarmament, non-violent conflict resolution, peacekeeping, peace negotiations and the reconstruction of communities than to broaden the basis for military activities. Instead of military service, enthusiastic young people who want to contribute to international peacekeeping, should be offered training and assigned tasks on this basis.

The post No to female conscription appeared first on International Alliance of Women.

When Sirimavo Bandaranaike became the world’s first woman prime minister of what was then Ceylon in 1960, it caused international concern. How could a woman cope with such a demanding task?
Half a century later the woman president of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, received the Peace Prize from an impressed Nobel Committee for her contribution to ‘ensuring peace, promoting economic and social development and strengthening the position of women’.
Since 1960, in total 73 women have been presidents and prime ministers in 53 countries until the end of 2010. In 2010 there were 18 in all – or 6 per cent of the world’s top leaders. This was more than before, but there certainly was a way to go to attain gender balance.
All over the world the national political institutions are dominated by men. Everywhere, politics is considered a male domain. How did 73 women manage to rise to the top, and what happened when they got to power? These are themes of my new book “Women of power”.

Rich Countries at the Forefront
In 1945, the United Nations emphasised that women and men should have equal rights. During the following years, the number of nation states increased dramatically and economic and technological developments gave women and men across the globe greater income, more education and better health. Living standards were highest in industrial countries and about 40 per cent got one or more women as heads of state or government. In developing countries this was the case for only about 20 per cent. Thus conditions in industrial countries were more favourable for female leadership. People’s health, education and income were important, though they were not necessarily the only factors of importance.

Democracy
It has been an advantage for women in politics that the number of democracies increased. Democracy is based on the principle that people are equal, and it is the people, not a limited elite, that should govern. Therefore women should participate in decision-making bodies.
In non-democratic systems women generally did not become national leaders. Only two women were prime ministers in authoritarian countries (Elisabeth Domitien in CAR 1975 and Milka Planinc in Yugoslavia 1982), while nine women rose to power in turbulent transitions where democratic systems were not in place or did not work, where there were uprisings or civil war (Isabel Perón in Argentina 1974, Lidia Güeiler in Bolivia 1979, Sabine Bergmann-Pohl in GDR, Ertha Pascal-Trouillot in Haiti and Kazimiera Prunskienė in Lithuania 1990, Sylvie Kinigi in Rwanda and Agatha Uwilingiyimana in Burundi 1993, Ruth Perry in Liberia 1996 and Roza Otunbayeva in Kyrgyzstan 2010).
The great majority of women presidents and prime ministers obtained their positions in countries characterized as ‘democracies’. There were 62 women in 48 countries. Most of the women rose to the top in liberal democracies in Western industrial countries, while some did so in emerging democracies in Eastern industrial countries. Moreover, they were scattered over different regions.

Women’s Movement
If a democratic system is necessary for women’s political participation, it does not follow that it is sufficient. After World War II, Western industrial countries mostly had liberal democracies with political rights for women. But the systems were based on long-lasting male dominance, and women were not mobilized and welcomed in the political institutions.
An international women’s movement arose during the 19th century in industrial countries and their colonies, among others in Sri Lanka and India where Bandaranaike and Indira Gandhi became prime ministers. Inspired by a new wave of feminism in the 1970s, more women started to participate in formal politics. Parties and governments were put under pressure to let women in, and especially from 1975 the United Nations and the international women’s movement supported each other mutually. The women’s movements presented demands and formulated policies, while the UN promoted change, collected data, organized debates and set standards. In many countries political institutions became more open for women, women’s influence increased and woman friendly decisions were made.
When they rose to the top, at least half of the women national leaders benefitted, directly or indirectly, from women activists requiring more women in leading positions. This was the case also for Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher, though they were seen as very critical to feminism. The number of women also increased in parliaments and governments.

Extraordinary Qualifications
In all regions the women top leaders had varied economic and social background. But regardless of the parent’s occupations and economy the daughters went to school and became an exceptionally well-qualified group. Practically all went not only go to primary and secondary school, but also got higher education at college and university.
Most of the women top leaders had far more education than the average in the population. Many had long professional careers before they became political leaders, and thirty achieved very high positions such as director, professor, researcher, attorney general, judge, editor or ambassador. At the same time as they had employment nearly all of the women married and 56 had children to take care of, from one to seven. It was unusual that men got high-level jobs, and even more that women got them. But more women top leaders had such positions than their male predecessors. More than men, women had to have high status to succeed.
Most of the women presidents and prime ministers achieved political power through the political parties. In addition to their professional careers they were active party members, climbed upwards in the hierarchy and acquired various positions: executive board members, party leaders or deputies, Members of Parliament, Speakers, ministers, vice presidents or deputy prime ministers. In Asia and Latin America several women based their careers on family relations, aiming to take over the position of a deceased father or husband. Chandrika Kumaratunga in Sri Lanka 1994 and Cristina Fernández in Argentine 2007 took over while their relatives (mother and husband respectively) still were alive. Some women came to power as ‘outsiders’, due to their special occupational status or participation in organisations outside the political parties. Four were elected particularly because they were women: Vigdís Finnbogadóttir in Iceland 1980, Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese in Ireland 1990 and 1997 and Ruth Perry in Liberia in 1996.

