This chapter presents a brief account of insights and approaches relating to women in politics in general, and women top leaders specifically, based on previous research. It is difficult to generalise historical and societal developments in the way I do in this chapter without becoming superficial. But the aim is to provide some overall aspects as a background for the biographies that follow, where there will be more details. The chapter describes historical, socio-economic and cultural factors of relevance, political structures, and concepts that will be used in the book.

Overview

By the end of 2010, a total of 73 women had been presidents or prime ministers in 53 countries spread across the globe. They lived and worked in North and South, West and East, in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. Only in the Arab states and the small Pacific island states there had been none. In total, nearly 30 per cent of the countries in the world had a woman head of state or government at one time or another after World War II. Although the women were few in number, the fact that they rose to the top in national governments constituted a worldwide phenomenon.

It is also a recent phenomenon. The women came to power in the course of half a century, from 1960 to 2010. Most of them rose to the top after 1990. Whereas 20 women became presidents or prime ministers during the 30 years from 1960 to 1990, this figure was more than doubled in the 20 years that followed. From 1991 to 2010, a total of 53 women rose to the level of national leaders (see Table 1, Figure 2 and Appendix). In 2010, there was a total of 281 presidents and prime ministers in United Nations member states worldwide, and of these, 18 were women. Women comprised only 6 per cent, but that was more than before.

Glimpses back in time

Male dominance

Looking back in time and around the world, there is much that is not known about the origins and extensiveness of male dominance. In all known human societies, gender provides the basis for a fundamental division of social functions. But the anthropologist Alice Schlegel (1977: 353–6) underlines that division of functions does not necessarily lead to stratification; rather, it can lead to balanced complementarity.