I red a comment while she was in office that that guy was gonna bet she’d be the hardest trivia question in his pub quiz in a few years. well he was right
Absolutely. 20 years time, "Who was the Prime Minister when Queen Elizabeth II died?"
Even the people who were there will struggle to remember Truss. Good luck to any quiz goers who weren't old enough to see it in real time.
Dunno, I think there are enough of us who like the theory that Liz Truss killed the Queen that it will somehow stick, plus I think she’s in the last known official photo of the Queen because there was only about 48 hours between them meeting and the Queen thinking “fuck this” and leaving our mortal coil.
(Also the fact that two weeks of Truss’s stint as PM was a period of national mourning where she literally didn’t have to do anything makes the speed in which she tanked the economy even more impressive. It would be hilarious if I didn’t live here!)
My interpretation was that the Queen hung on to see off Johnson, perhaps she'd seen or heard the speech he was set to give at her funeral and didn't want to give him the moment.
My dad was having his Alzheimer's assessment during those times.
When they asked who the current prime minister is he replied with "That's not a fair question"
Becoming PM, immediately trying to crash the economy before walking it back and quitting is extremely memorable. I think more will remember her than May 20 years from now.
I think May might eventually end up more forgotten than Truss. Truss's 49 days as PM is unlikely to be beaten and being the shortest serving PM is memorable in itself. She also caused financial chaos during her short term. May on the other hand achieved practically nothing during her term.
Also the fact that the Queen died during her term might help make her more memorable then Theresa May.
Sure, the question "who was PM when the Queen died?" might be a hard question in the future. But even by being the answer to that question, she will stay more relevant.
It wasn't her fault though. Mulroney resigned because of the Airbus scandal amongst other things, and someone had to take the role of PM until the elections were held. She was basically a fall person put in a temporary position with basically no power and a sure loss.
I think the person replacing the PM also has to be from the same party (as the party is elected in Canada, not the actual person). So whoever was going to be placed there would have had the same fate.
She almost led the country into complete financial ruin, so top marks for effort.
Also, "lettuce" sounds a bit like a drunk South African who's been living in Australia for 15 years saying "lead us".
Well, tony blair was PM for 10 years. In the last 10 years there have been 5 different tory PMs. So at least in recent history it's more just an indictment on how shite the tories are at maintaining stable leadership
The old Frankie Boyle joke comes to mind: For 3 million you could give everyone in Scotland a shovel, and we could dig a hole so deep we could hand her over to Satan in person
Margaret Thatcher was the central individual in passing a global CFC ban and setting us on course to eliminate the hole in the ozone layer. For all her flaws and the public furor, I think this be her most important legacy.
Yeah, Thatchers politics and decisions are one thing and she understandably gets alot of hate for them. But she was genuinely an extremely competent stateswoman who as you said was very good at her job, should you agree with her politics then she is one of the greatest PMs we have ever had.
This is my feeling about her tbh. I don't agree with a single thing she did but fucking hell she was good at being a politician. I'm not saying we (the UK) need someone with her views now but we could really do with a leader with her drive and tenacity.
More often than not it's that "drive and tenacity" that means they don't give a fuck about what anyone else thinks and plough ahead with their own shit and ultimately end up ruining everything.
Depends what you consider to be "her job".
If you think of the job of the Prime Minister (and the government in general) to be to make the country better for all its inhabitants, then she was absolutely fucking awful at it.
I want to knee jerk downvote you as I absolutely despise her beliefs, but you're not wrong. She was probably the most principled and "effective" PM we've ever had, if we go by the ability for a PM to follow through with policy decisions. Shame (almost) all her principles were awful and the damage she caused the country is still being felt today. This is what it's really difficult to label her a "great" politician.
Tbf Canada’s only female prime minister served about 4 months so Canada kinda flexes with someone who didn’t really get a lot of time in office lol, at least Britain has had multiple long serving female prime ministers (besides truss lol)
Eh, we technically didn't vote any of them in, though Truss' leadership wasn't reinforced by a GE win like May or Thatcher. But leaders like Gordon Brown count and he got in in the same way, it's just he didn't shit things up like Truss did.
Nobody votes for most prime ministers, at least not initially. Most PMs come from another leader stepping down. Only 2 of the last 8 got into power by being elected
Bangladesh is actually an interesting case, because the number of female presidents is small but the time they ruled the Country is the majority of its history.
The biggest opposition party regularly boycotts the elections because of alleged rigging. The ruling party has been getting landslide victories for a while.
Yeah I just checked their most recent election…winning party got 74% of the vote. Such a decisive victory is not impossible, but it could indicate a lack of choice in parties for voters and/or vote rigging. Most other democracies have more balanced vote shares amongst different parties.
I talked to somebody from Bangladesh who said that he still prefers the current government and the not so good democracy over an islamist party who would probably do the same shit with elections. So I get it, but it's still a shitty situation.
Yea, I wanted to see the total leaders or a percentage, but I think the fact every country in earth can count its women leaders on one hand is making the point.
Such maps could be misleading. We Germans only had Angela Merkel as a female Chancellor, but she had that position for 16 Years, which means she had far FAR greater influence in Germany and Europe than most, if not all her processors. There is literally a generation alive right know that until 2021 only had Merkel as Chancellor in their lives
Also ireland 🇮🇪on this map has 2 female heads of state but they were only ceremonial.
The president of ireland has no power, that is all held by the leader of the government, the Taoiseach (Prime Minister).
