Women Political Leaders:

Past and Present

Farida Jalalzai, Allegheny College

ABSTRACT. This article thoroughly examines women prime ministers

and presidents (also referred to as women executives) rigorously com-
paring nearly all cases of women executives from 1960 through 2002.
The numbers of women executives, countries they have led, and the
types of governmental systems in which they came to power are ana-
lyzed. A main focus is their political and educational backgrounds. Find-
ings suggest that the number of women making it to executive office is
few but varied geographically. Women executives have diverse educa-
tion and political backgrounds. An important springboard to office in
Asia and Latin America has been women’s familial ties to important po-
litical leaders. Even these women are more diverse than expected in
terms of background and, in particular, political experience. [Article
copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:
1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website:
<http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights re-
served.]

This article is one of a series that deals with the following question:
Why and how have women achieved the positions of head of govern-
ment or head of state in several countries where the culture is conserva-
tive in terms of gender roles and even where women’s social and pol-
itical rights have been severely restricted while in countries such as the
United States, where the culture is relatively less conservative and tradi-
tional, women have not achieved such powerful positions?1 To begin to
answer this important question, it is necessary to take a thorough look

Women & Politics, Vol. 26(3/4) 2004

http://www.haworthpress.com/web/WP
 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J014v26n03_04 85
86 WOMEN & POLITICS

first at the numbers and range of women who have made it to the highest
positions of power around the world.
The background of past executives is vital to understanding the ulti-
mate success of women reaching the highest positions of political power.
Background here is defined by a variety of variables: (1) age upon elec-
tion or appointment to office; (2) educational level; (3) field of study;
(4) profession before entering politics; (5) the extent of political experi-
ence before becoming president or prime minister; and, (6) familial ties
to other political actors in the country. In every political context there
have been common paths to power. Have these paths to power been open
to women or have women had to enter through alternative routes? Anal-
ysis of these background characteristics will shed some light on this
question.
The background of women executives in a comparative perspective
has been given scant attention in the literature although there have been
some important contributions (Genovese 1993; Liswood 1995; Opfell
1993; Whicker and Hedy 1999). This paper follows up on such studies
and expands them geographically, temporally, and theoretically. Since
the publication of these studies, there have been additional women who
have made it to executive positions in many different parts of the world.
Because of the general dearth of women executives, any additional cases
must be examined to contribute to this scholarship. Most importantly,
although some of these works compare and contrast women executives
in terms of their backgrounds and/or the influence of gender on their po-
litical behavior, none of these studies systematically compares nearly
all cases of women executives as this article does.
Unlike much of the literature on women executives, the behavior of
women once in executive office is not the focus of this paper. The vari-
ous paths to such power are the foci, which contributes to the under-
standing of why women have achieved such positions in less egalitarian
cultures. Women executives have existed in a variety of cultures as well
as political and economic systems. Are there are any patterns of regular-
ities that exist in spite of these differences and how does this relate to
gender? This is an important question that needs answering. As Genovese
and Thompson argue:

Those few cases where women have made it to the top of contem-
porary political systems come from advanced capitalist societies
and Third World Countries at different stages of development, and
from established parliamentary systems, nascent democracies, au-
thoritarian regimes, and the turmoil of revolutionary or post revo-
 Farida Jalalzai 87

lutionary situations. They have been career politicians and inheri-

tors of political roles relatively late in life. (1993: 9)

The only way to truly know how these women compare to one another
is to analyze them all, something that has never been done before.

THEORETICAL IMPORTANCE

Of primary importance to the discipline of political science, the study

of women leaders in such a framework can shed light not only on gender
and leadership but also on elites in politics in general. We can see in a
general sense how power is reached in certain contexts, which can lead
to a more generalizable theory of leadership. However, through this pro-
cess, theories about how power is related to gender can be formulated.
Furthermore, the theoretical utility of studying gender is well estab-
lished in the literature. Much of the existing research highlights the fact
that gender, though not the only important variable in the study of na-
tional leadership, emerges as a significant force:

Indeed, when political scientists examine the factors that affect

male leaders, they frequently find it difficult to isolate the impact
of a single variable or to distinguish one factor from another. In
several respects, feminist analysis can enhance our understanding
of political leadership: A feminist perspective paints an alternative
picture of women as national leaders, but it also points to even
larger lessons for the study of leadership in general. (Sykes 1993:
227)

This research is important because it provides an opportunity to reex-

amine what is known about national leaders, knowledge largely based
on studies that have analyzed only men. As Richter notes: “The experi-
ence of politically prominent women offers empirical ‘reality checks’
on theories of leadership that have derived exclusively from the experi-
ences of men” (1991: 527). This point addresses a particular criticism
that many political scientists may have about studying leadership in a
gendered framework: such research limits the range and scope of theo-
ries. Most leadership studies, in fact, are gendered with men, not women,
being the focus (Blondel 1987; Neustadt 1990). As counterintuitive as it
may seem, only by also analyzing women national leaders can we un-
derstand leadership in gender-neutral terms.
88 WOMEN & POLITICS

This article also contributes to the field of political science because

the little that is known about women politicians tends to focus on women
in legislative rather than executive office. The reason for this clearly re-
lates to the greater success women around the world have in obtaining
legislative office as opposed to executive. With greater numbers of
cases, studies on both the behavior of these women and conditions that
foster women’s inclusion in government can be conducted more sys-
tematically and quantitatively than studies of women executives (who
total fewer than fifty to date). This research on women legislators is now
evaluated.
The research on women legislators, on balance, finds some support
that women indeed favor policies that are beneficial to women and mi-
nority groups and that women are generally more liberal than their male
counterparts (Carroll 2001; Dolan and Ford 1995; Francovic 1977;
Lijphart 1991; Reingold 1992; Saint-Germain 1989; Saltzstein 1986;
Thomas 1987, 1990, 1994; Welch 1985). However, overall, many of
these studies are limited in terms of only analyzing the United States or
Western European countries (Davis 1991; Matland 1993; Norderval
1985; Norris and Lovenduski 1989; Sanzone 1984). Also, statistical
correlations of women legislators and “women friendly” legislation are
understudied, especially comparatively, and much research does not
even attempt to measure statistical significance between variables. There
are also various studies that challenge the notion that women legislators
are concerned with different issues than men (see Sykes 1993) or find
differences that are not statistically significant. Some statistically sig-
nificant gender differences found are in part explained by ideology and
political party affiliation (see Mezey 1994). There are also several re-
cent studies that try to predict women’s representation in legislatures
and/or cabinets using a variety of political, economic, and cultural indi-
cators (Darcy, Welch, and Clark 1987, Inglehart and Norris 2001, 2003;
Kenworthy and Malami 1999; Lovenduski and Norris 1993; Matland
1998; Oakes and Almquist 1993; Paxton 1997; Reynolds 1999; Rule
1985; Rule and Zimmerman 1994; Taagepera 1994). These studies all
have influenced the scholarly development of gender and leadership
and have bearing on subsequent studies of gender at different levels of
office such as executive. Although the ultimate goal is to include indica-
tors in a multiple regression model predicting women’s representation
as executives, the focus of this article is the analysis of the background
of women executives.
 Farida Jalalzai 89

