First, a little Benazir Bhutto story, since we are on the subject of women leaders.

A friend of mine was to be on the podium of Harvard’s graduation the year Benazir Bhutto was to give the keynote, and heard this conversation. John Galbraith, the economists who was also a professor at Harvard, Bhutto’s former undergraduate advisor, and her friend, was also to be on the stage, and all the famous people who were to be on that stage were to walk out in procession. The Secret Service, who were protecting Bhutto who at the time was Head of State, arranged the people so that two or three guys, including Galbraith, were to walk out first, Bhutto in the middle, then a string of people afterwards. The idea was to put the person they were protecting in the middle.

Bhutto was fairly diminutive of stature, so she would have been hard to see and while this would enhance her safety, it would also have lessened the impact of hear appearance at this event, a former undergrad returning as a Prime Minister of a whole country. Galbraith, her friend and mentor, would have nothing of it. He insisted that he be in the front of the line. When the Secret Service agents, tough, numerous, steely eyed and, well, convincing as they tend to be, told him that this would be impossible, and that security concerns trumped appearances and that she would be walking out onto the stage in the middle of the procession, Galbraith, whom you may remember as having been a very tall and imposing figure with deep booming voice, turned to the head of the security detail and simply said, “Sir, I overrule you,” at which time the detail backed off, Bhutto, grinning, walked to the front of the line, and the procession began.

Apropos the question that has come up in recent years as to the meaning of, say, a “black” or a female president of the United States … as to whether we are “ready” or whether such a thing would advance civil rights in the US or whether such a thing would lead to polarizing opposition from racists or misogynous, we can look at what has happened with the presidency of Barack Obama (and see that all of the above are true) and also look at the place in the world of the United States. Many other nations have had women prime ministers, presidents, queens, or whatever. Is the United States in the majority yet, are we one of the few countries (or one of the few “Western” countries, or one of the few “democracies” or whatever) who has not had a female in charge?

Pursuant to this question I made a list (made = copied from the internet) of countries and put a star next to those which I think have had a woman leader. I’m sure I missed some. Have a look. Tell me which countries I should move from one list to another (or if I’ve left out some countries). There are complexities.

Countries that have had a woman leader:


* Argentina
* Australia
* Bahrain
* Bangladesh
* Barbados
* Belize
* Bolivia
* Brazil
* Burundi
* Canada
* Central African Republic
* Chile
* Denmark
* Dominica
* Equatorial Guinea
* Finland
* France
* Germany
* Grenada
* Guyana
* Haiti
* Iceland
* India
* Indonesia
* Ireland
* Israel
* Latvia
* Liberia
* Lithuania
* Malawi
* Mauritius
* Netherlands
* New Zealand
* Nicaragua
* Norway
* Pakistan
* Panama
* Philippines
* Poland
* Portugal
* San Marino
* Serbia
* Sri Lanka
* Swaziland
* Switzerland
* Thailand
* Turkey
* Ukraine
* United Kingdom

Countries that have not had a woman leader (subject to correction!):


Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Belarus
Belgium
Benin
Bhutan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burma
Cambodia
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Chad
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo (Brazzaville)
Congo (Kinshasa)
Costa Rica
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Côte d’Ivoire
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Federated States of Moldova
Fiji
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Holy See
Honduras
Hungary
Iran
Iraq
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kosovo
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Libya
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mexico
Micronesia,
Monaco
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Nigeria
Niger
Oman
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
Sao Tome and Principe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
South Sudan
Spain
Sudan
Suriname
Sweden
Syria
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Timor-Leste
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United States
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

___________

Photo by innocent_tauruscian

Comments

  1. #1 Marion Delgado
    June 3, 2012

    I do believe in the psychological and cultural phenomenon of an “ice-breaker” like Jackie Robinson. Either Hillary Clinton or, as happened, Barack Obama being president makes it “no big deal” at some level. It’s very different from tokenism.

    Even Joe Lieberman as first (?) Jewish VP candidate was important (especially if they’d been allowed to take the office they won). A Joe Liebermann now means a Russ Feingold later. A Hillary Clinton means, e.g., a Barbra Lee later. Obama could pave the way for a Van Jones.

    Since I scorn tokenism – and when the GOP aren’t pandering to racism, they do indulge in tokenism – I think it’s an important distinction. Many of the countries where women became leaders, they were the daughters or wives of popular male leaders, but nonetheless when the sky doesn’t fall, that’s another country where “being a woman” won’t be much of a consideration. By the way on the world scale, I think Iceland’s openly lesbian new PM is an ice-breaker of the type I’m describing.

  2. #2 Marion Delgado
    June 3, 2012

    I wish I’d put this in last comment: Your list seems accurate to me.

  3. #3 Old Fogey
    June 3, 2012

    Australia and Germany currently have female leaders.

  4. #4 Csrster
    June 3, 2012

    Israel had Golda Meir. Iceland and Finland have had female Presidents, I’m reasonably sure. Are you counting both Heads of State and Heads of Government?