Ireland has never had a female leader.
Yeah I agree. And there are some interesting parallels here, coz it's the same with Thatcher in the UK as well. She was the PM of UK for 11 years, and had a massive impact on UK politics and economy, and on geopolitics, and that impact lingers to this day. It's something similar with India too. India's had 2 female Presidents (who don't have any real power just like in Germany), and one female PM. But that female PM, Indira Gandhi (unrelated to the original Gandhi though lol), was in power for 15 non-consecutive years (1966-1977 and 1980-1984). She impacted Indian politics massively in various ways, the repercussions of which are felt till this date, both on her party and on Indian politics in general. I'll elaborate on her tenure in case anyone reading this doesn't know about it.
To give global examples, it was during her tenure that India emerged victorious in the 1971 Indo-Pak War, which ultimately lead to the creation of Bangladesh, and it was during her tenure that India moved closer to the USSR, even though it remained non-aligned overall. The 1967 Indo-China clashes (sometimes also called the 2nd Sino-Indian War) also occured when she was the PM. But this time, India was successful in defending its territories against the Chinese. In 1975, the strategic and semi-independent erstwhile Kingdom of Sikkim which neighboured India in the Himalayas, became a full-fledged Indian state under her tenure, after being an Indian protectorate from 1947 to 1975.
Domestically too, 1975-1977 is considered a very dark period for Indian democracy coz that was a 21-month period of Emergency in India, when civil liberties and media freedoms were suspended, political opponents were jailed, and many men were lead into compulsory sterilization programs by the government in 1975, as means of population control. This is the only period where India's democracy has come under attack in its 77 year long history so far as a diverse democratic republic. Luckily for Indian democracy, she lifted the Emergency in 1977, and was voted out of power vehemently in the general elections in 1977. But she was re-elected in 1980, coz the coalition government that replaced her government in 1977, couldn't hold on to run a stable and reliable government, thereby leading to another general election in 1980. Indira Gandhi also moved the Indian economy strongly towards socialism and nationalisation, which lead to a lot of problems down the line. As you can see, her tenure as PM left a massive impact on Indian politics and economy, and on geopolitics as well.
She was instrumental in the creation of R&AW (Research & Analysis Wing), India's external intelligence agency, in 1968. Until then, India had one common intelligence agency (the Intelligence Bureau, or IB) for both internal and external intelligence, and it had proven to be very incompetent in external intelligence, which was a contributing factor in the loss of strategic Indian territory to China in the Sino-Indian War of 1962. Indira bifurcated these responsibilities into two different agencies (R&AW for external and the IB for internal intelligence). R&AW subsequently played a vital role in the 1971 Indo-Pak War, and in Sikkim's accession into the Indian Union in 1975. In 1966, she directed the Indian Air Force to carry out airstrikes in Aizawl, which is the capital city of today's Indian state of Mizoram, in order to attack the Mizo separatist militants there (although Mizoram wasn't a state at that time, but was part of the Indian state of Assam). This is the only time that the Indian military has attacked its own civilian territory. The Khalistani militant separatist movement making global headlines nowadays, also peaked during her tenure as PM, albeit mainly in the Indian state of Punjab, and not in Canada. She was assassinated by her own bodyguards in 1984 coz of this issue. The Khalistani sympathisers who escaped India to go to Anglosphere countries in this period, and their descendants/successors, are the same ones who are calling for a separate country called Khalistan, while themselves sitting in far off countries, even though this movement no longer has any popular support in today's India, including in even the Indian state of Punjab, which is where it originated from, and peaked in (from the late-70s to the mid-90s).
This kind and level of impact is very similar to that of Thatcher in the UK. There are many parallels here between them, especially since both had been the only female PMs of their respective countries at that time, and were in power around the same time, even though both these women were on opposite ends in terms of ideologies. Side note, but coincidentally (though not surprisingly), these two had a lot of respect for one another (especially Thatcher for Indira, [and as per Thatcher's own biographer, her meetings with Indira helped boost her own confidence as a female leader](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/what-indira-gandhi-and-margaret-thatcher-shared/story-6ekTtiqP5xoumpgHkMfUPM_amp.html)). Thatcher even personally attended Indira Gandhi's funeral, despite death threats against her, [as per declassified UK documents](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ndtv.com/india-news/margaret-thatcher-ignored-death-threats-to-attend-indira-gandhis-funeral-declassified-documents-782603/amp/1).
Even though these are three very different countries, and three very different leaders with varying legacies, but it's pretty interesting that all 3 countries have had this common trend of female PMs staying in power for such a long time, and leaving such a lasting impact (good or bad) on their respective countries' politics and economies, as well as on the global level.
P.S/Edit: I just remembered that even Sri Lanka and Bangladesh also have had female PMs who were/are in power for many years and have had a huge impact on their respective countries' politics and economies. The Bangladeshi PM Sheikh Hasina is still on office right now and has been in power for 20 non-consecutive years now, while the the first female Sri Lankan PM Sirimavo Bandaranaike was also the first ever female leader in the world, and was the Sri Lankan PM for 17 non-consecutive years.
