The paradox of power: Why women leaders don’t always mean gender equality (2025)

Cultural and traditional barriers

Patriarchal traditions in India, Pakistan, and Germany form an unyielding bedrock that stifles women’s political participation. Norwegian psychologist and politician Torild Skard, in Women in Power (2014), observes, “Culture and political institutions inhibited the entry of women in many ways. Religion, with discrimination of women and segregation in private as well as public spheres, made politics into an area for men.”

During NWFP elections in Pakistan in 2000-01, religious fundamentalists issued fatwas declaring women’s political involvement a “great sin,” even threatening jihad against female candidates. In India, the preference for a male child manifests in female foeticide and dowry burdens, signalling from birth that daughters are liabilities rather than potential leaders. According to a report by the Pew Research Center, at least 9 million girls in India ‘went missing’ between 2000-2019 due to selective abortions.

Activists from the activist group ‘Women Democratic Front’ take part in a rally to mark International Women’s Day, in Islamabad, Pakistan. (AP Photo)

Germany’s cultural barriers are less overt but equally entrenched. The Kinder, Küche, Kirche (children, kitchen, church) ethos, a relic of 19th-century gender norms, continues to shape expectations. Helga Lukoschat, a board member at EAF Berlin, tells indianexpress.com, “Women spend much more time with household and care work than men… We still have a gender pay gap, and women work part-time more often.”

This imbalance relegates women to soft political portfolios like education or social affairs, while men dominate hard areas like defence or economics. Lukoschat adds, “There’s a lot of everyday sexism in parties… Women aren’t taken so seriously with their contributions.”

Benazir Bhutto (Express Archives)

For Merkel, Bhutto, and Gandhi, cultural constraints were personal crucibles. Bhutto, while leading the PPP, was under relentless surveillance by General Zia’s regime, which sought to discredit her with rumours of impropriety. Matthew Qvortrup, in Angela Merkel: Europe’s Most Influential Leader (2016), recounts how Cardinal Joachim Meisner criticised Merkel’s divorce and remarriage, declaring, “apparently there is a female minister of the Christian faith who lives in sin.”

Gandhi also faced misogynistic jabs, dismissed as a “dumb doll” by Congress leaders.

Even as they reached the height of their careers, the three women faced unyielding scrutiny. These slights underscore a broader societal ambivalence: women who succeed are celebrated as exceptions, not as harbingers of systemic change.

Social activist Aruna Roy explains why this might be the case. “The Prime Minister was in a special category,” she says, “At home, a man was the sole arbiter of power and did not see the correlation between the gender of the prime minister and the gender of his wife.” This, she explains, applies to all women who join higher office. “When I joined the IAS in 1968 and went to Tamil Nadu as a probationer, I was always addressed in the third person or as ‘he’,” she says, continuing, “power has an insidious way of identifying with patriarchy.”

Dynastic politics

Dynastic politics is a potent gateway for women in South Asia, where family ties often trump gender barriers. A 2018 study, When Do Family Ties Matter, published in peer-reviewed journal Political Research Quarterly, by political scientists Alexander Baturo and Julia Gray, found that 35 per cent of female politicians worldwide come from prominent political families, compared to 14 per cent of men, with nearly 80 per cent of Asian female leaders linked to dynasties.

Benazir Bhutto, daughter of Pakistan’s former president Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and Indira Gandhi, daughter of India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, exemplify this pattern. Their surnames carried instant recognition, loyal voter bases, and party machinery — assets that propelled them past cultural roadblocks. Merkel, by contrast, emerged without dynastic scaffolding, her rise through Germany’s meritocratic yet male-dominated system a testament to her resilience.

Daughter of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, Indira grew up with her mother Kamala Nehru at Anand Bhavan in Allahabad. (Express Archive)

Dynasties offer more than privilege; they provide strategic leverage. “Their class identity and familial dynastic background paves the way for them to transcend gender binary,” Rafia Zakaria, a Pakistani-American attorney and author, tells indianexpress.com. Voters often support these women as custodians of a legacy, not as female trailblazers. Kennesaw University Professor Charity Butcher, in Leaning In or All in the Family? (2020), writes, “The legacy status of a woman… allows political parties to leverage the nation’s desire for familiarity… overriding their preference for male leadership.”

Yet, dynastic roots can alienate these leaders from ordinary women. German political scientist Claudia Derichs, in Dynasties and Female Leadership in Asia (2022), argues, “The neglect of gender-sensitive policy-making occurred in government and opposition parties headed by women,” citing their disconnect from lower-class realities as reason for the same.

Bhutto’s urban, cosmopolitan upbringing distanced her from rural Pakistani women, while Gandhi’s privileged lineage shaped a governance style focused on national unity over gender equity. Zakaria also refers to Maryam Nawaz Sharif, the Chief Minister of Punjab and daughter of former Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif. “She’s done these token things for women,” Zakaria says, “but she isn’t going to disrupt the system as her primary allegiance is to the ruling dynasty.”

Be a Man

Merkel, Bhutto, and Gandhi contended with initial perceptions of frailty. In Women as Political Leaders (1993), historian Michael A Genovese writes that K Kamaraj, the former chief minister of Madras, supported Gandhi’s premiership, believing “a woman would be an ideal tool for the Syndicate,” Bhutto was derided as a “little punk girl” by party elders, while Merkel’s mentor, Helmut Kohl, saw her as a “token” woman, writes Qvortrup.

