It is impossible to ignore the unique position of having two consecutive women Prime Ministers in Bangladesh over the past decade in an edition of this newsletter on women in Bangladesh. All the more so given the continued dominance of men in the major institutions in a still largely traditional society. Like the other first women leaders in other male dominated societies, Begum Zia and Sheikh Hasina have been thrown into power by circumstances out of their control and once in place emerged as powerful new leaders in their own right.

Popular mythology in most cultures has a special place for this type of leader. Normally thrust into leadership by adversity and eventually able to inspire their followers in a way most male leaders are unable to. Historically also for many men a more symbolic form of leadership, which is still evident in the enduring emotional attachment in English history to figures such as Bodecea (ed) and Elizabeth I and the fictional Britannia.

The sub continent has its own rich tradition and history here and as always, if we delve a little deeper we find more than the popular image of the lone suffering ‘Mother India’ struggling silently in domesticity. For example, we find the Rani of Jhansi, one of the few Indian old style monarchs to take up arms and stand up and fight during the Indian mutiny and of whom her most persistent enemy Sir Hugh Rose remarked the ‘best and bravest’ of the leaders of the mutiny.

More recently we have of course Indira Gandhi. Who it was said the only “man” in her cabinet long before Margaret Thatcher came to power and who played off the superpowers during the height of the Cold War in 1971 in a way no other Indian leader past or present has ever been able to do. Although admittedly acting in her own self interest, she also of course paved the way for independence and in the process added the title of mid-wife to a new nation to her iconography. There is a neat symmetry here in that our own women PMs came to power performing a similar role but this time acting as midwives for the return to democracy after a period of extended military dictatorships. In the complicated world of Bangladesh’s dynastic politics, perhaps far too simple an analogy. But it has to be said that the male dominated political hierarchy shared a most (undistinguished record of collaboration and collusion during the military dictatorships. When compared with the rest of the region it is not unfair to conclude that our two women PMs provided the leadership for a relatively stable and orderly return to democracy.

Ostensibly, there have been some positive social changes in the time Begum Zia and Sheikh Hasina have been in power including legislation to strengthen women’s legal rights and a general air of increased confidence among women in public life. Their time in power has also coincided with the growth of the NGO movement that has led the way in focusing women’s economic rights in the rural heartland.

On the debts side like their historical peers our women PMs have not actively helped to create a new generation of women leaders and any succession is likely to follow the dynastic line to an appropriate male heir first or one of the other male political leaders. It is also questionable whether any future women leaders will emerge purely on merit and popularity rather than family connections or political circumstances.

In the more sensitive arena of religion and politics, the PMs has had to tread a little more carefully. Having to either create pacts from a distance or openly confronting the ideologues on the Islamic right when the need arises. The political reality of having to control any backlash, maintain stability and being mindful of foreign involvement has often restricted any meaningful debate or changes in society in this area.

Finally, there appears to have been little headway in dealing with the age-old problem of corruption. Although too deeply rooted and endemic a problem to expect the last two administrations to deal with, in many ways the dynastic political base of the two PMs acts to perpetuate this problem. The historical fact remains that South Asian political dynasties have often helped create rather than prevent corruption in the sub-continent including the times when these clans have been led by women.

Turning to the battle of the sexes it is not easy to compare the relative achievements of 8 years of leadership under two women PMs against 800 years of rule by men. Although it does give us the luxury of putting a new historical slant on Bengali history by placing the blame on years of male dominated rule on disasters such as the defeat at Plassey, the Bengal famine, the bloodshed during partition and the faltering chaotic start of the new nation. Easy and for some comforting to argue but difficult to prove.

In the end, there is probably much to complain about yet there is also something to celebrate in that a traditional restrictive society is largely comfortable in being led by two women PMs in succession. Moving on into the millennium, at least here is an area where Bangladesh is providing a real lead ahead of its Asian neighbours.