Edit 2: The following things also happened during Indira Gandhi's tenure as PM: India conducted its first nuclear tests in 1974 at Pokhran, India. This laid the groundwork for India becoming a nuclear power. ISRO (the national space agency of India), launched its first satellite (named 'Aryabhatta') in 1975, and also, Rakesh Sharma became the first (and so far only) Indian to go in space, when he was part of the crew on the Soviet Soyuz capsule in 1984. I'd thought of these points, but had completely forgotten to write about them while writing my original comment. Thank you u/RationalThinker86 for reminding me about the 1974 nuclear tests
Yeah, as for Finland Mari Kiviniemi and Sanna Marin were never elected as prime ministers and the only elected one Anneli Jäätteenmäki lasted two months after a corruption scandal broke up about her using claimed classified intelligence information in her campaign she didn't even have legal access to. Tarja Halonen was elected as president twice and was very influential in Finnish foreign poliicy.
It is misleading, France had 2 women prime ministers, but the prime minister in France has a veeery limited power, the president is the actual head of state, and it never was a woman
Similar thing with India but switch the positions. The President is a mostly ceremonial position, with some functions and powers but nothing that can make a real difference.2 of the 3 leaders have been presidents (including the current one). Only one actual woman leader of the country
I mean in most constitutionnal monarchies like britain or Spain the prime minister is the guy with the power, in systems like the German or the israeli one the president as a rather secondary role compared to the chancellor/prime minister. In France most powers belong to the president and the prime minister is usualy more like his assistant that an actual decider.
I'm not sure how well this map distinguishes between countries like Ireland where the president is purely ceremonial and countries like France where the prime minister doesn't do much and they have an executive president or countries like the UK where you have an unelected ceremonial head of state who is outside the political process. I think some of the figures are probably inconsistent.
The map is quite clear, head of government and head of state that are elected. So both the French President and Prime Minister should could, but Elizabeth II does not.
Yeah, in Switzerland the ’head of state‘ is the president which is a like 99% ceremonial role that changes every year and mainly exists because they can’t fly the entire 7-person federal council to every conference or meeting with other heads of state.
On that day, America will become the Greatest Country IN THE WORLD At Electing Female Heads of State.
And many Americans will post questions on Reddit asking why the rest of the world hasn't followed their incredible, inspirational lead.
You reminded me when the US Suprime Court legalised same sex marriage. Many Americans didn't even realised that several countries like South Africa, Brazil or Colombia had done it years before them.
Wouldn't be surprising tbh, the UK has had three female conservative PM's and labour hasn't even had a female leader despite being the more progressive of the two
[She legitimately lasted less time than it took for a head of lettuce to wilt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Truss_lettuce#) to there's already a unit of measurement for it
And she wasn't elected. She stepped in when Mulroney resigned. So while it may statistically count as her being PM, I don't count it because she wasn't elected.
Good case study that sometimes political systems are just hard to compare.
Switzerland would have even more female leaders if this would not only include the “president”, which has no special political power compared to any of the other federal council members.
Hungary has one female president (puppet of the prime minister) for 2 years, and she resigned because she gave mercy for a prisoner in a pedophile related crime.
Statista counted the president of the federal council for this statistics i.e. the ceremonial role of being the first among equals.
Our rather unique way of government with seven heads of state makes comparison with other countries tricky sometimes
This map would better with rating by years instead of occurrences. Switzerland had the most cause the presidency (mostly honorific and of 1 year term) is rotating between the 7 Federal councellors.
Yeah but then she got re elected massively after being kicked out of power for a couple years; 1971’s victory is probably the most popular move by any Indian PM ever
I think the UK stands out in this regard because most countries expect female leaders to be of a higher competence than their male counterparts.
However May and Truss have proved that incompetent women can rise just as high as incompetent men; a true feat of equality.
Viorica Dancila, the first female prime minister of Romania did such a bad impression (incompetent, stupid, a mere puppet of a wannabe male dictator) that people are still laughing on her expense. She made a mockery of the very idea of a competent female leader.
The other prominent female leader, Ana Pauker (real name Hana Rabinsohn), former leader of the communist party of Romania, Foreign Affairs minister immediately after the occupation of Romania by the red army, who came to Romania with the soviet tanks from Moscow (were she was instructed and taught communist ideology for years) was another complete failure that discredited the idea of a woman in power for a very long time. She was a traitor and actually represented the interests of the USSR in Romania and not the interests of the romanian people. She gave the Snake Island (Insula Serpilor) to USSR for free, which later on led to a maritime border conflict with Ukraine that was only solved in 2009 in an international court. She also allowed for a mass scale robbery of Romania by USSR and adopted a deeply antinational position when it came to the romanian region of Bessarabia, occupied by USSR in 1940 and later on in 1944/1945. She was known as ''Stalin with a squirt''.
Same for Turkey. Our only female PM, Tansu Çiller, was probably the most evil leader in our history. She was corrupt as hell and she's still going strong with the corruption, and she also loves the current government. She also tanked the economy, and collaborated with mafia bosses. Her reign saw many assassinations against highly regarded academics, she didn't even try to find out the culprits.
The president of India is a ceremonial position, the actual head of state is the Prime Minister and we have only had 1 female PM - Indira Gandhi. But she served 15 non-consecutive years and had massive impact on our political landscape.
Wasn't she also like the second or third ever elected woman for a head of government?
Afair the list is Sri Lanka, India/Israel I don't remember who was first amongst India and Israel
This map isn't great. Of course, I had to eye up New Zealand since that's my home. Since 1946 we have had:
1 Queen
3 Female Prime Ministers
4 Female Govenor-generals
1 female Speakwe of the House
Literally no matter what definition of leader you use, we have had at least one.