CASE SELECTION

This article thoroughly analyzes women prime ministers and presi-

dents (also referred to as women executives), rigorously comparing
nearly all cases where women have held positions of president or prime
minister from 1960, the first year a woman, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, be-
came prime minister, through the year 2002. Excluded are some cases
where a woman has been appointed to fill executive office temporarily.
Although it may be argued that women holding interim or acting ex-
ecutive positions should be discounted entirely because they have not
undergone the same formal processes that other executives have, the
mere fact that they are chosen over men to hold the country together
even for a temporary basis is important to analyze. At the same time,
however, many are appointed for periods of less than a month or even
less than a week. Keeping this in mind, a threshold of nine months is
used to determine which women should be excluded (Liswood 1995).
Those cases meeting this threshold will be noted as temporary or in-
terim leaders. Also excluded are cases of women holding offices that do
not conform to the traditional structure of presidential and prime minis-
terial office although they may be heads of state or government. Exam-
ples of these are San Marino’s co-chiefs of state called Captain Regent
and Liberia’s Council of State (a six person collective presidency).
Clearly, these positions are qualitatively different from conventional
cases of women prime ministers and presidents and it would be prob-
lematic to compare them to the others.
To answer the first question presented: How many women have made
it to the highest positions of political power worldwide? Table 1 is pre-
sented below with information on the leader in terms of where they are
from, dates in office, and their political office. Acting or interim leaders
are noted by both an asterisk and by a qualifier before their position title.
The unit of analysis is the woman president or prime minister. Be-
tween the years 1960-2002, a total of 44 different women have occupied
positions of prime minister or president around the world. The first
woman prime minister was Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka (then
Ceylon) in 1960 and the first woman president was Isabel Peron of Ar-
gentina in 1975. Sixteen other women are excluded from this sample:
nine were appointed temporarily to tenures of less than nine months, six
were not in executive positions comparable to the rest of the sample,
and one (Aung Suu Kyi of Myanmar) was refused recognition after
winning the election.2 Out of the 44 cases remaining in the sample, 27 of
these women have occupied the position of prime minister (61 percent)
90
TABLE 1. Women Leaders 1960-2002
Country Leader Dates Position
Argentina Isabel Peron 1974-1976 President
Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina Wajed 1996-2001 Prime Minister
Bangladesh Khaleda Zia 1991-1996-2001- Prime Minister
Bermuda Pamela Gordon 1997-1998 Prime Minister
Bermuda Jennifer Smith 1998- Prime Minister
*Bolivia Lidia Tejada Gueiler November 17 1979-July 18 1980 Caretaker President
Burundi Sylvie Kinigi 1993-94 Prime Minister
Canada Kim Campbell 1993 Prime Minister
Central African Republic Elisabeth Domitien 1975-1976 Prime Minister
Dominica Eugenia Charles 1980-1995 Prime Minister
Finland Tarja Halonen 2000- President
France Edith Cresson 1991-1992 Prime Minister
Guyana Janet Jagan December 19 1997-1999 President
1997 (March 17-Dec 22) Acting Prime Minister
*Haiti Ertha Pascal-Trouillot March 13 1990-February 7 1991 Interim President
Haiti Claudette Werleigh 1995-1996 Prime Minister
Iceland Vigdis Finnbogadottir 1980-1996 President
Indonesia Megawati Sukarnoputri 2001- President
India Indira Gandhi 1966-1977, 1980-1984 Prime Minister
Ireland Mary McAleese 1997- President
Ireland Mary Robinson 1990-1997 President
Israel Golda Meir 1969-1974 Prime Minister
Latvia Vaira Vike-Freiberga 1999- President
 Lithuania Kazimiera Danuta Prunskiene 1990-1991 Prime Minister
Malta Agatha Barbara 1982-1987 President
N. Antilles Maria Liberia-Peters 1984-1986; 1988-1993 Prime Minister
N. Antilles Susanne Camelia-Romer 1993, 1998-1999 Prime Minister
N. Zealand Jenny Shipley 1997-1999 Prime Minister
N. Zealand Helen Elizabeth Clark 1999- Prime Minister
Nicaragua Violeta de Chamorro 1990-1996 President
Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland 1981, 1986-1989, 1990-1996 Prime Minister
Pakistan Benazir Bhutto 1988-1990, 1993-1996 Prime Minister
Panama Mireya Moscoso de Arias 1999- President
Philippines Corazon Aquino 1986-1992 President
Philippines Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo 2001- President
Poland Hanna Suchocka 1992-1993 Prime Minister
Rwanda Agathe Uwiliingiyimana 1993 Prime Minister
Sao Tome and Principe Maria das Neves Ceita 2002- Prime Minister
Batista de Sousa
Senegal Madoir Boye 2001-2002 Prime Minister
Sri Lanka Sirimavo Bandaranaike 1960-1965, 1970-1977, 1994-2000 Prime Minister
Sri Lanka Chandrika Kumaratunga 1994- President
Switzerland Ruth Dreifuss 1998-1999 President
Turkey Tansu Ciller 1993-1996 Prime Minister
United Kingdom Margaret Thatcher 1979-1990 Prime Minister
Yugoslavia Milka Planinc 1982-1986 Prime Minister

