The Power of Femininity: Why More Countries Need Female Leaders

By: Pratha Purushottam

Just over 20 of the world’s 193 countries currently have women as their heads of state. According to UN Women, gender equality in the highest positions of power will not be reached for another 130 years at the current rate. Yet, in recent years, women like Jacinda Acern and Angela Merkel have been universally applauded for their leadership, embodying what it means to be a politician for the people. The consensus shows that women tend to perform better than men in positions of power, especially during times of crisis. Such bleak underrepresentation of women in positions of power thus signals troubling consequences. 

Gender-equal governments are more inclusive and give a voice to all their citizens. Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, South Africa’s first female deputy president and the former executive director for UN Women, stated that, in gender-balanced governments “you reduce the likelihood of missing out on the needs of some people because you just have never walked in their shoes.” Women bring fresh perspectives, and as a result, gender-balanced governments make better decisions because they are more representative of the people they serve. Looking at the status of women’s rights in countries with male-dominated governments, this holds true. For example, Daniel Ortega has occupied the presidential seat in Nicaragua since 2007, pushing his conservative Catholic ideals and diminishing the position of women in society for years. His government has revoked the legal status of multiple NGOs opposing Nicaragua’s abuse of women’s rights. In addition, Ortega’s refusal to adequately fund comisarías, special police stations run by women for women and designed specifically to address gender-based violence, led to nationwide shutdowns in their operations. A female leader would likely recognize the importance of such issues and therefore prevent the oppression of half the country’s population. 

The COVID-19 pandemic evened the playing field of politics as the entire world faced the same crisis. From the beginning, it was clear that regardless of size or location, countries with female leadership—examples being Denmark, Germany, New Zealand, and Slovakia—tackled the pandemic relatively well. The women heading these nations “were proactive in responding to the threat of the virus, implementing social distancing restrictions early, seeking expert advice to inform health strategies and unifying the country around a comprehensive response with transparent and compassionate communication.” A study even found that female leaders acted faster and more decisively to reduce mortality rates in response to the spread of the virus because they prioritized saving lives over maintaining economic stability—something their male counterparts failed to do. Such empathy and decisiveness ensured significantly lower mortality rates from COVID.

Women are deterred from entering politics for several reasons. Political parties generally do not support female candidates because of their perceived electoral risk, inducing a self-reinforcing cycle of exclusion. Introducing quota systems for female representation in government is one way to solve this problem. Women also face significant violence in politics, scaring many away from government positions. Four in five women parliamentarians have experienced psychological violence linked to their job, one in four physical violence, and one in five sexual violence. Governments around the globe should criminalize such acts, and social media companies should take greater initiative to tackle cyber-abuse, especially body-shaming and sexual innuendo, both of which are often targeted towards women in politics. 

Currently, women win elections, but at an incredibly slow rate. Making a concerted effort to elect more female politicians not only ensures better representation, but introduces new perspectives into a heavily male-dominated sector. Women’s proven leadership skills compared to men in the midst of crisis make them invaluable. In addition, introducing more women into positions of power would likely decrease the gender pay gap. Both voters and governments across the world need to work together to mitigate the dominant hold men possess over positions of leadership. If not, it will be over a century before we see equality. As the world continues to grow and shift towards a more globalized and modern future, women must not be left behind, but rather placed at the forefront of change.

The Cards Were Already on the Table: What the West told Putin about their Commitment to Democratic Freedom

By: Anna Grace Calhoun

As Russian artillery shells indiscriminately destroy Ukrainian cities, the Western response has been swift and sweeping, featuring extensive sanctions designed to sever Russia from the global economy. Pointing to Ukrainian heroism and the unified condemnation of NATO and the U.S., many Western figures have asked with indignation: How did Putin think he could get away with this? In their narrative, Putin gravely miscalculated; he committed an egregious assault on human rights, democracy, and state sovereignty, and he solidified his nation’s destiny of becoming a pariah. However, the recent past reveals the West has been apathetic when it comes to Russian aggression against non-strategically valuable states. The future is impossible to predict, but it is entirely plausible that Putin will walk away having achieved at least some of his goals, such as Ukrainian neutrality. Even in outcomes less favorable to Putin, his downfall is less likely to be brought on by Western rescue than by wild card factors, such as a Ukrainian insurgency. As such, perhaps Western societies overestimated the credibility of their claim to being decisive defenders of democracy. The West must seek to re-evaluate themselves honestly; otherwise, they will never understand the calculus which guides Putin-like figures. 

Perhaps scarred by the Bush era’s overreach and failures in nation-building, the past three U.S. presidents have pursued a foriegn policy that rhetorically emphasizes democratic values and alliance but commits primarily “democratic support” insofar as it serves direct security concerns. This policy has left Russian international assaults on human rights largely unchallenged. Though the West is pointing to the displacement of 6.5 million Ukranians as a motivator for their action against the Russian invasion, it has never given the same attention to Moscow’s backing of the Assad regime, whose civil/proxy war has displaced over 13.5 million Syrians. The Syrian government carried out 32 confirmed chemical attacks and stands accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and “other international crimes, including genocide” by the UN Human Rights Council. Yet, even following Obama’s 2012 “red line” declaration, the West has made no dedicated effort to stand with Syrians in the way it has rallied against potential war crimes in Ukraine. In fact, the same EU countries now welcoming Ukrainian refugees aggressively turned away Syrian refugees, even using them as political pawns in manufactured border crises. What about this response demonstrates to Putin that the West has a genuine, principled devotion to upholding human rights internationally? 