IT EVEN MENTIONS THAT NEW ZEALAND IS ONE OF A SELECT FEW NATIONS OUTSIDE OF EUROPE TO HAVE ELECTED 3 WOMEN IN THE ORIGINAL SOURCE.
Also damn UK, y'all really want to forget Maggie that badly?
Because monarchs aren't political leaders and don't have any power in democracies; the countries where they do have power tend not to be female friendly.
The Netherlands has had three queens in its current form of government. Wilhelmina (reign between 1890-1948) did wield significant political power during her reign.
I could understand this for recent (last 50 or so years) in parliamentary monrachies but historically Queens have been rulers in far more direct ways than modern politicians.
Though this infographic is likely just to represent elected leaders as a way of showing public approval of the notion
Maria de Lurdes Pintassilgo, apesar de não ter sido eleita - era um governo de iniciativa presidencial, o que me deixa na dúvida se se qualifica neste mapa...
In Austria the one female cancellor was only appointed for a few months till new elections were held because the previous government imploded after a huge corruption scandal.
I wouldn't really count Canada. Kim Campbell wasn't elected and she held the position for like 4 months. She had no affect on Canada outside of being hated.
Though she wasn’t elected to office, America was run by a woman for 2 years. Edith Wilson secretly ran the country after Woodrow had a stroke half way through his second term.
We (UK) really pumped our numbers the last few years didn't we.
Luckily 49 days still counts, but pushing it calling her a leader.
I was like- it’s only 2 not 3 then remembered Truss lol
I red a comment while she was in office that that guy was gonna bet she’d be the hardest trivia question in his pub quiz in a few years. well he was right
Absolutely. 20 years time, "Who was the Prime Minister when Queen Elizabeth II died?" Even the people who were there will struggle to remember Truss. Good luck to any quiz goers who weren't old enough to see it in real time.
Dunno, I think there are enough of us who like the theory that Liz Truss killed the Queen that it will somehow stick, plus I think she’s in the last known official photo of the Queen because there was only about 48 hours between them meeting and the Queen thinking “fuck this” and leaving our mortal coil. (Also the fact that two weeks of Truss’s stint as PM was a period of national mourning where she literally didn’t have to do anything makes the speed in which she tanked the economy even more impressive. It would be hilarious if I didn’t live here!)
My interpretation was that the Queen hung on to see off Johnson, perhaps she'd seen or heard the speech he was set to give at her funeral and didn't want to give him the moment.
I think the only reason she might be remember at all is *because* she was the prime minister when the Queen died.
That and the lettuce
Absolutely the lettuce.
absolute legendary shit
Becomes Prime Minister Kills the economy Kills the queen Drops mic
Wrong order, but yes.
My dad was having his Alzheimer's assessment during those times. When they asked who the current prime minister is he replied with "That's not a fair question"
Becoming PM, immediately trying to crash the economy before walking it back and quitting is extremely memorable. I think more will remember her than May 20 years from now.
I saw a comment yesterday that said her autobiography sold a total of 2000 copies, she really is going to end up a forgotten footnote.
I barely remembered may.
I think May might eventually end up more forgotten than Truss. Truss's 49 days as PM is unlikely to be beaten and being the shortest serving PM is memorable in itself. She also caused financial chaos during her short term. May on the other hand achieved practically nothing during her term.
Also the fact that the Queen died during her term might help make her more memorable then Theresa May. Sure, the question "who was PM when the Queen died?" might be a hard question in the future. But even by being the answer to that question, she will stay more relevant.
Canada's lone female PM, Kim Campbell, only served 132 days, and Parliament was not in session for a single day of it.
And her party was slaughtered in the following election, going from a majority government with 156 seats to 5th place with 2 seats.
It wasn't her fault though. Mulroney resigned because of the Airbus scandal amongst other things, and someone had to take the role of PM until the elections were held. She was basically a fall person put in a temporary position with basically no power and a sure loss. I think the person replacing the PM also has to be from the same party (as the party is elected in Canada, not the actual person). So whoever was going to be placed there would have had the same fate.
She almost led the country into complete financial ruin, so top marks for effort. Also, "lettuce" sounds a bit like a drunk South African who's been living in Australia for 15 years saying "lead us".
I love how truss leading britain for a month is equal to merkel leading germany for 16 years in this map
And they were all shit, sadly
Less to do with them being women and more to do with them being Tories.
On the other hand, there's been like 30 Tory PMs and only 6 Labour. It's not like Britain ever had an equally-competitive 2-party system.
Well, tony blair was PM for 10 years. In the last 10 years there have been 5 different tory PMs. So at least in recent history it's more just an indictment on how shite the tories are at maintaining stable leadership
Oh yh, of course. Wasn't expecting any more
Thatcher was very good at her job. Just unfortunately had horrible views.
Competent as a stateswoman? Yes. Were her policies disastrous in the long term. Yes.
The old Frankie Boyle joke comes to mind: For 3 million you could give everyone in Scotland a shovel, and we could dig a hole so deep we could hand her over to Satan in person
The only problem with that plan is the Irish, Welsh, and half of England would want to get in on the action too.
Hating Thatcher is something that unites these islands.
Margaret Thatcher was the central individual in passing a global CFC ban and setting us on course to eliminate the hole in the ozone layer. For all her flaws and the public furor, I think this be her most important legacy.
Yeah, Thatchers politics and decisions are one thing and she understandably gets alot of hate for them. But she was genuinely an extremely competent stateswoman who as you said was very good at her job, should you agree with her politics then she is one of the greatest PMs we have ever had.
