Women in Politics the Relationship

Women in Politics

The relationship of the citizen of a given country to political action depends on the social and political history of that country and the traditions that shape the political system. This is true for both men and women, though historically women have had less direct involvement with the political system because women have been socially marginalized in most countries for at least some period in history. The three countries involved in the North American Free Trade Agreement, have different political histories. The United States and Canada each derive from a British tradition, though Canada has remained more closely tied to that system, while the U.S. has diverged from it considerably. The Mexican tradition harks back to Spain and then to decades of one-party control that ha sonly recently been broken. The role of women in the political systems of each country differs accordingly.

The fact that Canada started as a colonial nation has defined the nation ever since. The region was settled by the French before it was settled by the British, but after the coming of the British, immigration from Britain would be the important source of new inhabitants. War came first to Canada and then to America to the south. The British defeated the French in Canada but were themselves defeated in the south. After this, immigration from what would become the United States increased as British subjects still loyal to the crown fled the southern colonies and became a dominant force in Canada as far as politics and trade were concerned. They retained their loyalties to Britain, and indeed those loyalties were hardened by their experience in the American Revolutionary War. They shunned the republican and democratic principles prevalent in the south and so developed institutions that were faithful to British models.

One of the primary forces pushing toward Confederation was fear of the United States. Americans continued to show a desire for territorial expansion that made Canadians believe there might be designs on their territories, and so in order to fight against the Manifest Destiny infusing American expansion, the Canadian colonies united in a Confederation to protect themselves. Canada thus fought against becoming a colony of the United States.

Canada continues to be faced by two seemingly opposite forces, though both derive from proximity to the United States. While the two societies were different in the past, they have been becoming more alike. A counter-force is seen among Canadians fighting to retain their own identity and to reject American influences as much as possible (Carroll paras. 3-5).

Both countries still face "fundamental issues relating to questions of 'national conformity' still animate the myriad political debates on language policy, bilingual education, the limits of tolerance toward the maintenance of a plural society, the reproduction of distinctive core 'American' and 'Canadian' values and the like" (Burnaby and Ricento 3).

The place of women in American politics has long been ambiguous. Women have participated in varying degrees since suffrage, but they have also tended to take a back seat to males in the political arena. Even the idea that Hillary Clinton may become the Democratic nominee for President in the next election represents a sea-change. The role of women in Canada has been more steady and more progressive:

Canada's female representation levels are higher than those in the United States, and its women's movements flourish. Unlike what Joyce Gelb calls the interest group, ideological, and state feminism models (of the United States, United Kingdom, and Sweden, respectively), Canada combines interest group, ideological, and state commitment inside various government bodies that address equality agendas and on which representatives of women's groups sit. (Staudt 193)

Still, the role women have ikn politics in both countries is more advanced than in Mexico, though this is true of the participation of the average male as well.

Analysts note the centralization and other characteristics that have marked the Mexican political system at least since 1968, a regime marked by one-party rule, incomplete political development, and in the eyes of some, a continuing evolution toward "true" democracy from "one-party democracy." The problem seen with such systems is that they are characterized by competitive elections that install governments dedicated to maintaining political stability and labor discipline but not to expanding democratic freedoms or instituting needed changes. The Mexican state shows clearly the way the prevailing political culture can shape and give direction to political institutions. The political institutions of Mexico are similar to those of the United States, but as Cornelius and Craig note, what seems the same on paper is not the same in operation because the prevailing political culture is one-party rule at all levels: "Until recently, selection as the candidate of the official party has been tantamount to election, except in some municipalities and a handful of congressional districts where opposition parties are so strong that they cannot be ignored" (Cornelius and Craig 25).

The prevailing features of the system are found in the following elements common to many authoritarian regimes: limited but not responsible pluralism; low popular mobilization, with most citizen participation in the electoral process mobilized by the government itself; competition for public office and government benefits restricted mainly to supporters of the system; centralized and often arbitrary decision making by one leader or small group; weak ideological constraints on public policy making; extensive government manipulation of the mass media (Cornelius and Craig 25-26).

The authors also note the power of centralism in the Mexican system, as might be expected in a one-party state. Interestingly, the public has become disenchanted with this centralization, and this fact has contributed to the move toward change and has also indicated some of the values-changes that will be necessary to make this a less centralized state. Clearly, the introduction of a multi-party system over a one-party system would be beneficial, but so far this has been possible only in regional politics where a strong second party has developed and has gained power over the years. Some efforts have already been made by the PRI to introduce changes that would address the public's dissatisfaction with centralism, and indeed the people tend to take things in hand themselves from time to time by concentrating on regionalism when they perceive that the central government is less effective or less legitimate. Regional pride is a value that has had a beneficial effect on decentralization, and this could be further nurtured as a way of developing opposition parties to challenge the control of the PRI over every facet of Mexican political life (Cornelius and Craig 27).