N = 44
91
92 WOMEN & POLITICS

while 17 (39 percent) have been presidents. Sri Lanka is the only coun-
try that simultaneously has had both a woman prime minister and a
woman president (from 1994-2000). The only woman who has served
as both president and prime minister is Guyana’s Janet Jagan.3
Although there have been 44 cases, this does not mean that 44 coun-
tries have had women executives. Instead, only 36 countries have while
some have had multiple women executives. The following countries
have had two different women leaders: Bangladesh, Bermuda, Haiti,
Ireland, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, the Philippines, and Sri
Lanka. It could be that once a country has a woman executive, it is more
likely to have one in the future. The barrier to women having been bro-
ken once leads to a more permanent path to power for them in the future.
It should also be noted that there are many women prime ministers
who have served multiple times in the same position (n = 7). The fol-
lowing women have served twice as prime minister: Zia (Bangladesh),
Indira Gandhi (India), Liberia-Peters (Netherlands Antilles), Camelia-
Romer (Netherlands Antilles) and Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan). Brundt-
land (Norway) and Bandaranaike (Sri Lanka) served three terms.
Women presidents, however, are much less likely to serve multiple
terms or even run for candidacy again, some inhibited by presidential
terms limits (including de Chamorro and Aquino). Several of these
women executives (n = 10) are still in office at the time of this writing,
so findings are preliminary. At this point, however, taking into account
the total number of cases of women executives including cases where
women prime ministers have returned to office after their party had pre-
viously been defeated, there has been a total of 54 cases of women presi-
dents and prime ministers between 1960 and 2002, which can be divided
into 17 presidents (31 percent) and 37 prime ministers (69 percent).4
The number of different women prime ministers or presidents are
listed in relation to their geographical area in Table 2. There is a great
deal of geographical diversity in the numbers of women executives. As
may be expected, because of the relatively egalitarian culture and open
political systems to women, European countries have taken a strong
lead in the number of different women executives, as is revealed in Ta-
ble 2 (n = 14). However, many women have been presidents or prime
ministers in less egalitarian societies and political systems. Asia has the
second highest number of women executives (n = 9), the vast majority
concentrated in South Asia, followed by the Caribbean, Latin America,
and Africa (each n = 5). Like Asia, because of the more traditional gen-
der roles occupied by women and their relatively low statuses, the find-
ing that Latin American and African countries together have had ten
 Farida Jalalzai 93

women executives is important. Conversely, because of the relatively

egalitarian culture and general greater opportunities that women have in
the United States and Canada, it is surprising to find North America lag-
ging behind with only three cases of women executives. Because of the
few countries that compose Oceania, the finding that Oceania has had
two women executives is actually very positive especially since New
Zealand has had two women prime ministers consecutively. Lastly, the
Middle East, unsurprisingly, has had only one woman executive (Golda
Meir from Israel).5
In terms of governmental structure, the vast majority, 32 (73 percent)
of these women entered into office in parliamentary systems while only
106 (23 percent) are from presidential systems, providing evidence that
women have greater success in obtaining executive positions in parlia-
mentary rather than presidential systems.7 Whicker and Hedy (1999) ar-
gue that the presidential system in countries like the United States is an
obstacle to women achieving the highest positions of power. Presiden-
tial systems generally rely on the popular vote (or some combination of
voting as in the United States) for selection of the head of state. How-
ever, in parliamentary systems, the party is generally voted on, not the
individual, so even if the country has a socially conservative electorate,
a woman may be able to work her way up in a party and win the respect
of her colleagues, become party head and ultimately, prime minister.

TABLE 2. Women Executives in Terms of Geography

Geographical Area Cases of Women Prime Ministers Further Breakdown

or Presidents
Africa 5 All Sub-Saharan
Asia 9 South Asia: 6; Southeast: 3
2 cases each from Bangladesh,
the Philippines, and Sri Lanka
Caribbean 5 2 cases from Haiti and
Netherlands Antilles
Europe 14 Western Europe: 10: (3 of which
are Nordic); 4: Eastern. 2 cases
from Ireland.
Latin America 5
Middle East 1 Israel
North America 3 Two cases from Bermuda
Oceania 2 Both cases are from New Zealand
94 WOMEN & POLITICS

Table 3 shows the age of women executives upon entering office,

their educational background including information on the type of de-
gree and field of study, and lastly, political experience. While age is
straightforward, educational and political experience need further clari-
fication.
Educational level is measured from low to high with low signifying
high school degree or lower, medium a college degree, and high a grad-
uate or professional degree. Information on field of study, when avail-
able, is also provided since certain fields may foster greater political
experience than others. Political experience prior to becoming president
or prime minister is important to understanding overall background and
political qualifications and will ultimately shed light on the spring-
boards to office. Genovese classified several women leaders’ political
experience in the following way: having none, limited, or extensive po-
litical experience (1993: 212-213). Genovese did not use a scientific
measure to classify women’s political experience. Limited was meant to
signify little or no national government experience and limited state/re-
gional/experience while extensive referred to holding a position in a na-
tional government or responsible shadow cabinet party/leadership position.
This paper attempts to improve Genovese’s measure by including the
number of years and levels of political experience.
Clearly, there are several types of political experience: membership
in a political party and being a party activist, appointment to various po-
litical offices, election to political office at a variety of levels (national,
local, regional), and also leadership positions such as cabinet minister.
It seems reasonable to give different weight to the level of office hold-
ing, so holding political office on a local level is not treated the same as
being a member of parliament. As well, being a member of parliament
for two years with high level ministerial posts should not be treated the
same as being in parliament for 20 years with several ministerial posts.
Much of the literature on political experience is from American politics.
Bond, Covington, and Fleisher (1985) use the following three point
scale to classify experience of congressional opponents: 1-no political
experience, 2-experience in local city or county office, and 3-experi-
ence in the state legislature or Congress. Although this coding takes into
account different levels of office holding, it does not address years of
experience. However, even when both level and years in office are
taken into account, further problems arise. Specifically, how should po-
litical experience be coded when someone has both local and national
political experience? Furthermore, how is political clout systematically
measured? Lastly, should women’s experiences in party organizations
 TABLE 3. Age, Education, and Political Experience