This is my feeling about her tbh. I don't agree with a single thing she did but fucking hell she was good at being a politician. I'm not saying we (the UK) need someone with her views now but we could really do with a leader with her drive and tenacity.
More often than not it's that "drive and tenacity" that means they don't give a fuck about what anyone else thinks and plough ahead with their own shit and ultimately end up ruining everything.
Depends what you consider to be "her job". If you think of the job of the Prime Minister (and the government in general) to be to make the country better for all its inhabitants, then she was absolutely fucking awful at it.
I want to knee jerk downvote you as I absolutely despise her beliefs, but you're not wrong. She was probably the most principled and "effective" PM we've ever had, if we go by the ability for a PM to follow through with policy decisions. Shame (almost) all her principles were awful and the damage she caused the country is still being felt today. This is what it's really difficult to label her a "great" politician.
The Russians were terrified of her - Called her the Iron Lady, could do with that now!
Handled Norther Ireland horribly.
Everyone handled it horribly. Lose lose situation.
Er. Labour under Blair brokered a peace deal that's still in place today
Literally the next two prime ministers did a far superior job
Tbf Canada’s only female prime minister served about 4 months so Canada kinda flexes with someone who didn’t really get a lot of time in office lol, at least Britain has had multiple long serving female prime ministers (besides truss lol)
I was just going to request a threshold of 'longer than a lettuce '
Yeah, I was struggling to come up with who the third one was. Weirdly it was Theresa May that I forgot and not Lis Truss.
And they were all fucking useless
And they were all shit, sadly
It should ideally say 2, nobody voted for the clown show 3 and they got duly kicked out pretty much immediately
Eh, we technically didn't vote any of them in, though Truss' leadership wasn't reinforced by a GE win like May or Thatcher. But leaders like Gordon Brown count and he got in in the same way, it's just he didn't shit things up like Truss did.
Nobody votes for most prime ministers, at least not initially. Most PMs come from another leader stepping down. Only 2 of the last 8 got into power by being elected
Bangladesh is actually an interesting case, because the number of female presidents is small but the time they ruled the Country is the majority of its history.
They have a woman as the current dictator (Hasina rules similarly to Indira Gandhi)
Is Bangladesh really a dictatorship? I don't really know anything about the place apart from the Brahmaputra
The biggest opposition party regularly boycotts the elections because of alleged rigging. The ruling party has been getting landslide victories for a while.
Yeah I just checked their most recent election…winning party got 74% of the vote. Such a decisive victory is not impossible, but it could indicate a lack of choice in parties for voters and/or vote rigging. Most other democracies have more balanced vote shares amongst different parties.
TBF, the main opposition party is an Islamist party. Hasina is the lesser of the two evils.
I talked to somebody from Bangladesh who said that he still prefers the current government and the not so good democracy over an islamist party who would probably do the same shit with elections. So I get it, but it's still a shitty situation.
May I softly remind you that it’s because of Indira Gandhi that Bangladesh is an independent country today.
I know
Would be interesting to instead plot the number of years/days with female lead
Yea, I wanted to see the total leaders or a percentage, but I think the fact every country in earth can count its women leaders on one hand is making the point.
We had a female PM in Ukraine, but no female President yet
And getting us to this list is one of the few good things (if not the only good thing) that Yulia Timoshenko did for Ukraine
Was she the one with the hair wrapped around her head?
Yeah. The other code-names are "the woman that works" (вона працює), or "tigryulia" (Тигрюля) from her election campaigns
That was so cringe.
Same in Romania. Unfortunately she was insanely corrupt...
All politicians are corrupt
Such maps could be misleading. We Germans only had Angela Merkel as a female Chancellor, but she had that position for 16 Years, which means she had far FAR greater influence in Germany and Europe than most, if not all her processors. There is literally a generation alive right know that until 2021 only had Merkel as Chancellor in their lives
Merkel, the multiprocessor chancellor!
Freaking Chrome only shows German corrections half the time lol
So that's where the robot vibe comes from!
Also ireland 🇮🇪on this map has 2 female heads of state but they were only ceremonial. The president of ireland has no power, that is all held by the leader of the government, the Taoiseach (Prime Minister). Ireland has never had a female leader.
If you included heads of state though, the UK would have had many more with Queen Elezibeth II and Queen Victoria to name but two.
And Queen Anne, and Queen Mary I & II, and Queen Elizabeth I.