Other Western values asserted in opposition to the invasion include protection of state sovereignty and democratic governance. However, the strength of these commitments are questionable in the wake of Kremlin influence on the most recent Belrusian election. After the fraudulent reelection of current Belarusian President Lukashenko, the leader faced widespread protests, which he met with intense militia crackdowns. His regime then secured further Russian backing, with the KGB forcing his former electoral opponent Tsikhanouskaya to emigrate to Lithuania. This dictator, who kidnapped dissidents and brutalized protestors, solidified his rule in 2020 by enlisting Russian aid in crushing democratic electoral results and uprisings--and his abuses hardly made headlines. Where was the West’s commitment to bolstering democracy in Minsk? The choice to turn a blind eye now exacts an acute cost, with Belarus serving as a key launching ground for Russian missiles and as a potential military reinforcer. Interference with the Belerusian election is just one example among numerous Russian violations of state sovereignty: the annexation of Crimea in 2014, active perpetuation of frozen conflicts in Moldova, Georgia, and Armenia/Azerbaijan, and interference in a U.S. election. Again, the West formed no cohesive and consistent resistance against such assaults on democratic sovereignty. 

Despite the emphasis on the moral imperative to support Ukrainians’ freedom against an enemy committed to evil, Putin’s success in continuing operations to undermine both individual and state freedoms may have taught him a lesson the West has yet to learn: regardless of language suggesting otherwise, human rights and democratic principles unfortunately take a backseat in foreign policy. Biden’s botched statement about disagreements concerning whether to respond to a “minor incursion” only confirmed that security and economic factors exert far more leverage over policy than principles-based ones. So, on balance of interests alone, this invasion is better characterized as a risky bet than as a blind miscalculation, considering the enormous strategic importance of Ukraine to Russia and its murkier concrete value to the West. Putin’s regime predicted and presumably calculated sanctions to be an absorbable cost. Weak Western resolve to defend democracy makes Putin’s expectations about limitations on Western pushback understandable, even if they prove to be incorrect. The West must reckon with the reality that its limited affirmation of fundamental rights internationally may be an authoritarian-emboldening strategic weakness. 

Russia Invaded Ukraine, and North Korea is Watching

By: Addie Simkin

On February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine in a shot heard halfway around the world in North Korea. Europe and supranational organizations like the UN (and, more specifically, the UN Security Council) are regularly discussing the consequences of this attack. However, this assault is also salient to authoritarian world leaders, East Asian politics, and the so-called Hermit Kingdom, North Korea. This  piece considers the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on North Korean international relations. 

Politically, North Korea has supported Russia and used the invasion to make a statement against U.S. imperialism. North Korea was one of five countries to reject the UN resolution to condemn Russia, along with Russia itself, Belarus, Syria, and Eritrea. In the statement, diplomat Kim Song criticized the “hegemonic policy” of the U.S. which threatens the “territorial integrity of sovereign nations”. Not only does this statement reinforce North Korea’s historic policy towards the U.S, but it also contains concerning rhetoric about territory and sovereignty. The Korean Peninsula is in armistice, not peace; although the U.S. treats North and South Korea as separate states, neither country sees themselves that way—this is the discursive niche of both the pursuit of reunification and the Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine presents a model of and establishes a precedent for violent border revisionism. Looking to the future, this precedent may lead to similar, inter-Korean violence. North Korea has been diligently amassing nuclear strength since 2006; that, along with its unprecedentedly frequent missile launches this year—nine as of March 9—indicate that it is experimenting with both its own armaments and the norms and responsiveness of the international community.

Economically, North Korea’s hard currency intake has been damaged by the invasion. Here’s why: North Korean workers in Russia have quotas for how much remittance they must send to Pyongyang, converted from rubles to U.S. dollars. As the ruble has tanked in value, workers cannot meet their quotas. Consequently, North Korea and China must develop closer trade relations for Pyongyang to supplement the remittances it can no longer receive from Russia. Fortunately for North Korea, Xi Jinping has reportedly expressed that he is ready to work on China-DPRK relations “under a new situation,” although he has failed to define the new situation. Meanwhile, ex-CIA analyst William Brown warns that the growing force of sanctioned countries—North Korea, Iran, and now Russia—may begin to trade amongst themselves, forming closer financial ties. 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has served to reassert North Korea’s animosity toward the U.S. and the West, redouble its alliance with China, and redefine its relationship with Russia, given that North Korea supports Russia even when it can no longer rely upon remittances from Russia. More than that, Putin has established a precedent of violent invasion which Kim can use to help justify a breach to the inter-Korean armistice.