Country Leader Age Education Political Experience

Argentina Isabel Peron 43 Low: Elementary Low: Vice President for 1 year under her husband
Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina Wajed 49 Medium: College degree High: President of Awami League party since 1981 and
member of parliament as opposition leader 1991-1996
Bangladesh Khaleda Zia 46 Low: High school High: BNP party activist since 1981 becoming chairperson
in 1984, election in 1991 as PM was her first election to
parliament1
Bermuda Pamela Gordon Information High: MBA High: Member of Parliament for 4 years several ministerial
unavailable positions, other executive appointments
Bermuda Jennifer Smith 51 Medium: College degree– High: Senate 9 years, parliament since 1989, minister of
government studies education, PLP party activist for many years prior
Bolivia Lidia Tejada Guieler 64 Information unavailable High: 12 years an integral part of revolutionary movement
(1952-1964) and leadership in Left National Revolutionary
Party from 1964-1979. Her appointment as President was
the first time she held national office.
Burundi Sylvie Kinigi 40 Medium: College degree– Medium: executive appointment economic consultant to
economics management Prime Minister from 1991-1993 and her appointment as
Prime Minister was her first time in high political office.
Prior to that, she held various civil service posts.
Canada Kim Campbell 46 Medium: College, degree in High: 4 years city school board, Provincial legislature
political science unfinished 1986-1988, Member of Parliament 1989-1993 and several
PhD in economics, executive appointments including Minister of Justice,
honorary law degree Attorney General, and Minister of National Defense
Central Elisabeth Domitien 55 Information Unclear High: Several years active with MESAN independence
African movement and became one of its leaders although never
Republic held government posts prior to prime minister appointment
Dominica Eugenia Charles 61 High: Law Degree High: Parliament member for 12 years and opposition
leader for 5 of these years
Finland Tarja Halonen 57 High: Law Degree High: Member of Parliament for 11 years with several
95

ministerial positions
96
TABLE 3 (continued)

Country Leader Age Education Political Experience

France Edith Cresson 57 High: PhD– High: Party activist since 1965 and deputy leader, 3 years
demography European Parliament Agriculture and Minister for National
Assembly, mayor of two towns, several high executive
appointments
Guyana Janet Jagan 77 Medium: College degree– High: PPP founder and leader, Member of Parliament 1953-
nursing 1997 where she first was in House Assembly (1953-1964)
deputy speaker and ministerial posts, and then Senator
with a few years of breaks between 1964 and 1997.
*Haiti Ertha Pascal-Trouillot 47 High: Law Degree High: Supreme Court Justice for 4 years (1986-1990)
Haiti Claudette Werleigh 51 Medium: College degree in High: Member of Parliament for 5 years with ministerial
law and economics, posts and chief cabinet officer
technical diploma in
science and art
Iceland Vigdis Finnbogadottir 50 Medium: College– None
different majors
Indonesia Megawati Sukarnoputri 54 Low: High school / High: Parliament member for 10 years and heard of PDI
unfinished college degree party, PDI-P party founder, unsuccessful presidential
in agricultural science candidate, vice-president
India Indira Gandhi 61 Low: High school, High: Congress Party member beginning in 1955 and
unfinished college studies president of it by 1959, member of Parliament
Ireland Mary Robinson 46 High: Law degree High: Member of Parliament for 20 years
Ireland Mary McAleese 46 High: Law degree None–though very small appointments to represent Ireland
at various conferences
Israel Golda Meir 71 Low: High school High: Political experience dates back before the official
creation of Israel and her work was integral to Israel’s
establishment in 1948. Approximately 30 years of total
experience before becoming Israel’s first prime minister
with several large executive appointments including
cabinet posts, ambassadorships along the way.
 Latvia Vaira Vike-Freiberga 62 High: PhD in psychology Low: 1 year executive appointment
Lithuania Kazimiera Danuta 47 High: PhD in economics High: active in Communist party 1980-1989 with two
Prunskiene executive appointments that totaled approximately 3 years.
Later pivotal member of Lithuanian movement (Sajudi) to
become independent from Soviet Union formed in 1988.
Elected to Sajudi national assembly and executive council
and member of Soviet Union Congress 1989-1990. Elected
to Parliament in 1990 where she was appointed as PM
Malta Agatha Barbara 59 Low: Grammar school Extensive: Parliament member for 35 years with several
ministerial posts
N. Antilles Maria Liberia-Peters 43 Medium: College– High: executive Island council member for 5 years, member
Teaching degree of Staten (legislature) 4 years with an appointment as
Minister of Economic Affairs
N. Antilles Susanne Information Information Unavailable Unclear: limited information available though member of
Camelia-Romer unavailable Staten-legislature, years unknown–probably medium to high
N. Zealand Jenny Shipley 45 Medium: College– High: Parliament member for 10 years with several
teaching degree ministerial posts and also local government official
N. Zealand Helen Elizabeth Clark 49 High: Masters in politics High: Parliament member for 18 years with several cabinet
positions, ministerial posts, deputy PM, and opposition
leader
Nicaragua Violeta de Chamorro 42 Low: High school, Low: Although part of a junta for 9 months, she was a
unfinished college degree member in name only, resigning several times. No formal
political experience before becoming presidential candidate
Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland 61 High: Medical doctor High: 7 years in Parliament with several ministerial posts
Pakistan Benazir Bhutto 35 Medium: Ivy League college Low-Medium: Limited and sporadic party work for PPP
degree in government because of numerous arrests held no prior office before
election 1988 as PM.
Panama Mireya Moscoso 53 Low: Unclear information Low-Medium: No previous office but leader of husband’s
de Arias but no college former party for 10 years before becoming president
(had an unsuccessful bid for president prior in 1995)
Philippines Corazon Aquino 53 College degree in French None
with a math minor
97
98
TABLE 3 (continued)