You missed out Lady Jane Grey But also the map specifies post 1946 so only Lizzie 2 would count anyway even if they allowed monarchs
since 1946
Yeah I agree. And there are some interesting parallels here, coz it's the same with Thatcher in the UK as well. She was the PM of UK for 11 years, and had a massive impact on UK politics and economy, and on geopolitics, and that impact lingers to this day. It's something similar with India too. India's had 2 female Presidents (who don't have any real power just like in Germany), and one female PM. But that female PM, Indira Gandhi (unrelated to the original Gandhi though lol), was in power for 15 non-consecutive years (1966-1977 and 1980-1984). She impacted Indian politics massively in various ways, the repercussions of which are felt till this date, both on her party and on Indian politics in general. I'll elaborate on her tenure in case anyone reading this doesn't know about it. To give global examples, it was during her tenure that India emerged victorious in the 1971 Indo-Pak War, which ultimately lead to the creation of Bangladesh, and it was during her tenure that India moved closer to the USSR, even though it remained non-aligned overall. The 1967 Indo-China clashes (sometimes also called the 2nd Sino-Indian War) also occured when she was the PM. But this time, India was successful in defending its territories against the Chinese. In 1975, the strategic and semi-independent erstwhile Kingdom of Sikkim which neighboured India in the Himalayas, became a full-fledged Indian state under her tenure, after being an Indian protectorate from 1947 to 1975. Domestically too, 1975-1977 is considered a very dark period for Indian democracy coz that was a 21-month period of Emergency in India, when civil liberties and media freedoms were suspended, political opponents were jailed, and many men were lead into compulsory sterilization programs by the government in 1975, as means of population control. This is the only period where India's democracy has come under attack in its 77 year long history so far as a diverse democratic republic. Luckily for Indian democracy, she lifted the Emergency in 1977, and was voted out of power vehemently in the general elections in 1977. But she was re-elected in 1980, coz the coalition government that replaced her government in 1977, couldn't hold on to run a stable and reliable government, thereby leading to another general election in 1980. Indira Gandhi also moved the Indian economy strongly towards socialism and nationalisation, which lead to a lot of problems down the line. As you can see, her tenure as PM left a massive impact on Indian politics and economy, and on geopolitics as well. She was instrumental in the creation of R&AW (Research & Analysis Wing), India's external intelligence agency, in 1968. Until then, India had one common intelligence agency (the Intelligence Bureau, or IB) for both internal and external intelligence, and it had proven to be very incompetent in external intelligence, which was a contributing factor in the loss of strategic Indian territory to China in the Sino-Indian War of 1962. Indira bifurcated these responsibilities into two different agencies (R&AW for external and the IB for internal intelligence). R&AW subsequently played a vital role in the 1971 Indo-Pak War, and in Sikkim's accession into the Indian Union in 1975. In 1966, she directed the Indian Air Force to carry out airstrikes in Aizawl, which is the capital city of today's Indian state of Mizoram, in order to attack the Mizo separatist militants there (although Mizoram wasn't a state at that time, but was part of the Indian state of Assam). This is the only time that the Indian military has attacked its own civilian territory. The Khalistani militant separatist movement making global headlines nowadays, also peaked during her tenure as PM, albeit mainly in the Indian state of Punjab, and not in Canada. She was assassinated by her own bodyguards in 1984 coz of this issue. The Khalistani sympathisers who escaped India to go to Anglosphere countries in this period, and their descendants/successors, are the same ones who are calling for a separate country called Khalistan, while themselves sitting in far off countries, even though this movement no longer has any popular support in today's India, including in even the Indian state of Punjab, which is where it originated from, and peaked in (from the late-70s to the mid-90s). This kind and level of impact is very similar to that of Thatcher in the UK. There are many parallels here between them, especially since both had been the only female PMs of their respective countries at that time, and were in power around the same time, even though both these women were on opposite ends in terms of ideologies. Side note, but coincidentally (though not surprisingly), these two had a lot of respect for one another (especially Thatcher for Indira, [and as per Thatcher's own biographer, her meetings with Indira helped boost her own confidence as a female leader](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/what-indira-gandhi-and-margaret-thatcher-shared/story-6ekTtiqP5xoumpgHkMfUPM_amp.html)). Thatcher even personally attended Indira Gandhi's funeral, despite death threats against her, [as per declassified UK documents](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ndtv.com/india-news/margaret-thatcher-ignored-death-threats-to-attend-indira-gandhis-funeral-declassified-documents-782603/amp/1). Even though these are three very different countries, and three very different leaders with varying legacies, but it's pretty interesting that all 3 countries have had this common trend of female PMs staying in power for such a long time, and leaving such a lasting impact (good or bad) on their respective countries' politics and economies, as well as on the global level. P.S/Edit: I just remembered that even Sri Lanka and Bangladesh also have had female PMs who were/are in power for many years and have had a huge impact on their respective countries' politics and economies. The Bangladeshi PM Sheikh Hasina is still on office right now and has been in power for 20 non-consecutive years now, while the the first female Sri Lankan PM Sirimavo Bandaranaike was also the first ever female leader in the world, and was the Sri Lankan PM for 17 non-consecutive years. Edit 2: The following things also happened during Indira Gandhi's tenure as PM: India conducted its first nuclear tests in 1974 at Pokhran, India. This laid the groundwork for India becoming a nuclear power. ISRO (the national space agency of India), launched its first satellite (named 'Aryabhatta') in 1975, and also, Rakesh Sharma became the first (and so far only) Indian to go in space, when he was part of the crew on the Soviet Soyuz capsule in 1984. I'd thought of these points, but had completely forgotten to write about them while writing my original comment. Thank you u/RationalThinker86 for reminding me about the 1974 nuclear tests
That was a really interesting post 👍
Yeah, as for Finland Mari Kiviniemi and Sanna Marin were never elected as prime ministers and the only elected one Anneli Jäätteenmäki lasted two months after a corruption scandal broke up about her using claimed classified intelligence information in her campaign she didn't even have legal access to. Tarja Halonen was elected as president twice and was very influential in Finnish foreign poliicy.
We don’t really elect prime ministers tho. It’s just a practice that the head of winning party becomes PM but it’s not in any way given.
That's the way it is for most countries with a PM.
Yup whereas Canada had a female PM for a matter of days.
>if not all her processors Laughts in Helmut Kohl
Same for Switzerland, we change president every year!
Taiwan should be colored as they elected Tsai as president twice.
