Farida Jalalzai: Why are there so few women in political leadership postitions?

Dr. Farida Jalalzai, the featured speaker for Women’s History Month, presented her research on women, gender, and politics in a March 28^th event in the History & Politics Event Series. In her guest blog post below, Brianna Zichettella (junior, PSC), discusses Dr. Jalalzai’s presentation, “The Global Dimensions of Women’s Executive Leadership,” which examined the relationship between gender and political leadership in the international setting.

 Dr. Farida Jalalzai

By Brianna Zichettella (guest blogger)

In the wake of an American presidential election where a woman won the popular vote for the first time in American history, Farida Jalalzai’s research is especially relevant to both domestic and global politics. Her work focuses on the women who occupy and run for executive leadership positions such as prime minister or president. Despite significant increases in female leadership over the last sixty years, gender representation in executive positions is far from equal. According to Jalalzai’s statistics, there have been 144 female executive leaders between 1960, when the first female prime minister was elected, and 2017. Women are more likely to be prime ministers than presidents, but there are still 61% of countries have never had a female leader. Additionally, in 2017, only 6% of executive leaders are women.

There are many different factors that can influence a woman’s chances of becoming an executive leader. Jalalzai cites increased elite control, multi-party political systems, and liberal-leaning government as a few of the factors that tend to result in more female leadership. Regardless of the existence of these structures, many claim that more women do not hold executive leadership positions because women do not run.

Jalalzai disagrees. Her argument is that women run for executive office, but because many voters associate masculine traits with those positions, women are not often elected. For example, it is possible that more women tend to be prime ministers because the position emphasizes cooperation over the top-down hierarchical power structure of a presidency, and the role of a prime minister corresponds more closely with societal expectations for women’s’ behavior.

In addition to this, Jalalzai demonstrated that people tend to support the idea of a qualified female candidate from their party, but if pressed, those same people are more critical of women’s capabilities. Therefore, another reason for why more women are prime ministers could stem from the biases that people bring into the voting booth. Jalalzai’s research indicates that women are more successful in systems that do not choose executives through direct public input, such as prime minister positions that are chosen by a party rather than the voters.

Jalalzai argues that women candidates are often more qualified than their male counterparts. Despite this, they are held to higher standards and face more criticism about their appearance, speaking styles, and whether or not they smile. All three types of judgment can be seen in a lot of the criticism of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race.

For the American political system, Jalalzai argues that a shift in social opinion will need to occur for a woman to become president. She states that continuing political activism, such as the Women’s March on Washington, is central to illuminating the social, political, and economic inequality faced by women in America today.

Members of the History & Political Science Department faculty pose with guest speaker Farida Jalazai. L-R: Drs Jay Wendland, Aakriti Tandon, Lisa Parshall, Farida Jalazai, Penny Messinger, Elizabeth Campbell, & Andrew Wise. Missing from photo: Joseph Sankoh

Guest Blogger: Brianna Zichettella

The Final Frontier: 

Political Honesty and the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness

Great Divide Ranch, home of the non-partisan Project Vote Smart where Brianna
completed a 10-week internship in Summer 2016. 

     Project Vote Smart calls itself the most important organization you have never heard of. And in some   ways, that is true. It was founded in 1992 and housed at Oregon State University. Seven years later, the program moved out to the Great Divide Ranch in southwestern Montana. Its mission statement is to collect and disseminate information on those holding and running for political offices in America. This research covers all levels of government from local to federal and stretches across several different types of information. In an effort to create comprehensive information about America’s electoral process, Vote Smart brings interns and paid staff to Montana. They make up the workforce of several departments ranging from candidate biographies to campaign finance information. And, as promised by Vote Smart’s slogan, very few people have heard of it. I experienced this first hand when I found myself constantly explaining to family and friends exactly what I was doing on the other side of the country.

