If we chose Hillary Clinton for President, she would be the first spouse of a former-President, as well as the first female. Would this be a landmark victory for women's rights, or a dynastic setback for American democracy? Sometimes a global table of comparisons says a lot, per above. Think about the countries on each side of that list. Which side does the USA belong on? The right side, it seems to me.
A "dynasty" means rule from the same family. It can but need not be inter-generational, inherited or by a blood relation. Dynasty by marriage fits most common dictionary definitions, such as:
- a succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field.
- a succession of rulers from the same family
- any sequence of powerful leaders of the same family
- a sequence of rulers from the same family, stock, or group the rule of such a family or group
- any succession of members of a powerful or influential family or group.
There are only two paths a country can follow, in choosing a woman as the head of government. It is a basic, logical dichotomy.
Either: 1) choosing the wife of a former-President, or 2) choosing a women whose spouse (if any) was not a former head-of-state.
Which path do you prefer for the USA? What does history tell us about the countries who followed each path?
Let's examine which countries have followed each of these two paths, below. Note that this is from a complete list of all countries who have had a female head of government (prime minister, chancellor, president). I am not cherry-picking from among them (and will update as time permits; h/t Portlaw, Denise Oliver Velez, Lawrence, icemilkcoffee, SevenStrings). Anyone can do this: take the complete list, divide it up among those which followed a dynastic path and those which did not, and compare the two lists. Then decide for yourself.
1. The Dynastic Path: Choosing the spouse of a former-President
If we elect Hillary Clinton, it would bring the USA into the ranks of these countries:
-
Bangladesh: Ziaur Rahman, President 1979–1981; his wife Begum Khaleda Zia, Prime Minister 1991–1996 and 2001–2006
-
Panama: Arnulfo Arias Madrid, President 1940–41, 1949–51, and 1968; his wife Mireya Moscoso, President 1999–2004.
-
Argentina: Juan Domingo Perón, President 1946–55 and 1973–74; his wife María Estela Martínez de Perón, Vice President 1973–74, President 1974–76; then Néstor Kirchner, President 2003–2007; his wife Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, President 2007–present.
-
Sri Lanka: Solomon Bandaranaike, Prime Minister 1956-1959; his wife Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Prime Minister 1960–65, 1970–77 and 1994–2000; also their daughter, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, was Prime Minister briefly in 1994 and President from 1994-2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_families
To be clear: no-one can say these ladies simply rode in on their husbands' coattails. They were *all* accomplished politicians and leaders on their own. The question is: by which process did they become heads-of-state?
There are other countries on a somewhat similarly ‘pragmatic’ dynastic path, in choosing the daughter of a former head of state. E.g.:
-
India's founding Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru (1947-1964), was followed by his daughter, Indira Gandhi (1966-77, 1980-84), she was followed by her son, Rajiv Gandhi (1984-1989), who was followed as head of the ruling Indian National Congress Party by his wife, Sonia Gandhi.
-
Pakistan's Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, President (1971–73); Prime Minister (1973–77); was supported by his wife Nusrat Bhutto (former minister without portfolio, party leader, and Deputy Prime Minister); and followed by their daughter Benazir Bhutto (1953–2007) (Prime Minister, 1988–90 and 1993–96).
-
Bangladesh (again): the first president was Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (1971-1972, 1975), who also served as Prime Minister (1972-1975); his daughter, Sheikh Hasina, is Prime Minister (1996-2001, 2009-present).
-
South Korea: Park Geun-hye (2012-present).
Is that the company we want to keep? Bangladesh, Panama, Argentina, Sri Lanka? Pakistan, India, South Korea? Would that make us proud to be Americans, and confident of the legacy for our daughters and sons? Look at these countries. Is this a path that would set our country's democracy on a strong, stable foundation for the coming decades?
I suggest that this is not what American democracy should be. I don’t want America to be the kind of country, like these: "Where a father can tell his daughter, ‘Yes, you can be anything you want — if you first marry a man who becomes President of the USA and then gain enough wealth to be in the top 0.03% of America — even president yourself!' "
The countries in that list are oligarchies. Plutocracies. Authoritarian regimes (even if with democratic trappings). Impoverished. They are corrupted in their political, electoral, judicial, regulatory, media, military, and business systems.
In America we have ~75 million smart, dynamic adult women. It defies the odds to suggest it is coincidence that of them all, only one married to a former US President merits being President herself.
There is another path.
2. The Democratic Path:
Electing women whose spouse was not a former head-of-state.
By contrast, many other countries have taken a different path of choosing female heads of government, whose husbands had *not* preceded them in this role. How about if the US follows this path? Who would we join?
