By Nina Benjamin
This month we have a woman as the justice and constitutional development minister, women leading the National Prosecuting Authority and Public Protectors Office and, soon, a woman as chief justice, all ostensibly signs of a country that is removing the barriers women face in taking up leadership positions.
A snapshot of women in leadership positions across the country tells a different story.
Women make up 51% of the population but in Parliament only 43% of the seats are held by women.
In the private sector, the situation is a lot worse, with the 2023 Commission for Employment Equity reporting that women hold only 30% of top management positions in South Africa. Of the JSE Top 100 companies only seven are led by female CEOs.
Trade unions fare no better – a small percentage of women hold the positions of trade union general secretaries and presidents.
Why is it that when we think of a leader we are most likely to picture a man? Is this because we associate leadership with the masculine features of power and aggression? It does not help that leaders all over the world use power, aggression and even war to entrench their dominance. Strong leadership has become about crushing your opposition.
In South Africa this ‘’strong man’’ leadership role is not as obvious as there is no named authoritative or autocratic leadership style. Talk of democracy and inclusivity frames the discourse of our public leaders. Our “strong man“ leadership style comes out in more insidious ways, like what we are seeing with the news hype about Floyd Shivambu’s departure from the EFF.
It is Women’s Month, but the news is dominated by the fight between two powerful male leaders. We are told that our future and the future of the country is dependent on how the two former ‘’brothers’’ carry out their future political agendas. Gender-based violence or the lack of value for care work are relegated to the margins as we, like spectators, sit and watch the fight between the men in the political ring.
Practically, leadership has become about being able to act out this ‘’strong man’’ role, but if you are a woman, much more is expected of you. When you become a leader, you need to climb into this masculine mould but without losing your ‘’feminine’’ qualities of empathy and taking care of others. Don’t demonstrate the ‘’feminine’’ qualities and you are seen as pushy; make it part of your leadership and you are irrational and soft.
Under intense scrutiny
Women standing for leadership positions often experience intense scrutiny stemming from deep-seated gender biases. The biases are intensified if you are a black woman, lesbian or so on. Your appearance, personal life, leadership style and even parenting are all under intense scrutiny. Your colleagues, partner, family members and neighbours are quick to remind you that your primary role is care provider and not leader.
The intense scrutiny is invasive causing a reluctance on the part of women to pursue leadership roles. How many times have we heard it said that even when quotas are in place for women to take leadership positions, they are reluctant to do so.
The intense scrutiny reveals hidden criteria used to judge women. Women never seem to be able to meet the requirements for leadership and are patronisingly told that they will become leaders once empowered. We need to question this notion of empowerment. In 2024, approximately 57.3% of all South African tertiary students are women, so it is not formal education empowerment that is being referred to. Is empowerment then about fitting the masculine mould of leadership, that is being a powerful and aggressive fighter?
The hidden criterion has become so normalised that even women use it to judge one another, arguing that men are more suitable for leadership roles. Men, in turn, are quick to say ‘’What can we do if women are voting for us?“, shifting the argument away from systemic issues and holding women responsible for the lack of women leadership.
Rendered invisible
How much attention and value do we ascribe to the work millions of women do every day, caring and maintaining families and communities? If the work women perform and, in turn, the women who perform the work continue to be rendered invisible, is it not logical then that in the public space, the work and the women who perform the work will be rendered invisible?
Even when women find themselves in leadership positions, they can be rendered invisible. With the dominant masculine leadership approach, woman leaders calling for a more consensual approach, a focus on work-life balance or measures to address violence will find her voice marginalised.
Women’s Month is becoming less authentic as a month celebrating the lives and struggles of ordinary women and more a time for repetitive platitudes for a few woman leaders. This year has seen a further regression, with political party expulsions, defections and court cases dominating our media, further invisibilising the struggles of women.
Networking and cronyism
Networking in the masculine model of leadership is transactional, breeds cronyism and is used to lobby for positions of power.
How often have we heard of contracts, jobs or positions that are acquired on the basis of prior relationships rather than as a result of suitability? This is cronyism, a tool used by men to maintain power and prioritise personal gain over the well-being of the broader society. It is in direct contrast to the ethics of trust, care and inclusivity. According to The Economist’s Crony-Capitalism Index, South Africa ranks 13th among countries where cronyism is prevalent. The ranking indicates that a notable portion of the country’s wealth is derived from industries that benefit from political connections.
In our political context, cronyism has tarnished the significance that support systems and networking can play in personal and professional development. Women’s networks can provide important collective spaces for promoting the ethic of care, essential for a transformed leadership.
* Nina Benjamin is the gender programme co-ordinator at the Labour Research Service.
** The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media