  5. #5 Greg Laden
    June 3, 2012

    There are a lot of ways to do this but I would count heads of state and heads of government, and elected as well as heredity.

  6. #6 Charles Sullivan
    June 3, 2012

    Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is president of Liberia.

  7. #7 Charles Sullivan
    June 3, 2012

    Also, Michelle Bachelet was recently president of Chile

  8. #8 Charles Sullivan
    June 3, 2012

    Yingluck Shinawatra is prime minister of Thailand (sorry for multiple posts).

  9. #9 Greg Laden
    June 3, 2012

    10-4

  10. #10 Pascal
    Texas
    June 3, 2012

    Dilma Rousseff is currently the president of Brazil.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilma_Rousseff

    Brazil needs to be moved to the “yes” column.

  11. #11 Joel
    http://blog.motheyes.com
    June 3, 2012

    The members of the Commonwealth realm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm) recognise QEII as their head of state, a number of which you’ve put on the not-had-a-woman-leader list. I’m rather iffy on whether that should count though.

  12. #12 Anonymous
    June 3, 2012

    On top of the previous corrections, it’s worth Noting that Brazil’s current president is a woman as well.

  13. #13 Greg Laden
    June 3, 2012

    Joel, in this case, I’m glad for the likes of Margaret Thatcher. UK and ireland thus have had female leaders. Regarding Queens and the empire and Commonwealth … I think Queen Victoria might have been female leader og argue areas of Asia and Africa as well.

  14. #14 Lyle
    June 3, 2012

    By the definition used England had a woman leader with Mary 1 and then Elizabeth 1. Or possibly going back a bit further Matilda the mother of Henry II. Look at the lists of Queens Regnant on Wikipedia which covers the whole world. Evidently some Pharaohs were women for example. So one might want to say in the modern period for example to restrict the question, or else include inheritance situations.

  15. #15 Greg Laden
    June 3, 2012

    Absolutely.

  16. #16 Anthony
    tideintheaffairs.blogspot.com
    June 3, 2012

    I believe that it is very hard to make a logical deduction that because none of the fifty-six elections we’ve had did not lead in a female leader, we are thereby sexist. You would also have to extend it to handicapped presidents, and then Muslim, gay, etc. Because there is a lack does not mean that there is a significant sexist approach, and neither does it mean that we should have a female president for that reason.

  17. #17 Greg Laden
    June 4, 2012

    Except that we already knew we were sexist

  18. #18 csrster
    June 4, 2012

    It’s your game and your rules, but you’d better move Russia because they had Catherine the Great and Spain because of Isabella (do co-rulers count?).

  19. #19 Greg Laden
    June 4, 2012

    Well, this is kind of a crowd sourcing thing but yeah, it is my blog so I’m totally in charge here so keep in line, people.

    This is a good question. The idea here is this: Does a nation of people have the experience of having been ruled or led by a woman, to the degree that the prospect of having a viable candidate running for office or as a likely pick by a government to be a Prime Minister or whatever have is not hampered by her being a woman?

    If Queen Victoria was King Victor, Queen Elizabeth II was King George the Nth, and Margaret Thatcher was never elected, then I’m thinking the fact that England/UK had Elizabeth I and various other females on or near the throne hundreds of years ago would be of questionable relevance. Also, I’m not sure if a queen on the throne in a system where you normally have a king unless you can’t find one would be unimportant where there was always a strong male viceroy or something, but it seems that Queen Victoria is such a major exception to that (do I have that right?) that she culturally matters.

    Having said all of that, I think we can safely reject the nature (sex, gender, politics, ethnicity, religion, whatever) of a royal leader who happens to be on the money from a land afar because of intercontinental colonialism or politically strategic marriage forces.

    Catherine II was a real ruler, as I understand it, and Catherine I, though ruling for only a couple of years, was a big deal. So, I think they may count as real female rulers of a real country.

    Having said all of THAT, we can fix this definitional problem in a different, more conservative way. Only count countries under their current identities. The Russia of the Peters and Catherine was replaced effectively bu the USSR, so it does not exist any more. A very recent break in continuity might matter less, but the formationof the USSR and it’s various versions followed by the establishement of Russia were politically and culturally momentous, and the Catherines were long ago.

    More clearly, Cleopatra was the ruler of a country that does not exist any more (quasi-Pharonic Greekified northern/lower Egypt, not Thebes, not post UAR Egypt).

    Countries with historical female rulers and no subsequent female rulers should perhaps be given their own category .

  20. #20 Vytautas Šaltenis
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    June 4, 2012

    Lithuania currently has woman President and Speaker of Parliament. We used to have a woman Prime Minister at least once (depends on whether or not you’d like to count acting appointments). So, all three leader positions qualify here :-)

    Latvians have had Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga as President for eight years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Latvia

  21. #22 Greg Laden
    June 4, 2012

    Vytautas, thanks, they’ve been moved.

    Rayl. I’m going to leave Maria Theresa of Austria off for now since that version of Europe has been redrafted twice plus she’s a royal. It isn’t the case by any chance that Austria has had a female prime minister or president in the last 100 years or so?

