Why do many Muslim countries accept female leadership at a higher rate at Presidential level?
The reason is that the leadership of the Muslim countries is based more on dynasty than individual talent. You won't find a single female leader of a Muslim country that is not a member of one of the few dynastic families that control the country.
In this sense, the Muslim country's female leader is not selected primarily due to her ability or her sex; rather, she is selected because of her membership and position in the "ruling family" of the day. Sort of the same idea as the empress dowagers in China - they weren't selected because they were super talented capable people who happened to be women; rather, when the male emperor died and the next son was only 10, the mother took over. The key selection criteria was family, not sex or ability.
While this dynastic favoritism is currently also the case in the US (with AS's good buddy GB), this is the first time it has been so since FDR, and in recent US history it is the exception more than the rule. I don't think Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, LBJ or Eisenshower came from hugely powerful families. Even Kennedy's family was small potatoes compared to the families that lead Pakistan, Jordan, Indonesia, etc.
So.....here's the question. A dynasty system can have a female leader, but by definition it excludes 99.99% of the women in the country from ever having that opportunity regardless of their skill set - they aren't in the dynastic family. The US system has never yet had a female leader, but 100% of the US-born women have the opportunity to become President in front of them should they wish to pursue it.
Why do you appear to prefer the dynasty? |
