Global Politics' Unsung Booster Dose of Estrogen

You may not have noticed - but 2010 has already been a banner year for women in high office. Through the 20th and 21st centuries - 110 years with scores and scores of power transitions in more than 150 countries - the world has seen only 69 women presidents and prime ministers. The list includes women who've won direct elections as in the case of Angela Merkel in Germany or been appointed as in the case of Pratibha Patil, who became President of India through an indirect election. Of these, 17 are currently serving in 2010 and another 4 served for part of the year. That is to say that 30% of all women heads of state or government that have ever served in the modern age - have held power in 2010. Women leaders have popped up in unexpectedly and in unexpected places - from Costa Rica's first woman President Laura Chinchilla who won in a landslide to Australia's new Prime Minister Julia Gillard who took power in a surprise constitutional coup, to Kyrghyzstan's (yes Kyrghyzstan has a woman president!) Roza Otunbayeva (pictured above) who did so in an actual coup. Finland, Slovakia, Croatia and Iceland all elected women Prime Ministers this year. And Brazil looks likely to elect its first female president in a couple of months. Something is clearly underfoot and one would have thought it would have caused more news by now.

What's happening - or what I hope is happening: A gathering trend of women gaining more confidence across the world and demanding their fair share of power combined with populations slowly shedding centuries of patriarchy -- is not just worthy of making news but really of celebration. Not because of the reasons that are often put forward in casual conversation. That more women at the helm of world's nations will lead to greater democracy, lesser corruption, fewer wars, and in general better (if not good) government. Or to governments that are more liberal or care more for their minorities and disadvantaged classes .

There are women leaders who have proved each of those statements true - Aug San Suu Kyi has kept democracy's flickering embers alight in Burma for more than two decades. Phillipine's Corazon Aquino led that country out of the Marcos' dictatorship; Chandrika Kumaratunge reduced the police and militia excesses in Sri Lanka, and devolved more power to the Tamil North-east, Michelle Bachelet's two terms saw Chile's poverty rate fall to first-world levels and Iceland's Johanna Sigurdardottir legalized gay marriage (admittedly a little self-servingly given she's gay herself) as did Argentina's Kristina Fernandez.

But a broader scan of past and present women leaders shows that none of those assertions are truisms. For those who would like to believe that having women in power automatically leads to strengthening of democracy - I have two words: Indira Gandhi. Or maybe three - Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the two-term Filipino president who was accused of rigging her second election and who certainly had no lasting impact on her country's corruption. For every liberal Johanna Sigurdardottir, there's a Laura Chinchilla who firmly opposes abortion, separation of church and state(!) and gay marriage. Virtually nobody would accuse Margaret Thatcher of a surfeit of sympathy for the downtrodden masses. And it is doubtful Ukraine's narcissistic ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko cares for anyone other than herself. The Goldilocked leader's multiple terms in office brought as much drama and disarray as the fairy tale character did to the house of the Three Bears. (To be fair to her, she had a lot of help from the Ukraine's male leaders.)

The fact is, positive stereotypes can be as wrong and as misleading as negative ones. And can cause a fair amount of damage specially when they concern minority candidates in office. For when the candidate belies one or more positive stereotype and proves to be just like any other politician - and why shouldn't he, she, they? - what arguments are left to elect the second woman or black or gay president?

No, the trend needs to be celebrated, I believe, because there are other undeniable effects of increasing gender diversity in a country's leadership. More women in power makes government more representative. Women in government may not necessarily focus on better issues than male counterparts, but are likely to focus on (at least some) different issues that haven't received as much attention under decades of male leadership - simply because they bring a different set of life experiences to bear on the job. Tak rape (a global scourge that overwhelmingly finds female versus male victims), as an exemplar - How many men would have been in a position to understand the impact of rape on its victims better than Liberia's President Ellen Sirleaf who narrowly escaped that fate when imprisoned by Samuel Doe's government. Not surprisingly the first law she enacted as President was to make rape a non-bailable offence.

But most importantly, by giving women equal access to power, nations immediately double the size of the pool from which a good - or if they're very lucky, a great - leader can rise from. Finding great leaders who can transform a country for the better is incredibly hard and incredibly important. The difference between having a good leader versus a bad one could determine whether you end up as present-day Colombia or Venezuela, both imperfect societies but on very different paths with respect to improving human rights, civil liberties and economic conditions. The difference between having a series of average prime-ministers to a series of poor ones can determine whether you end up as Netherlands or Greece. And the difference between having a great, transformational President versus an average one can determine whether a new country descends into chaos like Russia did under Yeltsin or comes together despite decades of hatred and suspicion as South Africa did under Mandela.

Anything that improves the chances of seeing more Mandelas and Suu Kyis is something I want to throw my full - and falling (now that I'm going to the gym) - weight behind. Even if that means having to live with the Mayawatis and Margaret Thatchers who may also be churned up. And even if that means applauding Sarah Palin who is going to be responsible for South Carolina, Oklahoma and probably Georgia and Wyoming welcoming their first women governors in November.