Country Leader Age Education Political Experience

Philippines Gloria Macapagal- 54 High: PhD in economics High: Executive appointment under Aquino, two term Senator
Arroyo
Poland Hanna Suchocka 46 High: PhD in law High: Member of Parliament for 8 years
Rwanda Agathe 40 High: Masters in chemistry Low: 1 year executive appointment
Uwiliingiyimana
Sao Tome and Maria das Neves 61 Information unavailable Information unclear: total years in Parliament unknown
Principe Ceita Batista
de Sousa
Senegal Madoir Boye 44 High: Law degree Information unclear: several judicial appointments and
Minister of Justice–Probably medium to high range
Sri Lanka Sirimavo 44 Low: High school None: Although she was an active member of a community
Bandaranaike group, Lanka Mahila Samiti Ceylon Women’s Association,
and later president of it
Sri Lanka Chandrika 49 Medium: College degree in High: Several executive appointments totaling approximately
Kumaratunga political science, unfinished 9 years, elected to Western Provincial Council for 1 year,
PhD in economics though no prior experience in national parliament before
election as prime minister
Switzerland Ruth Dreifuss 58 Medium: Commercial High: Member of Bern legislature, Parliament member
diploma and license in for 6 years
economic science
Turkey Tansu Ciller 47 High: PhD in economics Medium: Member of Parliament for 2 years during which she
was Minister of Economics
United Kingdom Margaret Thatcher 54 High: Law degree High: Parliament member since 1959 (20 years)
with several ministerial posts
Yugoslavia Milka Planinc 58 Unclear: Higher school High: Several high ranking positions in Communist Party
of Administration
1
Zia and Wajed rose to party positions during the military takeover. Both were placed under house arrest several times during the martial law but were
continually working with their respective parties toward the return of civilian rule. Because of this, Zia and Wajed were unable to hold formal political
office until 1991 (Zia as Prime Minister and Wajed as opposition leader).
 Farida Jalalzai 99

and political movements be completely discounted if they do not hold

formal posts? A truly scientific measure addressing all such concerns is
not yet available. However, preliminary assessments are made that take
into account some of these apprehensions.
In this article, political experience entails any of the following activi-
ties: holding political office, engaging in party activity, or participating
in a political movement (including revolutionary). Political experience
ranges from none to high. Degree takes into account the type, level, and
the number of years engaged in the activity. Political clout is noted in
terms of ministerial positions and offices held in a party. The following
classification scheme is used: None-no prior political experience before
becoming executive; Low-1-4 years’ experience in one of the following
activities: local office holding such as mayor, party activism or activism
in a revolutionary movement, or holding a national office for one year
or less; Medium-5-8 years of local office holding, party activism or ac-
tivism in a revolutionary movement, or 2-3 years national level office;
High-9 years or more of local office holding, party activism or activism
in a revolutionary movement, or 4 years or more in national level office.
In the rare case that an executive’s political experience is hard to catego-
rize, she may be classified between two degrees (such as low/high).
Also, a handful of women executives, especially those from Africa, have
very little information known about them still. Such cases are noted.
In terms of age, the average age of women executives is 51 at first ex-
ecutive office (omitting the two cases where information is currently
unavailable). The youngest woman to hold office is Bhutto (Pakistan)
who became prime minister at the age of 35, followed by Uwiliingiyi-
mana (Rwanda) and Kinigi (Burundi) both entering into office at 40.
The oldest, Janet Jagan (Guyana), first entered office at 77. Seventeen
of the 44 women have high levels of education: six PhDs, six law de-
grees, and one MD. Thirteen have mid-range levels of education, com-
pleting college degrees.8 Nine have high school degrees or lower.
Lastly, five have no or limited information available on their education.
Assessments, therefore, are preliminary.
Women executives studied in a wide range of fields. Like men, many
studied law and economics. Many actually taught at various levels be-
fore entering politics (including Shipley and Liberia-Peters). Some pur-
sued government as a full time career. Only four can be considered
“housewives” before pursuing executive office (Peron, Zia, de Cham-
orro, and Aquino).
In terms of political office, the vast majority of these women have
very high levels of political experience, usually being members of the
100 WOMEN & POLITICS

national government with significant leadership positions for several

years, a pattern that is similar to men prime ministers and presidents.
Specifically, 29 (66 percent) of women executives have high levels of
political experience. Two (Ciller and Kinigi) have medium levels of ex-
perience, while it is difficult to properly categorize Bhutto’s and Mos-
coso de Aria’s experiences because Bhutto was exiled and under house
arrest for several years of her activity while Moscoso de Aria’s political
participation was sporadic. For three women information is scarce and,
therefore, their political experience is hard to gauge at this time. Lastly,
four had no political experience: Finnbogadottir of Iceland, McAleese
of Ireland, Aquino of the Philippines, and Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka.
Aquino and Bandaranaike were political widows while Finnbogadottir
and McAleese held largely ceremonial posts.
Ceremonial posts pose an important question: should the presidents
of Iceland and Ireland be regarded as equally powerful players as other
presidents? Clearly, some executives hold very little real but mostly
symbolic power. Should these cases be discarded? The example of
Mary Robinson of Ireland comes to mind as a reason why even “figure-
heads” are important. Such figures can take largely ceremonial power
and transform it into more substantive and even feminist power. Even
though the office of the president in Ireland is limited politically in that
the Constitution prevents her from delivering partisan declarations:

Robinson discovered ways to express her views and support for

progressive change within the constitutional constraints of her of-
fice. By frequently meeting with feminists and other reformers she
offers encouragement and by nodding her head in agreement, she
endorses their positions. Robinson need not speak to send a mes-
sage to the public at home and abroad . . . As Robinson sees it, “The
office of the president can be a resource and a catalyst and give
leadership.” (Sykes 193: 224)

Such examples of even figureheads providing transformational and

feminist leadership even amidst constraints are perhaps the most in-
triguing. In Robinson’s case, legislation that suspended laws against ho-
mosexuality, birth control, and divorce were either passed, or given
serious attention that made their passage much more likely in the future.
Also, the sheer influence of a woman being in such a visible position in
politics has tremendous influence in and of itself, as already discussed.
One of the most important pieces of women’s background involves
familial ties and the importance of kinship for succession in countries.
 Farida Jalalzai 101

