Joining the dots between Clinton, May and Merkel

Martin Newland looks at what three of the world's most prominent female politicians have in common

It is a degree or ruthlessness that unites Theresa May, Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel. AP Photo

A Clinton victory in the approaching US presidential election would mean that three of the top five global economies are presided over by women.

Germany’s Angela Merkel and the United Kingdom’s Theresa May already run their respective shows in Europe’s two biggest economies. A victory for Hillary Clinton in November would extend this trend across the Atlantic to include the most powerful nation on the planet.

Commentators are seeking clues to why women appear to be in the ascendancy in politics. Is it because, as many argue, women are naturally more inclined towards nuance and compromise? Is it because between them Mrs Merkel, Mrs May and Mrs Clinton have just one child and thus are able to pitch their talents against male counterparts on a more level playing field? Is it because Mrs Merkel and Mrs May are pastor’s daughters, brought up in the tradition of family, faith and duty and Mrs Clinton is the daughter of a small-business man?

Leave aside that women, generally, are not really in the ascendancy at all, at least in the top tier of politics. In large parts of the world, women find it very hard to leave the home for anything save working in a field or fetching water. Even in Europe, especially in the Catholic states, women are a long way from equal political representation.

It has been enjoyable watching mainstream media seeking to attach to this triumvirate of women leaders some sort of tabloidised, revelatory narrative, preferably accompanied by soft focus, “at home” images and including a story about hardships faced cracking the glass ceiling or juggling ambition with family.

Mrs Merkel and Mrs May tend to keep quiet unless they have something important to say. They don't throw open their homes to photo shoots for Hello!. They don't, as a rule, gush on social media about a soccer result or celebrity death.

This compares favourably in my opinion with the current political style, shaped for the digital age, in which anyone at the other end of a tweet can be your “buddy”, leaders feel it necessary to broadcast their reaction to every development, political or otherwise, to appear connected to the electorate, or to align themselves with a celebrity standpoint rather than make their case through established government channels.

It has not been plain sailing for Mrs Clinton. She is criticised for being awkward, aloof or ruthless. Her attempts at playing the media game have been famously wooden. Hell hath no fury equal to a liberal left media firmament denied its preordained script by a contender who clearly sees little relevance in talking on camera about any­thing other than public service issues and policy.

Tina Brown, the media doyenne and social commentator, recently suggested that the most politically advantageous depiction of Hillary Clinton, where women were concerned, was a shot of her as secretary of state staring forbiddingly at her phone from behind sunglasses, looking for all the world like she wanted to punch someone.

It is a degree of ruthlessness that unites Mrs Merkel, Mrs May and Mrs Clinton. Mrs May’s clear-out of her predecessor David Cameron’s ministers and advisers was swift and merciless. She has a quiet, but calculating style. Even her detractors admit that she is a grown up politician with little inclination for the chummy theatricality of Tony Blair or Mr Cameron.

It is a commonly held appreciation of governmental process and policy implementation, combined with a healthy disregard for media hysteria and personality-based coverage that most characterises the styles of Mrs Merkel, Mrs May and Mrs Clinton.

All three are described as being fascinated with the minutiae of policy generation and enactment, even to the extent of being labelled micromanagers. Mrs Clinton is an adept at navigating the tortuous policy pathways of one of the most convoluted and adversarial democratic governmental systems in the world. She is obsessed by research-based policy and governmental process. She is criticised for not having ideals. But ideals are useless without the capacity to enact them.

Mrs May, a former home secretary, ensured that she was kept informed of even the most apparently trivial development in areas covered by her brief.

Time magazine, in summing up its reasons for naming Mrs Merkel person of the year, said: "Her political style was not to have one; no flair, no flourishes, no charisma, just a survivor's sharp sense of power and a scientist's devotion to data. "

Michael Howard, a former Conservative Party leader, once put the failure of government down to what he called a failure of “process”. Leaders are elected on the basis of manifestos. Once they get in, they have to implement these manifestos — a long and unglamorous process largely confined to the civil service and the unseen tiers of government.

Boring leaders are good leaders, he said. If a leader fails to implement process, a cynical electorate makes room for demagogues whose platform is based on anger and betrayal rather than transformation.

I hope for a Clinton victory and for the continuing success of the resulting transatlantic triumvirate. I don’t hope for these things just because all three are women, but because they show a capacity to bypass the empty promises of personality politics and demagoguery in favour of a return to what we despairing commentators label “serious government”.

Martin Newland is a former editor in chief of The National