Empowered Women and Political Leadership

Introduction

Women in politics and gender equality policy generally have a parallel relationship with ongoing development history. For this reason, scientific research in this area is an exciting segment of equality policy. The roots of the permanent anchoring of women in politics lie in the 1960s. During this period, equality policy also became more solidified. The reason for this lies in far-reaching changes in society. Thinking that was subsequently reflected in political action. A long economic phase supported these developments, resulting in prosperity. These social, political and economic conditions have led to women with strong personalities being included in the male world of politics.

They were feared to have invaded – as a “conquest” - a male domain which was perhaps seen by many as revolutionary for the 1960s. However, in the fast pace of history, it is a decisive factor for a growing share of women in politics. As in all other areas of life, the first female politicians faced inequality and disadvantages. Through active participation in all political areas, for the first time, women could have a say in many laws and, thus, their special needs for everyday and professional life. This meant that the 1960s was the beginning of equality between women and men, for the independence of women and a self-determined life for women in work and family. The foundation in the 1960s then became another in the 1970s, leading to an even broader implementation of women-relevant concerns in the legal landscape. Western European governments were then able to implement majority ratios and improvements for equality for women. The 1960s were the most important decade for equality for women in Europe.

Daily political decisions are converted into scientific findings, which politicians ignore due to ideological interests and decisions that cannot be objectively justified. Politics does not make decisions based on “common sense” but relies on it exclusively based on expert reports. There are criticisms of such ways to deal with politics and science. Both areas should complement each other, create synergies for solutions, and release decisions with positive social, economic and social impacts.

Any area which is a desert island leads to isolation and, therefore, prejudices towards others. In this context, it is worth looking at the permeability between switching between science and politics, which means looking at the number of people who move from employment to political work. The path into politics can also be done through practical activity with the scientific profession, subject to strict rules and regulations. In contrast, an effective entry requirement exists for the politician - if this is even a profession - which is not mandatory or legally regulated. Of course, it makes sense for a minister of economics, for example, to receive training in economics or business administration, a finance minister has tax law has basic knowledge, and a justice minister knows the basics of the legal system; however, this is not a prerequisite for practising a profession as a politician.

A key difference between science and politics is the connection between the activity (Kelsen, 1951). Scientists are free as they can propose these. Freely choose and edit scientific analysis; the research in this area, and no limits are set. Scientists, therefore, also have the opportunity - freedom – to give the answers to the questions that they think are right. Also, in politics, the concept of a free mandate is theoretical. However, in reality, this is not the case. The case is that politicians are usually party members, belong to a faction, or are government members. This creates a lot of obligations and constraints. Even the simple Members of Parliament, who occupy one of the lower seats in Parliament, are on the line of the Party-bound – as this is about achieving voting majorities and enforcing decisions.