Specifically, many women leaders in South and Southeast Asia have

blood or marital ties with slain or imprisoned leaders and even though
the general political participation and activity of women in these coun-
tries has been restricted, women are “. . . perceived as filling a political
void created by the death or imprisonment of a male family member”
(Richter 1991: 526). This phenomenon has even been true in the United
States as many of the first women members of the House and Senate
were appointed or even elected as replacements for their deceased hus-
bands (Braden 1996). Familial ties measures the existence of blood or
marriage ties between the woman executive and either a former execu-
tive (prime minister or president) or former opposition leader. This does
not include family member’s positions lower than national level office
such as local/city government although this will be measured in a re-
lated variable, political family, in a subsequent study.
How many women leaders in these contexts have had such familial
ties? As revealed in Table 4, 13 of 44 women executives (30 percent)
have, with 11 women tied to former presidents or prime ministers (five
cases consisting of wives and six daughters) while the remaining two
women were married to leaders of an opposing party or movement. This
phenomenon is limited to Asian and Latin American cultures. Four of
five Latin American women executives and all nine Asian women exec-
utives had familial ties.
The primary importance of analyzing familial ties is that it begins to
explain why women in relatively less egalitarian cultures and political
systems gain office. As stated earlier, all but one of the Latin American
women executives (Lidia Tejada) had familial ties through their hus-
bands. All Asian women executives have had familial ties as well, though
these have been more varied than Latin American women executives in
that they also include familial ties to fathers.
What needs to be addressed is how and why these particular women
were chosen to fulfill these legacies that could have been filled by men
in the family. Were they chosen as heirs because they had no brothers?
What about Asian and Latin American cultures makes daughters better
representatives than sons? Many of these women such as Bhutto from
Pakistan and Sukarnoputri of Indonesia had brothers who could have
entered into politics to represent their fathers’ legacies. Is there some-
thing in Asian culture, or in Islamic culture in particular, that makes
daughters better candidates than sons?
In Latin America, the concept of marianismo, the counterpart of ma-
chismo, is part of the explanation. “Under this system, women derive
their identities through their male relatives–fathers, brothers, husbands,
102
TABLE 4. Familial Ties
Country/Region Leader Familial Ties To: Level of Prior Political Experience
Argentina-Latin America Isabel Peron Husband President Juan Domingo Peron (1946-1955; Low
1973-1974), dies in office of natural causes
Bangladesh-South Asia Sheikh Hasina Father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was PM of country High
Wajed (1972-1975) murdered during coup
Bangladesh Khaleda Zia Husband Zia-ur-Rahman assassinated president High
South Asia (1977-1981)
Guyana Janet Jagan Husband Cheddi Bharat Jagan president (October- High
Latin America March1997)–dies in office due to natural causes, his
pm becomes president and she becomes pm
temporarily and later becomes president
Indonesia Megawati Father Sukarno former president (1963-1965), High
South East Asia Sukarnoputri deposed in military coup and put under house arrest
until he died of natural causes (1970)
India Indira Gandhi Father, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s PM (1947-1964), High
South Asia dies of natural causes in office
Nicaragua Violeta de Husband Pedro activist/opposition leader slain in 1978 Low
Latin America Chamorro
Pakistan Benazir Bhutto Father, Ali, former president (1971-1973) and PM Low-Medium
South Asia (1973-1977), ousted by the military and executed
in 1979
Panama Mireya Married former president Arnulfo Aria after he was Low-Medium
Latin America Moscoso ousted in a coup who later dies of natural causes
de Arias in exile in 1988
Philippines Corazon Aquino Husband Benigno Aquino slain opposition leader (1983) None
South East Asia
Philippines Gloria Father, Diosdedo Macapagal former president (1961- High
South East Asia Macapagal- 1965)
Arroyo
Sri Lanka Sirimavo Husband Solomon Bandaranaike PM (1956-1959) slain None
South Asia Bandaranaike in office, daughter Chandrika later president and
appoints her to another third term as PM
Sri Lanka Chandrika Father Solomon Bandaranaike (see above) slain PM, High
South Asia Kumaratunga mother Sirimavo Bandaranaike who was twice PM,
and later appointed by Chandrika to a third
 Farida Jalalzai 103

and sons and achieve their highest fulfillment as wives and mothers”
(Saint-Germain 1993: 77). It is easy to understand how women would
be expected to further the political agenda of their husbands in Latin
America since women derive their identities from men and use this to
gain political advantage. Although this can be confining to a woman in
terms of what she can ultimately achieve, it nonetheless is a path to
power.
Although there is no comparable concept to marianismo used in Asian
cultures, similar cultural values are perpetuated that make it fitting for
women who have ties to male political figures to take over after their
relatives are out of power. Unlike the Latin American cases, many
women executives from Asia were daughters of the country’s founding
fathers: Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia, Wajed from Bangladesh,
Indira Gandhi of India, and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of the Philip-
pines. Patriarchal politics have dominated all cultures and countries and
are certainly deeply entrenched in Asian societies. Inherent in patriar-
chy is women being ruled by men (Kann 1999). It would, therefore, be
consistent with patriarchal principles for women to enter office as sym-
bols of their fathers or husbands as “leaseholders of patriarchal power”
(McIntyre 1997: 1). Clearly, this is part of the overall explanation. An
interesting finding is that while some of the most repressive cultures and
political systems towards women are those in African countries, none of
the information (which, unfortunately, is the scarcest) on women execu-
tives from Africa indicates any familial ties to male political leaders.
One of the biggest criticisms of women obtaining high levels of of-
fice through family ties is that they are merely symbols and have no in-
dependent political experience, expertise, or interest. Referring to Sukar-
noputri of Indonesia: “Suppose she was not the daughter of Bung
Karno, she wouldn’t be any one at all: only a housewife with simple
thoughts” (Mohamad 1996: 2), it is clear that the qualifications of these
women are called into question, especially with regard to political expe-
rience. However, it should not be taken for granted that these women
did not have any political experience upon reaching executive office.
Most of these women, except for Jagan and Gandhi, did not have politi-
cal careers prior to their relative’s leaving office. Still, it is generally
misguided to assume that women with familial ties to former political
leaders did not obtain political experience prior to entering executive
office even if their entry into politics was after their fathers or husbands
left office.
How politically experienced were women with familial ties when they
entered office? The majority of women had high levels of experience
104 WOMEN & POLITICS

upon entering office (seven out of 13 or 54 percent). Only two women

(Aquino and Bandaranaike) had no prior political experience, two had
low levels (Peron and de Chamorro) and two classified (Bhutto and
Moscoso de Arias) between low and medium.
The discussion of familial ties leads to numerous related questions
and possible studies. What kind of generalizations can be made about
cultures that are susceptible to familial ties in politics that make family
more salient than gender at times? What about a particular culture
makes familial ties important at all? Does this exist in more traditional
societies where the family is the still the key authority? What can be said
of the effect of women obtaining executive office in this manner? Al-
though the actual impact of these women in terms of achieving a femi-
nist agenda is not the subject of this study, questions regarding whether
familial ties are generally limiting or encouraging of women’s equality
can be probed. These women would most likely never have been execu-
tives had they not been connected to men. Are these examples then cate-
gorically different than the others? Clearly, familial ties is a very crucial
variable to study in the examination of this question.

