DURING the US presidential campaign, I expressed concern over the manner in which female politicians are treated by their male counterparts.
The use of derogatory language, sexist remarks and outright bigotry are keeping women out of the political processes, not because they cannot stand the heat, but because, at the end of the day, it is not worth it.
A survey conducted by the American University of Washington DC in 2011 showed that women in politics are burdened by cultural ideas of what a ‘working woman’ is vis-a-vis the quintessential housewife.
Even in the ‘great’ US, gender roles play a part in how female candidates are viewed; and yet their male counterparts do not have to fit into a specific mould.
Research has shown that belief in political qualification provides the largest platform for the absence of women in politics.
It is said men are 60 percent more likely than women to believe that they are ‘very qualified’ to run for office.
And when a woman who dispels this notion comes along, she is more often than not, cowed out of the political processes.
Look at how President Donald Trump and his supporters sought to cow Hillary Clinton by attacking her as a woman and not as a politician.
Trump presented Hillary as a weak woman whose husband cheated on her.
When that failed, he presented her as an enabler, a woman who silenced or attacked the women Bill Clinton had affairs with.
Trump’s supporters also relished and joined in the attacks; comments to the effect that Hillary Clinton is ugly, needs cosmetic surgery, does not look motherly, were made, as though all this would in any way affect her ability to run the country.
Clinton’s critics are just but the latest example of how inhuman and hostile the political environment is to women.
If a woman politician is tough and displays strong leadership qualities, she is presented as unladylike.
It is recalled that Margaret Thatcher was nicknamed ‘The Iron Lady’, by a Soviet journalist over her alleged ruthless and inflexible approach.
The name has stuck to this day and her tenure in office has been used as some form of measure to gauge women politicians across the globe.
On the contrary, a woman who plays on her feminine traits is presented as weak and soft, and, as such, would not be ‘able’ to handle the high demands of her position.
Interestingly, most, if not all, of these attacks are made by men.
However, when it is the male politicians who are at odds, you rarely find them attacking each other’s personalities, but rather policies and other actions which have nothing to do with one’s gender.
As Zimbabwe heads towards the 2018 harmonised elections, it would be an interesting case study to note just how much the nation is willing to walk the talk on women empowerment.
Humanising Zimbabwe’s political processes would go a long way in ensuring that capable, competent women venture into politics.
In the end, if the situation is not addressed, the number of women in political office will not only decline, but the pool of female politicians would be made up of women who are not representative of that demograph.
The SADC Protocol on Gender and Development, to which Zimbabwe is signatory, is intended to reverse and re-align wrong perceptions concerning the role of women in society.
In the words of Ambassador Madeleine Albright: “Development without democracy is improbable.
Democracy without women is impossible.”
Let us treat our women right!