Moose Lake, at the edge of the Great Divide Ranch

During ten weeks between May and August, I was one of fifty interns living and working at Vote Smart’s Montana headquarters. Having come from a bucolic hometown and attending college in suburban Amherst, spending the summer at the near-wilderness location was unlike anything I had ever done before. The ranch itself is situated at the edge of the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness at an elevation of 6000 feet. The closest town, Philipsburg, is a forty-five minute drive, and the closest airport is about two hours to the east. However, the ranch’s isolated location does not mean that the interns are lacking in things to do. Vote Smart’s property touches the edge of Moose Lake, and the organization owns a dock and several boats. Additionally, several trailheads can be found down the road from the ranch, and most can be completed in an afternoon. A particularly memorable trail – dubbed Huff Puff by a few decades of Vote Smart interns - switchbacks up an Anaconda-Pintler foothill. The aptly-named trail ends about 1000 feet higher than the ranch and features an amazing view of the Pintler Mountain Range. 

Trailways surrounding the Project Vote Smart Camp

But my time in Montana was spent doing more than hiking and spending time on the lake. Over the course of ten weeks, each of Vote Smart’s interns spends 40 hours per week contributing to the organization’s extensive research. During my internship, I was assigned to Vote Smart’s Political Courage Test department. To attempt to provide the public with information about political candidates, the organization sends out Political Courage questionnaires to everyone running for office. This test poses fifteen yes-or-no questions across various policy areas and gives politicians the opportunity to elaborate on their responses. It is the department’s responsibility to send out these letters and post candidate responses on the Vote Smart website. Unfortunately, a very small number of candidates respond to the surveys, and those that do often return only partially completed tests. Because of this, my main obligation in the department was to research candidate websites and speeches to extrapolate their answers to the questions.

Brianna, far left, and fellow interns enjoying the outdoor activities. Interns work on a variety of
projects, collecting information that assists voters with reliable, non-partisan information. 

The work was engaging, if repetitive. Throughout the ten weeks I researched congressional candidates across the country. Some had professionally designed websites with comprehensive issue positions and governance plans. Others had typed a few sentences into WordPress and called it a day. However, the common thread linking candidates from Alabama to Wyoming was that this information is not well publicized. It usually is not too difficult to find, but the process of finding the most relevant information can take a while. The average American often does not have the time or inclination to conduct comprehensive research on all of a candidate’s positions. That is the reason Vote Smart exists. The research done by interns and staff is aggregated on Vote Smart’s website; one place with everything a voter would need to make an informed decision. Every candidate has a page that lists biographical information, public statements, voting records, submitted or extrapolated PCT answers, special interest support, and other relevant information. Considering the controversy and polarization of this election cycle, this kind of data is more important than ever. As said by Thomas Jefferson, a well-informed electorate is a prerequisite for democracy. In 2016, it seems that voters will need all the resources at their disposal to parse through rampant misinformation about their candidates and electoral process. In my opinion, a resource like Vote Smart would be invaluable.

The compound where Project Vote Smart staff and interns engage
in voter education. 

This summer was an extremely rewarding experience, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to contribute to increasing political clarity in America. However, I could not have worked through the ins and outs of completing a successful internship by myself. I would like to thank Dr. Lisa Parshall and the History and Political Science Department for all the help and support I received during the application process and throughout the summer. I would also like to thank the staff and interns at Vote Smart. It was great to work with such a wonderful group of people. Thank you for making my ten weeks a truly amazing experience; it was absolutely one of the best summers of my life. 

The author, Brianna Zichettella is majoring in Political Science
with a minor in  Political Communications.

Model UN at Academic Festival: Guest Blogger Brianna Zichettella

Model UN at the 2016 Academic Festival 

As the most powerful body of the United Nations, the Security Council is dedicated to maintaining peace and security on a global level. At this year’s Academic Festival, to help bridge the gap between theory and application, Daemen students participated in the History and Political Science Department’s annual Model United Nations simulation. This year’s resolution focused on the ongoing peace talks to end the 5 year old Syrian Civil War. The simulation was sponsored by Dr. Aakriti Tandon, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Daemen College. Students from PSC 121: International Relations class represented countries including China, France, Germany, Iraq, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Students from PSC 231: Global Governance class represented relevant non-state actors including NGOs, the Free Syrian Army as well as UN Under Secretary Generals (USGs) and debate moderators.