CONCLUSION

In 1960, Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka broke ground that no

woman had before when she became prime minister of her country.
Soon after, Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir joined this exclusive club.
Meanwhile, it would not be until 1974 that a woman would become
president (Isabel Peron). Some things have not changed since these pio-
neers entered the political scene: women are still rarely presidents and
prime ministers. However, more women have been reaching these high
positions: 24 new women became executives in the 1990s. Many of
these women remained in office by the year 2000. Since 2000, five new
women have entered executive office. Clearly, this is a positive devel-
opment for women. Also expected, these women are diverse in terms of
background. There is clearly not one typical background from which
they come. The geographical diversity outlined underscores the need to
explain crucial issues such as why women have come to power in re-
pressive cultures. Familial ties will surely need to be developed further
as a possible explanation although not all women gaining power in re-
pressive cultures have familial ties. Also, more research must be con-
ducted on some of the least known women executives–those from Africa.
 Farida Jalalzai 105

It is the perfect time to analyze women presidents and prime minis-

ters. With more women reaching executive office, more systematic
studies can be conducted. Investigations on women’s diversity in terms
of background will shed light on the different paths to power open to
them with the ultimate hope of women achieving office everywhere.

NOTES
1. Papers written by the author addressing this question: “Women Leaders in Com-
parative Perspective.” Paper presented at the New England Political Science Associa-
tion Annual Conference, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. April 2004. “Familial Ties–
Blessing or Burden to Women?” Paper presented at the Northeastern Political Science
Annual Conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. November 2003. These are all part of
my dissertation.
2. The following cases of women presidents or prime ministers have been omitted
from the analysis: Bulgaria Interim Prime Minister Reneta Indzhova (October 16-Jan-
uary 1995); Burundi Acting President Sylvie Kinigi (October 27, 1993-February 5,
1994); Ecuador Caretaker President Rosalia Arteaga (February 9-11, 1997); Germany
Interim President Sabine Bergnann-Pohl (April 5-October 2 1990); Guinea Bissau
Acting President Carmen Pereira (May 14-May 16, 1984); Liberia Chairman of the
Council of State Ruth Perry (1996-1997); Lithuania Acting Prime Minister Irena
Degutien (May 4-18, 1999); Mongolia Acting Prime Minister Nyam Osoriyn Tuyaa
(July 22-30, 1999); Myanmar Prime Minister Suu Kyi (Military refused to recognize
results); Rep of Korea Acting Prime Minister Chang Sang (July 11-31, 2002); Portugal
Acting Prime Minister Maria da Lourdes Pintasilgo (August 1 1979-January 3 1980);
San Marino Captain Regents Maria Lea Pedini-Angelini, Gloriana Ranocchini, Patri-
cia Busignani, Rosa Zafferani, and Maria Domenica Michelotti.
3. Sylvie Kinigi of Burundi also served in both offices of at the same time, but on an
acting basis as president and for a period less than nine months.
4. Although is counted in her capacity of president only since her time as prime min-
ister was on an acting basis and was brief (though it does meet the nine month thresh-
old). Because the unit of analysis is the actual woman executive, it would be problem-
atic to count her twice.
5. Out of curiosity, if the cases where women were appointed to executive positions
for less than nine months and when elections results were not followed through were
included, the total cases of different women presidents and prime ministers would in-
crease by nine to 53. This number would be divided between 33 prime ministers (62
percent) and 20 presidents (38 percent) which is almost identical to the breakdown
found when excluding these cases (61 percent and 38 percent respectively). The overall
cases of taking into account multiple terms increases to 64 total cases of women execu-
tives comprised of 43 prime ministers (67 percent) and 21 presidents (33 percent) also
very close to the breakdown found when excluding the cases 69 and 31 respectively).
Using the total cases of women executives also has little effect on geography: it in-
creases Europe’s cases to 18 and increases Asia’s cases to 12 (although there is greater
geographical representation with European women increasing representation of East-
ern Europe and Asian women being from East Asia/Pacific countries), and increases
106 WOMEN & POLITICS

Latin America and Africa to six cases each (excluding Kinigi’s since she has been
counted in the previous sample) as well as Latin America. All other regions remain un-
changed.
6. Bangladesh had switched from a parliamentary to a presidential system and
switched again to parliamentary prior to Khaleda Zia’s election in 1991.
7. Two of these women are from semi-presidential/semi-parliamentary systems:
Cresson from France and Dreifuss in Switzerland.
8. Information on Boye and Tejada obtained via e-mail correspondence with the Sen-
egalese and Bolivian Embassies on March 22, 2003 and March 24, 2003, respectively.

REFERENCES
Anderson, Nancy Fix. 1993. “Benazir Bhutto and Dynastic Politics: Her Father’s Daugh-
ter, Her People’s Sister.” In Women as National Leaders, ed. Michael Genovese.
London: Sage, 41-69.
Bhutto, Benazir. 1988. Daughter of the East. London: Penguin.
______. 1989. Daughter of Destiny. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Blondel, Jean. 1987. Political Leadership: Towards a General Analysis. London:
Sage.
Bond, Jon R., Cary Covington, and Richard Fleisher. 1985. “Explaining Challenger
Quality in Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics 47: 510-529.
Braden, Maria. 1996. Women Politicians in the Media. Lexington: University of Ken-
tucky Press.
Carroll, Susan J. 2001. “Representing Women: Women State Legislators as Agents of
Policy-Related Change.” In The Impact of Women in Public Office, ed. Susan J.
Carroll. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 3-21.
de Chamorro, Violeta. 1996. Dreams of the Heart. Simon and Schuster: New York.
Col, Jeanne-Marie. 1993. “Managing Softly in Turbulent Times: Corazon C. Aquino,
President of the Philippines.” In Women as National Leaders, ed. Michael Genovese.
London: Sage, 13-40.
Darcy, R., Susan Welch, and Janet Clark. Women: Elections and Representation. New
York: Longman, 1987.
Davis, Sue. 1991. Women and Power in Parliamentary Democracies: Cabinet Ap-
pointments in Western Europe, 1968-1992. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Dolan, Kathleen, and Lynne E. Ford. 1995. “Women in the State Legislatures: Femi-
nist Identity and Legislative Behaviors.” American Politics Quarterly 23: 96-109.
Everett, Jana. 1993. “Indira Gandhi and the Exercise of Power.” In Women as National
Leaders, ed. Michael Genovese. London: Sage, 103-134.
Francovic, Kathleen A. 1977. “Sex and Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives:
1965-1975.” American Politics Quarterly 5: 315-331.
Genovese, Michael A. 1993. “Margaret Thatcher and the Politics of Conviction Lead-
ership.” In Women as National Leaders, ed. Michael Genovese. London: Sage,
177-210.
Genovese, Michael A, and Seth Thompson. 1993. “Women as Chief Executives: Does
Gender Matter?” In Women as National Leaders, ed. Michael Genovese. London:
Sage, 1-12.
 Farida Jalalzai 107