Each overturned these assumptions — Gandhi with authoritarian resolve, Bhutto with electrifying oratory, and Merkel with methodical competence — but not without conforming to masculine norms.

Success in politics often demanded these women leaders shed “feminine” traits. Farida Jalalzai, Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech, says, “It’s almost like you have to prove that you’re not a woman when you become a powerful woman.” Skard reinforces this: “They had to more or less deny their femininity to be ‘one of the guys.’”

Women in power are often expected to adopt masculine traits (DALL-E)

Bhutto’s fiery speeches and Gandhi’s wartime leadership mirrored the aggression expected of male leaders, while Merkel’s refusal to emote aligned with Germany’s preference for rational, masculine governance.

This adaptation breeds a double bind. Assertive women are branded unfeminine or arrogant; softer ones are dismissed as weak. Bhutto faced mockery for juggling motherhood and leadership, with critics quipping, “the only thing Benazir Bhutto managed to deliver as prime minister was a baby,” while Merkel’s childlessness invited scrutiny of her personal life.

For female leaders, their gender becomes both a shield and a burden. Gandhi was revered as ‘Mother Indira’ and likened to a Hindu goddess. Yet, as scholar Jana Everett observes in Women Navigating Globalization (2013), Gandhi operated within a “male-oriented society,” where her authority existed in a “special category” detached from ordinary women’s struggles.

Do these leaders identify as feminists? Merkel once called herself a feminist “in her own way” but avoided framing her policies through a gender lens. Gandhi rejected the label outright, declaring, “I’m no feminist. I’m a human being.” Their reluctance reflects the precariousness of power in patriarchal systems. As Sarah Childs, Chair of Politics and Gender at the University of Edinburgh, observes, “Women leaders often appease men to retain authority, reversing progress on gender issues.”

Do female politicians focus on gender issues?

According to Roy, “National women leaders have had to function within an accepted framework of conventional power… It is deeply unfair to expect an individual to both survive and change a system.” Merkel rose through the CDU, a conservative party; Bhutto and Gandhi leveraged dynastic legacies within patriarchal structures. Their mandates in national stability, economic growth, sovereignty, often overshadowed gender-specific agendas.

Merkel rarely foregrounded her gender, focusing on competence over feminist rhetoric, though she bolstered women like Ursula von der Leyen, championing her appointment as President of the European Commission, and expanded daycare and parental leave policies. Bhutto established a Women’s Development Bank and all-women police stations, but political instability and Shariah-based laws curbed deeper reforms. Gandhi did not appoint any women to her cabinet and focused on war and economic crises over gender equity.

However, Jalalzai cautions, “We should be careful not to pigeonhole them when it comes to gender issues,” arguing that expecting women to prioritise gender over other duties imposes an unfair burden not placed on men. The structure of party systems also restricts revolutionary change. Childs argues that ultimately, policies are determined by political parties. “Take Merkel or (Margaret) Thatcher for example… they came from conservative parties dominated by men and their policies reflected that,” she says. Zakaria says that female leaders who come across as feminists, risk alienating half their electorate. “It’s true that men don’t respond well when women are kind of being the woman’s Prime Minister.”

Female politicians are often constrained by party politics (DALL-E)

Michelle Bachelet’s presidency in Chile, however, offers a striking contrast. Elected in 2006, she propelled Chile’s WEF ranking from 90th in 2006 to 21st in 2024, enacting quotas, gender-balanced appointments, and workplace equality measures. Her feminist agenda, including universal kindergartens and equal pay, tackled structural inequities, though economic participation lags. Bachelet’s non-dynastic rise gave her latitude to pursue progressive policies unencumbered by familial legacies.

Beyond policy, female leaders wield significant symbolic power that can reshape societal norms and inspire future generations. Jalalzai explains, “The symbolic importance of female leadership cannot be underestimated, as it challenges traditional gender norms and inspires other women to pursue leadership roles.” In Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto’s tenure prompted women to question restrictions on work and public life, with many citing her as proof that women could lead. Childs states, “While female leadership might not always result in change, it shows that women can do that job… and that, in and of itself, is very powerful.”

Additionally, Jalazai’s research indicates that women and men demonstrate higher levels of political interest in countries with a female head of state or government. The presence of a female head of state or government also has a stronger, positive effect on women in terms of their likelihood to vote in national and local elections.

However, as Lukoschat concludes, “Only one woman at the top doesn’t solve the problem… The whole structure of the world is still male-dominated.”

Merkel, Bhutto, and Gandhi redefined leadership, their tenures etched in history as testaments to resilience. Yet, Skard states, “The fact that women obtain top leadership positions does not mean that policies necessarily become more egalitarian or woman-friendly.” True parity demands collective action, beyond the reach of any single leader.

Until there is structural and cultural change across all levels of society, female leaders will remain exceptions, not catalysts.

Footnote- There have been several female heads of states across the world. They have been excluded from this analysis because they either come from countries that have high gender parity across all sectors, irrespective of political participation (like Jacinda Arden in New Zealand) or because their route to power and cultural considerations are similar to Gandhi and Bhutto (like Sheikh Hassina in Bangladesh) or Merkel (like Margaret Thatcher in the UK. ) Additionally, women are more likely to serve in dual executive systems in a symbolic capacity (as Prime Minister in a Presidential system and vice versa.) Those women have also been excluded.