Resignations of Jacinda Ardern and Nicola Sturgeon highlight the inequities women face in political leadership
By Atakan Uzun (Deputy News Editor)
The past two months have witnessed the resignations of two female leaders who were renowned for their stable and inclusive leadership. These leaders were Jacinda Ardern, who resigned as New Zealand prime minister in January in the wake of growing domestic unpopularity, and Nicola Sturgeon, who stepped down in recent weeks in the midst of controversies surrounding transgender rights and legal quarrels regarding the authorisation of holding of a second Scottish Independence referendum. Despite both politicians leading their respective countries by example, especially in the context of growing division and polarity in Western political discourse, both of them surprisingly cited personal burnout as the reason for resignation.
In her speech, reflecting on the factors behind her decision, Jacinda Ardern said “I’m leaving, because with such a privileged role comes responsibility - the responsibility to know when you are the right person to lead and also when you are not. And I know that I no longer have enough in the tank to do it justice. It’s that simple,” she said. Meanwhile, Nicola Sturgeon concluded that “since my very first moments in the job, I have believed that part of serving well would be to know – almost instinctively – when the time is right to make way for someone else. In my head and my heart, I know that time is now. That it is right for me, for my party and for the country”, she said.
Their resignations certainly highlight the barriers that women face in politics and leadership. A recent piece by gender politics scholar, Rainbow Murray determined that “women in public life tend to be judged more harshly than men”. Each aspect of their characters, whether within the political arena or outside, are closely scrutinised by the media. The recent scrutinisation of
current Finnish prime minister, Sanna Marin, for dancing and drinking with friends back in September 2022 is a clear example of the intense personal examination of female leaders in power. Marin, who was criticised for representing a bad example as a political leader, and was subsequently accused of consuming drugs, was later cleared of any wrongdoing. This was the perfect illustration of the disproportionate focus that is placed on women in political leadership in comparison to their male counterparts. Even with impartial judgement, it is highly unlikely that a male leader would have been subject to such tight scrutiny.
Women are also at greater risk of violence, victimisation and intimidation within political leadership in contrast to men. During the latter period of Jacinda’s Ardern’s time as prime minister, she was consistently on the receiving end of harassment and threats to her life. A notable example of this was her visit to a small school in Christchurch, observing the progress of a government-operated lunch programme. A visit that was expected to run smoothly, however, turned extremely nasty. A number of protesters, opposing vaccine mandates which has been introduced by Ardern for those in health and educational settings, gathered amongst one another to chant “go home Jacinda”, and called for an “arrest warrant” for “genocide” and for “crimes against humanity”. On her departure from the school, as the protesters grew closer to her, she was rushed into a van and driven away quickly as protestors followed.
Whilst she escaped unscathed, events like these would become commonplace in the final period of Ardern’s leadership as she became ever more subjected to death threats. The abuse she received has gone so far that she needed “more ongoing protection than any PM in New Zealand’s political history”. Beyond targeted abuse at female leaders, female politicians generally are now at greater risk of being targeted through violence and intimidation for being ‘powerful and opinionated’. This was hinted at by Sturgeon, who referenced the growing ‘brutality’ of life as a politician. When in political office, in occurrences where political debate takes place, female leaders and politicians are often the subject of scrutiny when it comes to their emotions. A disparity when compared with men, if women fight their corner in politics, they are perceived as aggressive and condescending. Male politicians in power by contrast are not having their emotions as closely observed.
Because there are so few women in offices of political leadership, they also face the accompanying challenge of standing out distinctively as a leader upon departure, compared to men. This places considerable pressure on them, especially when one considers they are more likely to be the bearer of unpaid care, and are also forced to consider the future composition of their family, even when in politics. Rainbow Murray argues that “women’s growing presence in politics has been associated with political renewal – the replacement of the male, pale, and stale with a new generation of politics”. As a result, they hope to lead and deliver on a new type of politics that is more open and inclusive. The recent Covid-19 pandemic represented a significant opportunity for female leaders to lead a compassionate response to the onset of the virus.
The early months of the pandemic highlighted a critical difference in the responses to Covid-19 in countries led by men and women. A report led by the Centre for Economic Research and the World Economic Forum in August 2020 which studied the Covid-19 responses in 194 countries, found that countries led by women had “systematically and significantly better” Covid-19 outcomes, including having had less than half as many deaths on average as those led by men. That was buoyed by the successful responses to the pandemic by leaders such as Jacinda Ardern,
who led a unique response through the enactment of ‘Zero Covid’. This was done through border quarantine, contact tracing, lockdowns, and mass testing, with the end goal being the complete suppression of the virus in order to return to the resumption of normal economic and social activity. According to a developmental economist at Liverpool University, Supriya Garikipati, female leaders “were risk averse with regard to lives”, locking down their countries more swiftly than countries led by men, and were “more willing to take risks in the domain of the economy”. The varied low-risk responses to the pandemic by female-led countries, thereby suggests that they were more willing to value the lives of ordinary people, compared to male-led countries.
When quitting, women are also more decisive in deciding when their time to resign is. Women politicians and leaders, therefore, seek to avoid the “staleness of their male predecessors by knowing when to quit”. Reflecting upon the legacy of both Nicola Sturgeon and Jacinda Ardern, both leaders led their respective states by example. Supporting the view that women aim to be distinctive and leave behind a unique legacy when they depart from political office, Sturgeon and Ardern were forced to contend with a number of difficult issues. Sturgeon came into power as First Minister and head of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) in November 2014, just after the people of Scotland rejected Scottish independence from the United Kingdom. Despite leading the Scottish state at a time of considerable political difficulty, Sturgeon cemented the SNP as the largest party in Scotland, and leaves office with the party dominating the seat share of Scottish MPs for Westminster, and the Scottish Parliament.
Ardern, by comparison, came into power as leader of the New Zealand Labour Party in August 2017, just seven weeks before the general election. She led the party into the election and entered a minority government with the National Party. During her first term as prime minister, she dealt with a number of pressing issues. The first significant issue was her response to the Christchurch
terrorist attacks on two mosques. Throughout this response, she demonstrated her compassionate leadership and received international praise for that response. As previously discussed, she also led New Zealand through the Covid-19 pandemic, pioneering some of the world’s lowest number of Covid-19 cases. During the pandemic, in October 2020, she led her party to a majority, and despite this majority, secured an agreement with the Green Party for them to enter government with the Labour Party. She leaves political office at a time of polarisation and division in New Zealand. Nevertheless, her legacy as an inclusive and compassionate prime minister is likely to be remembered by many for some time.