Inglehart, Ronald, and Pippa Norris. 2001. “Cultural Obstacles to Equal Representa-
tion.” Journal of Democracy 12: 126-141.
______. 2003. The Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the
World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kann, Mark E. 1999. The Gendering of American Politics: Founding Mothers, Found-
ing Fathers, and Political Patriarchy. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Kenworthy Lane, and Melissa Malami. 1999. “Gender Inequality in Political Repre-
sentation.” Social Forces 78: 235-248.
Komisar, Lucy. 1987. Corazon Aquino: The Story of a Revolution. New York: George
Braziller.
Lijphart, Arend. 1991. “Debate: Proportional Representation: III, Double Checking the
Evidence.” Journal of Democracy 2: 42-48.
Liswood, Laura A. 1995. Women World Leaders. London: Pandora.
Lovenduski, Joni, and Pippa Norris, eds. 1993. Gender and Party Politics. London:
Sage.
Matland, Richard E. 1993. “Institutional Variables Affecting Female Representation in
National Legislatures: The Case of Norway.” Journal of Politics 55(3): 737-755.
______. 1998. “Women’s Representation in National Legislatures: Developed and De-
veloping Countries.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 23: 109-125.
McIntyre, Angus. 1997. In Search of Megawati Sukarnoputri. Australia: Monash Uni-
versity.
Mezey, Susan Gluck. 2000. “Gender and the Federal Judiciary.” In Gender and Ameri-
can Politics: Men, Women, and the Political Process, eds. Sue Tolleson Rinehart
and Jyl J. Josephson. Armonk, NY: ME Sharp, 205-226.
Mohamad, Goenawan. 1996. “Mega, Mega.” Suara Independen (Independent Voice)
(June): 2.
Neustadt, Richard. 1990. Presidential Power and the Modern Presidency: The Politics
of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan. New York: Free Press.
Norderval, Ingunn. 1985. “Party and Legislative Participation Among Scandinavian
Women.” In Women and Politics in Western Europe, ed. Sylvia B. Bashevkin. Lon-
don: Frank Cass, 71-89.
Norris, Pippa, and Joni Lovenduski. 1989. “Women Candidates for Parliament: Trans-
forming the Agenda?” British Journal of Political Science 19: 106-115.
Oakes, Ann, and Elizabeth Almquist. 1993. “Women in National Legislatures: A
Cross-National Test of Macrostuctural Gender Theories.” Population Research
Policy and Review 12: 71-81.
Opfell, Olga S. 1993. Women Prime Ministers and Presidents. Jefferson, NC: McFar-
land.
Paxton, Pamela. 1997. “Women in National Legislatures: A Cross-National Analysis.”
Social Science Research 26: 442-464.
Reingold, Beth. 1992. “Concepts of Representation Among Female and Male State
Legislators.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17: 509-37.
Reynolds, Andrew. 1999. “Women in the Legislatures and Executives of the World:
Knocking at the Highest Glass Ceiling.” World Politics 51: 547-572.
Richter, Linda K. 1991. “Explaining Theories of Female Leadership in South and
South East Asia.” Pacific Affairs 63: 524-540.
108 WOMEN & POLITICS

Rule, Wilma. 1985. ”Twenty-three Democracies and Women’s Parliamentary Repre-

sentation." Presented at the International Political Science Association Meeting.
Paris.
Rule, Wilma, and Joseph Zimmerman, eds. 1994. Electoral Systems in Comparative
Perspective: Their Impact on Women and Minorities. Westport CT: Greenwood
Press.
Saint-Germain, Michelle A. 1989. “Does Their Difference Make A Difference?: The
Impact of Women on Public Policy in the Arizona Legislature.” Social Science
Quarterly 70: 956-68.
______. 1993 “Women in Power in Nicaragua: Myth and Reality.” In Women as Na-
tional Leaders, ed. Michael Genovese. London: Sage, 70-102.
Salokar, Rebecca Mae, and Mary L. Volcansek, eds. 1996. Women in Law: A Bio-Bib-
liographical Sourcebook. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Saltzstein, Grace Hall. 1986. “Female Mayors and Women in Municipal Jobs.” Ameri-
can Journal of Political Science 30:140-164.
Sanzone, Donna. 1984. “Women in Positions of Political Leadership in Britain,
France, and West Germany.” In Women and the Public Sphere, ed. Janet Siltanen
and Michelle Stanworth. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 160-175.
Sykes, Patricia Lee. 1993. “Women as National Leaders.” In Women as National Lead-
ers, ed. Michael Genovese. London: Sage, 219-229.
Taagepera, Rein. 1994. “Beating the Law of Minority Attrition.” In Electoral Systems
in Comparative Perspective: Their Impact on Women and Minorities, ed. Wilma
Rule and Joseph F. Zimmerman, 235-245.
Thomas, Sue. 1987. “Explaining Legislative Support for Women’s Issues.” Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chi-
cago, Illinois.
______. 1991. “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies.” Journal of Poli-
tics 53: 958-977.
______. 1994. How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford Press.
Thompson, Seth. 1993. “Golda Meir: A Very Public Life.” In Women as National
Leaders, ed. Michael Genovese. London: Sage, 135-160.
Weir, Sara J. 1993. “Peronisma: Isabel Peron and the Politics of Argentina.” In Women
as National Leaders, ed. Michael Genovese. London: Sage, 161-175.
Welch, Susan. 1985. “Are Women More Liberal Than Men in the U.S. Congress?”
Legislative Studies Quarterly 10: 125-34.
Whicker, Marcia Lynn, and Hedy, Leonie Isaacs. 1999. “The Maleness of the Ameri-
can Presidency.” In Women in Politics: Insiders or Outsiders, ed. Lois Duke-Whit-
aker. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 221-232.