History in the Making: Is the World Ready for Its First Female Prime Minister

In the presidential contest of the Liberal Democratic Party held on September 27, in which former general secretary Shigeru Ishiba was elected as the new president, Minister of Economic Security Sanae Takaichi advanced to a runoff between the top two candidates, becoming the first female prime minister in history. The baby was one step away from being born.

How do you see Takaichi’s good fight this time from the point of view of gender equality in politics? Should we consider it a shame that we didn’t have a female prime minister?

Mari Miura, professor of political science at Sophia University’s Faculty of Law, says: “Even if we had a female prime minister, it would have the opposite effect from the point of view of gender equality. In fact, you could say that the birth was premature.” I asked for details.

Q: From the point of view of the goal of gender equality in politics, would you say that the situation where there were two female candidates in the presidential election and one performed well was a good thing?

If there were nine candidates, wouldn’t it be great if at least one or two weren’t women. Even if the bar is low, the fact that the Liberal Democratic Party has developed a “market vision” that allows it to think this way is a small step forward. I think it was cool.

However, if Takaichi had become prime minister, it would have been more likely that he would have reversed the situation from the perspective of gender equality.

It is generally said that having a woman as a leader has a “role model effect”. This will encourage other women to think, “If other women can do this, then I have the potential to become a leader too,” and this will encourage more women to participate in politics.

However, the emergence of a female leader at a time when there are still very few women in leadership sends the opposite message, making people think, “Only special people can do that,” rather than “Me too.” ‘. An easy-to-understand example is that of a “daughter of a powerful person” like former South Korean President Park Geun-hye.

Although Ms. Takaichi is not a hereditary member of the Diet, it is clear that she has been pushed to the top by male authorities and sponsors. This is clear from the process in which he ran for president in the last presidential election with the support of Shinzo Abe, and this time too it was reported that “Taro Aso ordered him to collect votes.”

–So, even if the prime minister is a woman, she cannot implement policies that go against the wishes of her “sponsors”.

The Liberal Democratic Party has a long history of refusing to advance pro-women policies based on the wishes of the conservative majority, such as the Liberal Democratic Party’s refusal to introduce selective surnames for married couples. The reason she was promoted to the leadership position in a state where there are so few women in the Diet is because she doesn’t disrupt that policy. So you can safely choose Mr. Takaichi, knowing that he would not be able to promote women’s policies for gender equality.

In summary, there are two risks in having a “female prime minister” like Takaichi. The first is that, as a model, it achieves the opposite effect and delays women’s participation in politics. The second is that policies in favor of women are not advancing.

–However, if we have a female prime minister, the gender gap index, which is very low compared to other countries and which is always talked about, will improve significantly.

This is the “trap”. The gender gap index should certainly improve considerably. The Liberal Democratic Party will also make it known that “We are a wonderful party that can have women as leaders.”

However, if the female leader says: “I cannot implement gender equality policies that go against the will of the powerful men who sponsor them,” can we really say that the situation has changed?

In recent years there has been considerable momentum to improve gender equality through international comparisons using easy-to-understand rankings such as the Gender Gap Index. However, there is a possibility that the emergence of a female prime minister could end up spreading the misconception that “the gender gap has already been closed” and the momentum could fade.

This is called “tokenism”. The symbolic act of the “birth of a female prime minister” makes it appear that the problem has been solved and hides the real problem that needs to be solved. While we’re not working on separate last names for married couples, this is just the right kind of “challenge” to make it seem like “we’re a woman-friendly party.”

–What is needed to truly eliminate the gender gap in politics?

It would not be good if there were only a few leaders and only a few women emerged. To truly move forward with the policy of eliminating the gender gap, the Liberal Democratic Party must change its overall constitution. Unfortunately, however, the Liberal Democratic Party does not feel the need to change its constitution at present.

The incentive for change will only work when the LDP has a real sense of crisis and is revitalized through a change of government or generation.

–Presidential elections are not something the general public can influence. In view of the next elections, what can we ordinary people do?

It is extremely important to increase the number of women parliamentarians. To achieve membership in the Diet, it is important first of all to increase the number of female representatives coming from local territories and to encourage political renewal. Beyond that, we can promote pro-women policies.

Even if the road will be long, it is important not to give up on politics, take voting actions that lead to a change of government and carefully evaluate the situation without falling into the trap of symbolism.