A month after Benazir Bhutto’s death, at the other end of the globe, another woman is fighting to lead her nation. Hillary Clinton’s campaign to be nominated by the Democratic Party as its next candidate for the office of the United States president could not be farther from the danger-ridden, intrigue-filled political climate in which her late counterpart, Benazir was campaigning a mere month ago. Yet many of the same questions plague Hillary’s rise to the forefront of American politics as were posed by commentators writing on the legacy of Benazir.

In his estimation of the legacy of Benazir in Time Magazine, William Dalrymple reminded readers that despite being a woman and educated at Oxford, Benazir’s rise to power was the result of the political legacy she inherited from her father. In his piece, Dalrymple, careful not to undermine the tragic circumstances of Benazir’s death, sought to make the point that while her rise in Pakistani politics was commendable, her own politics was notably feudal, traditional and not necessarily friendly to institutional reform.

Commentators other than Dalrymple have also pointed out the meddlesome interference of her husband in politics, a fact that has sparked more debate since his ascendance as PPP co-chair following Benazir’s death. The cumulative inference of these critical observations, suggests that while indeed a woman, Benazir did not deserve “feminist” credentials often awarded to her because her rise was not based on her own steam but rather on the political legacy she had inherited.

Ironically, similar criticism plagues Hillary’s campaign. In recent days, her husband, former President Bill Clinton who has been actively helping his wife’s campaign, has come under fire for being too aggressive in his efforts on behalf of Hillary. Some speeches made by Clinton on Hillary’s campaign trail have set off debates on whether another Clinton White House would be too influenced by former President Clinton.

Beneath these criticisms lie the existing denunciations of Hillary for the fact that she is riding not simply on her own achievements but on her husband’s legacy and name recognition in the United States. Add to these the criticism of dynastic politics that American politics is disturbingly becoming dominated by political dynasties with the last decade and a half being dominated by either the Bush or the Clinton family. This last point, which can no longer hurt Bush for obvious reasons, is directed sharply at Clinton with the suggestion that voting for her may somehow be harming the very structure of American democracy and the tradition of voting for leaders who rise on their own merits rather than on their family connections.

In drawing the comparison between the criticisms of these two women, I do not wish to minimise the stark and un-ignorable differences between the Pakistani and American political contexts. Indeed, the very term “dynastic politics” refers to completely different institutional structures in the two countries. In Pakistan, a country dominated by feudal and tribal hierarchies where few “self-made” political actors can ever ascend to positions of political power, family legacies signify a power and claim to electoral support that is unheard of in the United States. Ample evidence of this can be found both in the annals of Pakistan’s history replete as it is by a recurrence of the same political actors, as by the more contemporary installation of Bilawal Bhutto as the co-chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party. It is unlikely that Chelsea Clinton, Bill and Hilary’s daughter can ever make such claims to the leadership of the Democratic Party in the United States.

Yet the persistent criticism levelled at both these women, of riding on the shoulders of others, of benefiting from the work done by men leads to the crucial question that all women, all feminists supporting them are forced to ask: Must we denounce Hilary or Benazir because of their last names that could pave the otherwise rough road to political power?

Ultimately, their ascendance poses to the feminists the vexing question: Is a true feminist leader only one whose ascendance to power is in no way trammelled by the presence of a husband or a father? In other words, how must we come to terms with our unspoken ideal of female leadership: a woman who rises without the aid of a President husband or a Prime Minister father? Is our ideal of a feminist leader a self-made woman, one who relentlessly and unfailingly champions women’s rights above all else, one that fails to accommodate the realities of political compromise involved in leadership positions where women lead both women and men?

The similarity of the criticisms levelled at the late Benazir Bhutto during her political career and those faced by Hillary Clinton literally a world away also present some lessons in terms of the particular gender-biased challenges faced by female political actors.

Male political candidates around the world routinely capitalise on the power of their families, the political legacies of fathers, brothers and grandfathers, yet they don’t get blasted for this - or at least not so ruthlessly.

Perhaps then it is safe to allege that feminists around the world should not fall prey to holding the real examples of female leadership offered up to us in the late Benazir Bhutto and Hillary Clinton to a standard that judges them on a basis stricter than that applied to men who have the same aspirations.

The realities of the supportive role of political legacies, of name recognition in democratic politics is an unarguable one, as is the reality that the rise of women can never realistically be built entirely on the shoulders of other women. The search for a feminist leader must not be marred by a misguided search for perfection that blinds us to the courage and capabilities of real female leaders who have fought their way to the top.

What a bogus article. Hillary Clinton is clearly a very capable female, and could very well have reached this point without the presence of Bill 'hotpants' Clinton. Sure, his presence helps, but is not necessary either. She makes a rather sizzling sexy candidate, and as we know, morons and good-looking candidates win elections in the U.S., nerds and policy wonks do not. There is clearly been a dearth of hot candidates in the U.S. since Gary Hart got caught with his pants down. I mean Hillary is way up there compared to Dole and Kerry and Barak 'empty mouthpiece' Obama. I doubt she very much needs help of a male family patriarch. Gore was a real stud too, but not sure what happened there.

The author of course conviniently forgets to quote Margaret Thatcher.

the author speculates-
" In Pakistan, a country dominated by feudal and tribal hierarchies where few “self-made” political actors can ever ascend to positions of political power, family legacies signify a power and claim to electoral support that is unheard of in the United States."

unheard of?
2 families
bush
kennedy


besides both being women, and both having husbands-

this is where the similarity between the late mrs. bhutto and hillary end.

"Commentators other than Dalrymple have also pointed out the meddlesome interference of her husband in politics..."


Ironically, similar criticism plagues Hillary’s campaign.

youre taking 2 completely unequal variables and attmepting to make a correlation and draw a similarity between them.

while the late mrs. bhuttos husband was accused of corruption-
of riding on his wifes powerful family and staeling from the people to fill his pockets-

hillarys husband, has been accused of talking too much.

the criticisms are not similar- and not related


hillary, fought for the rights of people, especially women, to EARN her position

the late mrs. bhutto, was GIVEN her power, and yet still, did nothing to further womens causes-
and did not EARN the title of feminist- not to real feminists anyway.

if hillary had been given the power of the late mrs. bhutto- can you imagine what she would have accomplished with it?

and if the late mrs. bhutto had gone to law school in chicago- we'd have never heard of her.

I agree with your overall point, that women in politics are often held to double standards. And that's certainly true in Hillary's case. Anyone who thinks George Bush could have been elected without the prior presidency of GHW Bush is nuts. Ditto for anyone who thinks JFK was elected without the help of his wealthy and influential father.

But Dalrymple's statement has a more nuanced objective than your article allows. I don't think he's commenting on the political leadership of all women. As a noted south Asian historian he was most likely indicating that, despite repeated citation as an example of Islamic feminism, Bhutto's leadership is not an accurate indicator of the status of women in Pakistan.

Just as every women-beater and rapist is not an accurate indicator of the character of men. But three things do ring true for me from all these arguments:

1> Women can do just as much as men do, but alot of the time can do no worse.
2> Muslim feminist discourse has been washed aside by western dominated discourse, as much as Muslim theological discourse has been overrun with western impressions/experience of religion.
3> The "actual" status (as opposed to the legal status) of women in any society is held together by fragile socio-economic and educational balances.