Penetrating Labyrinths
It has almost become a standard expression that a ‘glass ceiling’ blocks women’s way to leadership. But the study of women top politicians shows that the image of a glass ceiling is not only too simple, but also misleading. It gives the impression that there is only a single barrier, not that women encounter obstacles all the way, and it says nothing about what it takes to reach the ceiling. The metaphor also gives the idea that one can break the hindrances with a blow, once and for all. But in fact, complex interactions between different factors make it possible or impossible for women to reach the top. Various barriers must be overcome, perhaps one barrier several times, in different ways, and when one is overcome, there are new.
Most men also have to go through a labyrinth to advance to the top in politics. But labyrinths for men are usually simpler than those women have to go through, with fewer dead ends, nooks, crannies and barriers and more support. Women most often start with a handicap and encounter more resistance of different kinds due directly or indirectly to their gender. To achieve gender balance in the national leadership, institutional changes are required in the form of positive action measures such as women friendly electoral systems, gender quotas etc.

Men’s Interests or Women’s
The women did not become top leaders primarily because they were women, but because they should lead the nation. Some also acted in the same way as their male colleagues, fighting on their terms and becoming the first among equals, without being engaged in ‘women’s issues’, whatever they might be. Examples are Margaret Thatcher in the UK 1979, Violeta Chamorro in Nicaragua 1990, Tansu Çiller in Turkey 1993 and Megawati in Indonesia 2001. Nearly half of the women tried to compromise, however, between men’s and women’s interests, looking after both. But one third, among them Gro Harlem Brundtland in Norway 1981, Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan 1988, Helen Clark in New Zealand 1999 and Michelle Bachelet in Chile 2006, challenged male domination and explicitly promoted women friendly or feminist policies. So, some of the top women leaders did more, some less, but the vast majority did something to improve the status of women. It made a difference that a woman rose to the top instead of a man.

The post Competence, democracy and feminism appeared first on International Alliance of Women.

Within ECE there is great variation. More women obtain political positions in Western than in Eastern Europe. In the West there are 29 % women MPs and 31 % ministers, while there in the East are respectively only 19 % and 15 %. Of the 7 women presidents and prime ministers 5 are in the West and 2 in the East. There are also marked differences within each region. In the West, Andorra and Sweden top the list with respectively 5o % and 45 % women MPs, while Cyprus only has 13 %. In the East, Macedonia and Serbia have the most with 34 % women, while Hungary is down at only 9 % (IPU and UN Women: Women in Politics 2014, www.ipu.org).

I have during recent years studied the women presidents and prime ministers around the world (73 women in 53 countries 1960-2010, Women of Power, Policy Press, 2014), and it is clear that several factors interplay to make it possible for women to become national leaders. To achieve gender balance in top level decision-making positions, it is necessary to change institutions and arrangements to form what can be called a “women-friendly democracy”. This is characterised by:

• A democratic political system with an open and inclusive culture and democratic political parties, representative decision-making bodies and good governance;
• An active civil society with vocal women’s organisations promoting women’s rights;
• An efficient state that can defend the interests of the community, protect human rights and promote social equality; and
• An economic and human development that can ensure women as well as men satisfactory income, education and health.

Among important short-term measures I would recommend:

• Governments should take special measures to ensure that the UN Women’s Convention and the Beijing Platform for Action are properly known to the general public and show the consequences for tangible policies.
• In accordance with the Women’s Convention and the Beijing Platform for Action governments should provide financial support and societal opportunities for women’s organisations and networks to participate in political deliberations at all levels and promote feminism and genuine gender equality.
• Governments should increase social scientific research of the political system, including gender dimensions, and in particular evaluate the political culture and the role of parties in shaping an inclusive democracy where women can promote their interests on a par with men.
• More specifically, governments should consider and if necessary revise the electoral system to make it more women-friendly: replace simple plurality with proportional representation or mixed systems, and adopt “critical measures” such as stimulation programmes, training, support groups and effective quotas for women.

The post Torild Skard: Women remain a minority in national political leadership appeared first on International Alliance of Women.