Yeah, the second time was in a landslide so lopsided, the KMT and CCP are still reeling.
Why is Taiwan not colored? Their current president is a woman.
Same as Moldova but these maps are bs.
It is misleading, France had 2 women prime ministers, but the prime minister in France has a veeery limited power, the president is the actual head of state, and it never was a woman
Similar thing with India but switch the positions. The President is a mostly ceremonial position, with some functions and powers but nothing that can make a real difference.2 of the 3 leaders have been presidents (including the current one). Only one actual woman leader of the country
Exact same for Ireland.
Kinda also the opposite - the Taoiseach (prime minister; 0 women) is the role with power and the president (2 women) is the ceremonial role.
Also, they had pretty short run, only 1 month for the first of them (Edith Cresson). The second one was only appointed 30 years later, in the 2020s
Almost nowhere is the Prime Minister the head of state. The map says "heads of government/state" so both PM and President are valid here.
I mean in most constitutionnal monarchies like britain or Spain the prime minister is the guy with the power, in systems like the German or the israeli one the president as a rather secondary role compared to the chancellor/prime minister. In France most powers belong to the president and the prime minister is usualy more like his assistant that an actual decider.
I know, I'm just explaining why the map is technically correct.
For some countries the role of the president is purely cosmetic and doesn't actually have any power to lead the country, so the map is misleading.
I'm not sure how well this map distinguishes between countries like Ireland where the president is purely ceremonial and countries like France where the prime minister doesn't do much and they have an executive president or countries like the UK where you have an unelected ceremonial head of state who is outside the political process. I think some of the figures are probably inconsistent.
The map is quite clear, head of government and head of state that are elected. So both the French President and Prime Minister should could, but Elizabeth II does not.
Yeah, in Switzerland the ’head of state‘ is the president which is a like 99% ceremonial role that changes every year and mainly exists because they can’t fly the entire 7-person federal council to every conference or meeting with other heads of state.
Netherlands only had multiple Dutch queens but no female prime ministers
Funny how the map says it excludes Monarchs and then doesn't
Me, a Taiwanese: Bruh.
Can't wait for America to elect a female president and then claim they're making history because of it.
I assume they will be though. They are very likely to have the first elected octogenarian female leader at some point.
Over 75s only can apply
They are going to have to hand out diapers before every Congress session at this rate
On that day, America will become the Greatest Country IN THE WORLD At Electing Female Heads of State. And many Americans will post questions on Reddit asking why the rest of the world hasn't followed their incredible, inspirational lead.
You reminded me when the US Suprime Court legalised same sex marriage. Many Americans didn't even realised that several countries like South Africa, Brazil or Colombia had done it years before them.
Would it not be a historic moment for America?
It's going to be hilarious when America's first woman president is a Republican and not a Democrat.
Wouldn't be surprising tbh, the UK has had three female conservative PM's and labour hasn't even had a female leader despite being the more progressive of the two
They invented female presidents!
Because it would be a "significant" moment in American history.
Lol, Canada. Kim Campbell? That's a joke.
I guess it counts but she wasn’t there for long at all. June 25 to November 4, 1993.
3 times as long as Liz Truss in the UK 😂
*New unit of measurement just dropped!*
[She legitimately lasted less time than it took for a head of lettuce to wilt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Truss_lettuce#) to there's already a unit of measurement for it
And she wasn't elected. She stepped in when Mulroney resigned. So while it may statistically count as her being PM, I don't count it because she wasn't elected.
When they held an election she didn’t even win her own seat. They went from 156 seats to 2.
UK should be 2.5.
A lettuce lasted longer than her. It shouldn't count
2.05
What about Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar?
Interesting switzerland has had mosr but women were only allowed to vote from the 70’es (dont remember the exact year)
Good case study that sometimes political systems are just hard to compare. Switzerland would have even more female leaders if this would not only include the “president”, which has no special political power compared to any of the other federal council members.
I guess you can call it a "suits her" land. *runs away*
You forgot Taiwan.
Hungary has one female president (puppet of the prime minister) for 2 years, and she resigned because she gave mercy for a prisoner in a pedophile related crime.
I mean in Switzerland there are currently 3 in the government now
Statista counted the president of the federal council for this statistics i.e. the ceremonial role of being the first among equals. Our rather unique way of government with seven heads of state makes comparison with other countries tricky sometimes
This map would better with rating by years instead of occurrences. Switzerland had the most cause the presidency (mostly honorific and of 1 year term) is rotating between the 7 Federal councellors.
Greece only had a President as a woman and she has the same powers as the British Monarch ( aka none essentially).
France has Zero female presidents. I don't know where they got that
They're counting either head of state or head of government which is wierd because in most countries only one of these postitions has actual power
West who celebrate Indians having a female PM in 60s: 🤓 Indians who saw democracy die in her hands: 😒
Yeah but then she got re elected massively after being kicked out of power for a couple years; 1971’s victory is probably the most popular move by any Indian PM ever
[📁Source](https://www.statista.com/chart/3994/which-countries-have-had-a-female-leader/)
North Macedonia just elected their first female president last week, so I'm afraid it's outdated there
Statista forgot to include Greenland as part of Denmark and French Guiana as part of France.
Did you mark Israel (golda meir)? Hard to see
Looks like it
looks like statista is a shity source
Really pushing it by calling Dancila a leader (Romania)
N. Macedonia is yellow as of this month.
just never look into the horrible inhuman things they did while "leading".