Consider the countries who have chosen this route. Namely:
-
France (Édith Cresson 1995-1999),
-
Canada (Kim Campbell 1993),
-
United Kingdom UK (Margaret Thatcher 1979-1990),
-
Ireland (Mary Robinson 1990-1997; and Mary McAleese 1997-2011)
-
Germany (Angela Merkel 2005-present),
-
Poland (Hanna Suchocka 1991-1993; and Ewa Kopacz 2014-present).
-
Portugal (Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo 1979),
-
Norway (Gro Harlem Brundtland 1981, 1986-1989, 1990-1996; and Erna Solberg 2013-present),
-
New Zealand (Jenny Shipley 1997-1999, and Helen Clark 1999-2008),
-
Australia (Julia Gillard 2010-2013),
-
Denmark (Helle Thorning-Schmidt 2011-2015),
-
Iceland (Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir 2009-2013),
-
Finland (Mari Kiviniemi 2010-2011,
-
Israel (Golda Meir 1969-1974),
-
Turkey (Tansu Çiller 1993-1996),
-
Brazil (Dilma Rousseff 2005-2010)
-
Liberia (Ellen Johnson Sirleaf 2006-present)
-
Chile (Michelle Bachelet 2014-present)
-
Taiwan (Tsai Ing-Wen, inauguration May 2016-?)
Would it be so bad for the US to be anything like these countries? I don’t know about you, but I much prefer to be in this company: Canada, UK, France, Germany, Portugal, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Finland.
Which list do you want the USA to be on?
The last four (Scandanavia) are -- gasp -- generally Socialist. So was Helen Clark’s government in New Zealand. (Nice country, btw!) So was Golda Meir's government in Israel. Btw, Tony Blair is a Democratic Socialist. So is Australia's Julia Gillard. So is Turkey's Tansu Çiller. So is Poland's Hanna Suchocka. In fact, if you want a female US President, supporting social democracy may be the best path forward.
I suggest this is in fact a better path for the US. Much better this, than to follow in the path of Bangladesh, Panama, Argentina, India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. That ‘shortcut’ is not a path towards progress.
We must choose one path or the other, if we want a female head-of-state. Either they were married to (or daughter of) a former head-of-state, or they weren't.
[Update: a few countries are a little complicated, per discussion in comments, e.g., the Philippines and Myanmar/Burma. Corazon Aquino’s husband Ninoy was not President, but he was arguably the leading opposition figure and his assassination led to the people-power revolution that brought his party and Corazon to power. The party is arguably not social-democratic. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (2001-2010) is the daughter of former President Diosdado Macapagal, a ‘classical liberal' (free-market), not a social democrat. (The Philippines is an oligarchy: Imelda Marcos had dated Ninoy years earlier, before marrying Ferdinand Marcos.) Aung San Suu Kyi is the daughter of Burmese independence leader Aung San, founder of the Burmese Communist Party; the NLD is social democrat. Suu Kyi was never sworn in. The issue is not about the individuals involved. There have been benevolent dictators or monarchs (and this is in fact the political system that Plato advocated). But we choose a democratic system, not a monarchy. The question is what type of political system do we want for the USA.]
For those who say the second path is better but for some reason the USA will not achieve it, I say: baloney. We can (and should) elect as our first female President a woman whose husband was *not* President before her. I know it has taken huge effort to get as far as we have in women’s rights and gender-equality, and will continue to take even more effort to reach that goal. I support that effort strongly. I support electing women at all levels of government, federal, state, and local; building up ‘farm-leagues’ and ‘back-benches'. I support affirmative-action that would help this. I strongly support mandatory paid maternity-leave — as nearly every other country in the world requires except the USA. (This is a no-brainer. It should be in nearly every speech every Democrat makes, until enacted.) Laws to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work should be strengthened and enforced. Federal and state subsidies of daycare centers should be increased. Laws and norms against sexual harassment on (and off) the job should be improved. We can do this.
Would the USA really be in such good company if we chose Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee and she became President of the US? Would it set a good example for all our daughters (and sons)? I think not. If Hillary Clinton were elected US President, following her husband Bill, it would be a Clinton dynasty, for better or worse, by definition. It would strengthen all the old Clinton loyalists, and the business ties they have made during the eight years of Bill’s presidency, and the 16 years after it — during which time the Clinton’s went from being "dead broke” (Hillary’s words) to being among the wealthiest 0.03% of Americans. The whole point of a democratic system is to periodically lop off the control exerted by any group or faction. Reverting to the Clintons would not do this. (The first Clinton years were not all that bucolic, btw.)
I would love for the US to follow the democratic path, not the dynastic one, and to elect as its first female President someone whose husband had not preceded her in that role.