Under Secretary Generals and Moderators: Nigel Haynes, Christine Kozlowski, Shane Clark, Christina Auguste, Jessica Maulucci and Brianna Zichetella (blog author) 

As Syria enters its fifth year of civil war, all sides in the conflict must consider the benefits of peace negotiations. This protracted conflict has destabilized the region and resulted in displacement and death for the people of Syria. With both sides accused of committing war crimes and the inability of humanitarian aid workers to reach those in need, it is in most parties’ best interests to end the violence and suffering in and around Syria. However, this is an extremely complicated matter, and any effective solution should involve the cooperation of all nations in an effort to promote global peace and stability. Problems of this magnitude are generally addressed at the highest level of diplomacy: the United Nations Security Council.

Delegates from the U.K. and France: Jonathan Miranda, Michael Reilly, Casey Young, Amanda Best, and Andriy Lukomsky

Delegates from Iraq: Kelsey Gibson, Isabella Orgento-Romero, and Luis Ortiz

      To prepare for the simulation, students conducted extensive research on their assigned countries. As representatives, students were expected to give introductory speeches and argue the positions of their states in the debate segment of the simulation. This includes researching the historical and contemporary situation of their country’s stance on the issue and reading relevant UN Security Council resolutions. Due to the nature of the debate, participating students must be able to accurately predict the kinds of responses that representatives of their states would give to debate questions and how their state would rebut other country’s responses.

Moderators: Christina Auguste, Jessica Maulucci and Brianna Zichettella 

Delegates from Germany,  and Turkey: Kyle Munro, Natalie Ennis, Idania Ramirez, Jasmine Favors

During the simulation, students debated several topics including humanitarian relief, the continuing presidency of Bashar Al-Assad, housing refugees, the state’s visions for peace in the event the conflict is resolved, and potential consequences for both sides’ human rights violations. A particularly contentious question asked representatives how they felt about bringing the Kurds to the discussion table: The Islamic State is a threat to all sides in this conflict. Thus far, only the Kurds have had any success in stopping the terrorist group’s progress. Would you consider including the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) in this discussion in exchange for help against this threat?

            Responses to this question were extremely varied. One of the potential demands that the Kurds may make in exchange for their help is the official transfer to Kurdish ownership of the land they currently occupy. The area with prominent Kurdish presence – known as Kurdistan – covers areas of Iraq Iran, Turkey, and Syria. In the debate, countries like Turkey that would lose territory were strongly opposed to this option. However, countries farther removed for the area, such as the United States, seemed to believe it would be a fair trade-off for help.

Delegates from Oxfam (NGO): Ramel Haines, Torrence Dyck, Fati Haruna

The Syrian Delegation: Hannah Gerber, Jenil Bell, and Carlos McKnight

        After extensive and occasionally heated debate, the country representatives passed the USG’s proposed resolution with a vote of eight affirmations to three abstentions. The resulting resolution invites Syrian Kurds to future peace talks, excludes Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from future peace talks, reaffirms the need for monitoring of human rights violations, and proposed the creation of an Intergovernmental Organization tasked with ensuring the permanence of post-war state building in Syria and wherever war is resolved. The resolution also met the Council’s primary goal of securing safe travel for Non-Governmental Organizations and other humanitarian aid workers within the region.

Delegates from Saudia Arabia: Jossette Allwood and Ebony Fripp

Free Syrian Army: Breanna Coolidge and Gabriela Andrade

     Overall the simulation allowed students from all majors to experience real-world application of political science to current events. It was an interesting and engaging experience, and the participating students look forward to next year’s simulation.

The Russian Delegation: Imani Evans, Paige Casey and Natalie Chiodo

United States: Mathew Molnar, Zahra Nayyeri and Rachel Lewandowski