That’s not really a fair criticism, on two counts.
First, since under the German system it’s very rare for one party to have an absolute majority in the Bundestag, necessitating negotiations for a coalition after nearly every election. By your standard, what German Chancellor could lay claim to being “elected”?
Second, under the German system the Chancellor is elected by a positive vote of the Bundestag, once the negotiations for the coalition Cabinet have been completed. So Merkel was elected like every German Chancellor in the post-war system: by a vote of the Bundestag.
I would, however, draw a distinction betwee this case and the case in a parliamentary system where the first minister retires, the party elects a new party head who becomes first minister, calls an election, and is defeated. So for example, Kim Campbell being PM of Canada doesn’t count for much, since she did not hold office by virtue of winning a general election, only the internal party election.
Yes, if you’re focusing on him becoming President. You can’t say his becoming President marked a groundswell of conservativism, like Reagan’s election, or the rise of the baby boomer generation to positions of power, like Clinton’s. Ford becoming Prez was a double-fluke.
I do say that Ford counts for something for some of the things he did once he became President, notably the pardon.
PM Campbell never had a chance to govern, so counts for very little, other than presiding over the demise of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
Good thing you aren’t being picky since Thatcher although English was not Prime Minister of England. There’s no such thing.
And here’s the first woman Prime Minister to be elected in the world apparently, although she did have an unfortunate head start on the other candidates.
As long as we’re being picky here, I never said that Thatcher was the Prime Minister of England. I only said “England had Thatcher”, which is technically true, since England is part of the UK.
> Of course if it’s Hillary, we will be following in the renowned 3rd World tradition
> of electing wives or daughters of former Presidents.
Northern Piper writes:
> As opposed to the renowned American tradition of electing the widows of
> former Governors/Senators/Congressmen when the guy dies suddenly?
And then there’s the renowned American tradition of electing the son or grandson of a former President as the President. There are also many cases of a son of an officeholder (a governor, senator, or congressman) being elected to the same post. There are a lot of political families in the U.S. where a number of relatives have been elected to major political posts. I’ve never seen any statistics on this subject. I suspect the U.S. is about average in the amount of family connections in politics. There are certainly countries where it’s more common for several members of a family to be elected to political posts, but there are also countries where it’s less common. Does anyone have any statistics on this subject? If family connections never played any part, it would be quite rare for a couple members of a family to both be elected to major political office.
Notice how every one of these countries that have had a woman leader have a legacy of once having their sovereignty controled by the British or by the descendants of the British. Kudos to the British !
That does seem to be true (except for Germany and Liberia mentioned above). So, why the the British legacy fail in Australia, which has never had a woman as Prime Minister or Govrnor General? Is it the influence of the US in Autralia?
I think it’s simply that no credible female contenders for the Prime Ministership have yet emerged. Those touted (Bronwyn Bishop, Carmen Lawrence, Cheryl Kernot) all turned out to be fairly lacklustre. Voters want competence in their Prime Minister and I don’t think they’ll ever elect an incompetent woman just because of her sex.
Note though that there have been two women state premiers (Joan Kirner in VIC and Carmen Lawrence in WA) but I think both were installed after an election. The two territories have both elected female chief ministers - the former ACT Chief Minister Kate Carnell and the current NT Chief Minister Claire Martin.
“The United Kingdom” is the name of the country. It extends over two islands: Great Britain (containing England, Scotland, and Wales), and Ireland (containing Northern Ireland).
The nationality is “British”, though some people use their primary nationality first. (Unless you’re a Northern Irish nationalist, where you might identify as “Irish”).
OK, it’s not simple. But it isn’t too complicated. The problem seems to lie with people overseas saying “English” when they mean “British”.
There are many who believe that Campbell was elected precisely because of the impending demise of the PC party: everyone knew that whoever was elected would have their career destroyed, so they elected the most dispensible of the candidates. (Her main opponent, Jean Charest, remains active and reasonably successful, while her career was over after the election.)
zahara2 Why? California has a population ten times that of Liberia- fact. It’s economy is many many times that. The land area is nearly 4 times as much. California would be the 6th most powerful nation in the world if it was a nation rather than a state. Ask a Foriegner (non-North American or Non-African) who is the President of Liberia and who is the Governor of California- see how many more get CA right.
Like I said- Africa has around 55 nations, which VERY roughly corresponds to the 50 states of America in terms of number of chances to elect a chief executive. (Hmm, it seems that the USA has had more female Governors than “Africa” has had female Heads of State).
I am sure Liberia’s president has a tough job, and I respect that. But if one can compare the job of Chief Executive of a political enity, then some of those postitions are less/more important than others, like it or not. Being President of the USA thus “means more” than Prime Minister of Tuvalu. For that matter, I’d cheerfully concede that being President of Liberia “means more” than President of the Seychelles. Or- Governor of North Dakota. Liberia is one of the more important African nations, sure.
> California has a population ten times that of Liberia- fact. It’s economy is many
> many times that. The land area is nearly 4 times as much. California would be
> the 6th most powerful nation in the world if it was a nation rather than a state.
> Ask a Foriegner (non-North American or Non-African) who is the President of
> Liberia and who is the Governor of California- see how many more get CA right.
And yet Liberia now has a woman president, one who pledges to make sure that the cabinet will be half women also. And California? California has for its governor an actor whose career was pretty much over in leading roles. (Come to think of it, they did that once before, didn’t they?) An actor who, despite living in the U.S. for most of his life, still speaks English with a heavy accent. But, hey, Californians, don’t give up. I’m sure that if you work at it, you may yet rise to the cultural level of Liberia.
I give you Vaira Vike-Freiberga, former Canadian refugee and President of Latvia since 1999.
Also, there was a woman Norwegian PM and at least one Finnish one, possibly two, during the past ten years. I think there might have been a Lithuanian as well. Can somebody help me out with names here? People in these countries have some seriously weird names.
