World
history suggest that violence and conflict were more evident under male
leadership than under female leadership. So, for peace to prevail, female
leadership can be considered as a better option than male leadership. To what
extend do you agree or disagree.
With reference to the global history
many believe and suggest that more bloodbath took place when men were leading
in comparison to that of women; thus, it is better that the latter should lead
to let the peace and harmony prevail, to which others disagree.
A section of society that agrees on this notion feels that men do have more rebellious and impulsive behavior. Unlike women, their ideology and methodology of resolving issues gives rise to either war and genocide or dominance over the other leaders. They have always been focused on their political aims without looking at the public or other factors. Whereas, women leaders are more averse to brutality and choose it only as a last resort. Their tendency of connecting with the public emotionally gives them a competitive edge over their counterparts, which influences them to look at all possible solutions to a problem rather than igniting conflicts. Thus, to let peace pervade, women leaders are a better option.
Nonetheless, other commentators
profess that those who believe in the former notion are either gender biased or
aim at women empowerment because violence and conflicts are a part of
leadership responsibility and strategy which a leader has to adopt at some
point of time, regardless of gender, to safeguard their country and interest of
residents. They assert when in history itself, Cleopatra – the last queen of
Egypt is renowned for her act of massacre, how a female leader can really be a
viable option.
In hindsight, when the question
comes to ensuring a peaceful environment, I am of the opinion that irrespective
of gender, such an option must be looked at who can act as a true leader with
full integrity, loyalty and without any fear.