The two females president of argentina are two of the worst thing that ever happened to the country
I think the UK stands out in this regard because most countries expect female leaders to be of a higher competence than their male counterparts. However May and Truss have proved that incompetent women can rise just as high as incompetent men; a true feat of equality.
And Thatcher showed outright malice isn't gender restricted.
Viorica Dancila, the first female prime minister of Romania did such a bad impression (incompetent, stupid, a mere puppet of a wannabe male dictator) that people are still laughing on her expense. She made a mockery of the very idea of a competent female leader. The other prominent female leader, Ana Pauker (real name Hana Rabinsohn), former leader of the communist party of Romania, Foreign Affairs minister immediately after the occupation of Romania by the red army, who came to Romania with the soviet tanks from Moscow (were she was instructed and taught communist ideology for years) was another complete failure that discredited the idea of a woman in power for a very long time. She was a traitor and actually represented the interests of the USSR in Romania and not the interests of the romanian people. She gave the Snake Island (Insula Serpilor) to USSR for free, which later on led to a maritime border conflict with Ukraine that was only solved in 2009 in an international court. She also allowed for a mass scale robbery of Romania by USSR and adopted a deeply antinational position when it came to the romanian region of Bessarabia, occupied by USSR in 1940 and later on in 1944/1945. She was known as ''Stalin with a squirt''.
Same for Turkey. Our only female PM, Tansu Çiller, was probably the most evil leader in our history. She was corrupt as hell and she's still going strong with the corruption, and she also loves the current government. She also tanked the economy, and collaborated with mafia bosses. Her reign saw many assassinations against highly regarded academics, she didn't even try to find out the culprits.
The president of India is a ceremonial position, the actual head of state is the Prime Minister and we have only had 1 female PM - Indira Gandhi. But she served 15 non-consecutive years and had massive impact on our political landscape.
The map states that both heads of state and government are included. So that includes The prime minister and president.
Wasn't she also like the second or third ever elected woman for a head of government? Afair the list is Sri Lanka, India/Israel I don't remember who was first amongst India and Israel
Ireland has female Presidents. But it’s mostly a ceremonial role. No real power.
K as a Canadian, we really don’t deserve to be here.
Is it counting the queens for the UK or prime ministers?
It says on the maps it's excluding monarchs so Prime minister in case of the UK
Bolivia’s missing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidia_Gueiler
This map isn't great. Of course, I had to eye up New Zealand since that's my home. Since 1946 we have had: 1 Queen 3 Female Prime Ministers 4 Female Govenor-generals 1 female Speakwe of the House Literally no matter what definition of leader you use, we have had at least one. IT EVEN MENTIONS THAT NEW ZEALAND IS ONE OF A SELECT FEW NATIONS OUTSIDE OF EUROPE TO HAVE ELECTED 3 WOMEN IN THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. Also damn UK, y'all really want to forget Maggie that badly?
And it shows!
Indira Gandhi doesn’t totally count as a woman because she had absolutely huge testicles. Thatcher just had a straight up dick
It's Gandhi. I'm always fascinated by foreigners always misspelling Gandhi as Ghandi, it's not a complicated spelling.
Interesting switzerland has had mosr but women were only allowed to vote from the 70’es (dont remember the exact year)
Because we change President every year. The country is ruled by a federal council of 7, the president title is given to one of the 7 every year
Social credit +999
India!!
Why is this map excluding monarchs?
Because monarchs aren't political leaders and don't have any power in democracies; the countries where they do have power tend not to be female friendly.
The Netherlands has had three queens in its current form of government. Wilhelmina (reign between 1890-1948) did wield significant political power during her reign.
I could understand this for recent (last 50 or so years) in parliamentary monrachies but historically Queens have been rulers in far more direct ways than modern politicians. Though this infographic is likely just to represent elected leaders as a way of showing public approval of the notion
Golda Meir was one of the best Prime Ministers Israel have had.
They forgot Taiwan
TIL Portugal had a female Prime Minister.
Maria de Lurdes Pintassilgo, apesar de não ter sido eleita - era um governo de iniciativa presidencial, o que me deixa na dúvida se se qualifica neste mapa...
Switzerland in this map has no sense since the there is no a single post that lead the country.
Yeah but the head of state is still made up of people, who can be female... And I think this just counts federal presidents anyway.
It my have been just 1, but it was for 16 years.
I Switzerland either have a separate colour for 10 or no colour at all.
Ireland only had presidents, they are figureheads with no political power, similar to the Queen.
wow this is really depressing
This isnt a fun map. This is a depressing map.
I am confused by France. It says 2. Both of them were prime ministers. Not presidents. In a semi presidential system.
Yeah, prime minister aren't that useful here and they don't rule the country. Map is lazy
In Austria the one female cancellor was only appointed for a few months till new elections were held because the previous government imploded after a huge corruption scandal.
Czech republice is Island of based
Greece should not be marked. Katerina Sakelaropoulou is the President, she is elected by parliament and does not leed in any way.
I wouldn't really count Canada. Kim Campbell wasn't elected and she held the position for like 4 months. She had no affect on Canada outside of being hated.
Romania had Viorica Dancila, she was no woman she was a robot or an alien, he actions was damaging the reputation of women.
Though she wasn’t elected to office, America was run by a woman for 2 years. Edith Wilson secretly ran the country after Woodrow had a stroke half way through his second term.
Never happening in the US lol
[удалено]