The question of why there are no women leaders in Turkey is often tried to be explained by complex reasons. However, the issue is not as complicated as one might think. Women have always existed in this country; they have studied, worked and participated in politics. The problem is not the presence of women, but the issue of empowerment.
Leadership is not about being visible. Leadership is being able to take decisions. It means sitting at the head of the table, not holding the microphone. In Turkey, women take part in politics, speak, represent, but often do not have the last word at critical moments. There is a podium, but no authority.
Yes, women were given the right to vote and be elected years ago. This was an important step. But the picture has not changed much in all these years. In politics, women have generally remained in positions of making statements, making public appearances and taking on representational roles. When it came to the decision-making table, they were often one step behind.
At this point, everyone thinks of Tansu Çiller. She became the female prime minister of Turkey, and when she first came to power, she was a decisive, tough and assertive leader. “That flag will come down, that soldier will leave” her promise created a wide excitement. Çiller used power, but this power, which is tolerated in male leaders, was discussed in terms of gender. Her mistakes were read not as personal, but as female leadership; her hardness was seen as a problem, her softness as weakness.
The picture is not very different when we look at the CHP. There are women, they are visible, they speak. But in critical moments of decision-making, it is mostly men who sit at the table. Women are mostly “the good one” and “the right one” represents.
Women are often given files on social policy, education, culture, women and children. They are expected to represent the social conscience, to soften the language, to calm the atmosphere in times of crisis. They explain, they defend, they appear before the public. In contrast, the authority to manage budgets, build organizations, determine the balance of power and take tough decisions usually remains in the hands of men. So women in politics “good.” and “right.”yu carries; difficult, dirty and risky decisions are left to others.
When you look at countries that produce women leaders, the difference is immediately apparent. Women grow up within the party, manage the economy, take responsibility in crises. They make mistakes, they are criticized but not pushed back. They are allowed to accumulate power. Leadership is built over time, not in an instant.
In Turkey, politics is conducted in a harsher and noisier language. While this language is considered natural for men, it is considered a problem for women. When a woman speaks harshly, she is considered strange, and when she remains soft, she is associated with being weak. Both are considered flaws. It is difficult for a leader to emerge on such a ground.
There is also the issue of party structures. In Turkey, parties are centralized. Power is concentrated at the top. It is difficult for a new leader to emerge; it is even more difficult for a woman leader to emerge. Because most of the time women are not expected to lead, but to soften the environment. However, leadership sometimes requires disrupting the balance.
Rights are one thing, authority is another. Women may be given rights, but they cannot become leaders unless they are given authority. Authority means managing the budget, building an organization, speaking up in times of crisis.
This picture can change. But not by itself. It will change when parties start expecting women to have the will to govern, not to conform. It changes when women are given the right to make mistakes. When they are not pushed back when they are tough.
The bottom line is “why no women leaders” is not just a question. The real issue is whether there is really space for women to lead.
The day the field opens, the leader will emerge.