  22. #23 Amoeba
    June 4, 2012

    I notice you omitted the Vatican. As to which list it should belong to, I’m not sure. This is the subject of some uncertainty. There is little doubt that the Vatican is very secretive and has many strange practices. Perhaps this might be one reason why.

  23. #24 Greg Laden
    June 4, 2012

    The Vatican on this list is the Holy See.

  24. #25 Eric Lund
    June 4, 2012

    Megawati Sukarnoputri was President of Indonesia from 2001-2004. So Indonesia should be moved to the list of countries that have had female leaders. So should Brazil, as others above have pointed out: their current president is a woman.

    I notice that there is an asterisk next to Panama. Any particular reason?

  25. #26 Greg Laden
    June 4, 2012

    Thanks. I will fix all these as soon as I get to a computer. Thought I already did Brazil.

  26. #27 HC
    Belgium
    June 6, 2012

    Does a homosexual count (Di Rupo in Belgium) as a sign of emancipation ?

  27. #28 Daniel J. Andrews
    June 7, 2012

    You got Canada, I see, even though Campbell was only in office for a short period of time (just over 4 months). One of our political satirists said she was the only prime minister who spent her entire time campaigning for the office of prime minister–for non-Canucks or too-young-to-remember Canucks former PM Mulrooney stepped down a few months before the next election and Campbell stepped into the gap. She lost the election so was only PM from June 25 to early November.

    Bit of trivia–she was the only PM not to reside at 24 Sussex Drive since Sussex Drive has been around (would be akin to having a U.S. president not reside at the White House/1600).

  28. #29 Greg Laden
    June 7, 2012

    Should I take Canadia off the list?

  29. #30 TheBrummell
    Saskatchewan
    June 11, 2012

    It’s your blog and your list, but from the perspective of “it’s no longer a big deal”, Kim Campbell would be the obvious person to point to in Canada if the prospect of a woman becoming PM in this country came up in the near-to-medium future. In other words, let’s say a woman becomes leader of a major Canadian federal political party, with a realistic chance of winning enough seats in Parliament to form the government and thus become Prime Minister. If, during the run-up to the election, some pundit starts going on about inherent difficulties she’ll face getting elected simply due to her being a woman, lots of people would start talking about Ms. Campbell. That’s not to say this hypothetical female politician did not face sexism, just that the particular case of being first would probably not be convincing.

    I’ve always thought of Kim Campbell having the best (under some criteria) summer job in the country. Beats house painting or working the festival circuit or planting trees, anyways.

    So I vote to leave Soviet Canuckistan on the “yes” list. Plus the whole Queen Victoria thing.

  30. #31 Greg Laden
    June 11, 2012

    Sounds good to me

  31. #32 elaine
    northeast us
    June 16, 2012

    picky me, but for your own good: its throne, not thrown, righto?

  32. #33 elaine
    June 16, 2012

    … and by the way, great list, and great process.

  33. #34 Greg Laden
    June 16, 2012

    Often, when one ascends to the throne, someone else has been thrown into the dungeon.

    But seriously, thanks.

  34. #35 Vince Whirlwind
    June 18, 2012

    Boudica ruled the Iceni – does she count?

  35. #36 William Truderung
    June 28, 2012

    Perhaps you should limit the list to democratically elected leaders only (and interim leaders under a democratic system of government). That way, you are looking at countries (and leaders) where the population had an actual choice about who would lead them.

  36. #37 Greg Laden
    June 28, 2012

    William, at least a version of the list as you suggest would be a good idea. Part of it, did the populous already make this decision. The other part is, what are people used to.

  37. #38 Denise Oliver-Velez
    USA
    March 15, 2013

    Technically – you should remove Ethiopia from your list, since the royal dynasties there trace their heritage from Queen Makeda (known as the Queen of Sheba)

  38. #39 Greg Laden
    March 15, 2013

    I’m not sure if that is why Ethiopia is on the list to begin with.

  39. […] 49 countries in the world have had a woman leader; the United States hasn’t (yet). […]

  40. […] lower number of women film critics, directors and producers.3. Becoming President.49 countries in the world have had a woman leader; the United States hasn’t (yet).4. Getting a cheap […]

  41. […] lower number of women film critics, directors and producers.3. Becoming President.49 countries in the world have had a woman leader; the United States hasn’t (yet).4. Getting a cheap […]

  42. #43 Marie-France Robert
    Switzerland
    August 15, 2013

    Although Segolène Royale of France wanted to become president, she never actually did. So France has had no president yet.

  43. #44 Park Geun-hye
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Geun-hye
    October 28, 2013

    South Korea now in the yes column!

  44. […] countries there are in the world today, around 50 of them have had, at one time, a female leader (Greg Laden’s Blog). Within this list is included countries such as Haiti, Liberia, and Pakistan — all countries […]

  45. #46 Ramala Duviella
    Atlanta
    March 8, 2014

    Jamaica has had a woman prime minister

  46. […] to Grag Laden at Scienblogs almost 2 years ago already (but including even South […]

Current ye@r *