Opinion: Liz Truss’ Tenure Amid Deep Misogyny

Yesterday afternoon, Liz Truss resigned as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. She had been in the job for just 45 days. The manner in which she was hounded out of office decries belief and leads to the notion that more than just politics was at work here. Was it misogyny that played a role in her ouster? We will never know for certain.

But let’s examine the history of misogyny in UK politics to arrive at some kind of understanding of its present-day circumstances.

Before that, it’s pertinent to remind ourselves that this is the same country that chose Queen Elizabeth II to lead it for 70 years (the longest-ever in British history and second only to France’s Louis XIV {72 years}) spanning the 20th-21st centuries, Queen Victoria to helm it for 64 years in the 19th century and Queen Elizabeth I to reign for a few tumultuous years in the 16th century.

Prior to Truss, Theresa May and Margaret Thatcher were the two other women PMs of the UK, both from the Conservative Party. Labour still holds the dubious record of not having elected a single woman as PM.

While Thatcher was PM, she came in for strident criticism for her economic policies and even her personal attributes — from her hairdo to the way she spoke — were open for ridicule. Only a favourable outcome in the Falklands War averted the ignominy of a disastrous political stint that seemed certain to be her legacy.

Even today, while other, male Tory PMs with lesser calibre are treated more kindly, Thatcher and the years of her tenure are looked at with amusement at best and derision at worst. Thatcherism, now accorded the status of a doctrine and some measure of political approbation, was at one time treated with contempt bordering on toxic misogyny.

Then came Theresa May and her three year tenure — from 2016 to 2019. She was the second UK woman PM but given the press coverage of her sartorial choices and her accent, one would be hard pressed to believe this and one was compelled to take away the impression that the British tabloids had never seen a woman at the helm. Her ‘running through fields of wheat’ remark was subjected to unprecedented scorn and showed just how vulnerable women in politics can be, in the ’emancipated’ West.

Coming back to present-day, the embattled Liz Truss and her ability to last in office has been compared to the likelihood of a bunch of lettuce leaves surviving sans refrigeration. Apparently, the lettuce has won the ‘contest’. The mere act of pitting an elected PM against a salad leaf speaks volumes about the motivations of the (largely) male detractors of ex-PM Truss.

This is not to say that Truss’ decisions on tax cuts for some of Britain’s wealthiest, the sacking of Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng and the resignation of Home Secretary Suella Braverman did not contribute to her lunch-time resignation announcement on October 20. The contention here is that despite exhortations to the contrary, Truss’ gender played a huge (and seemingly-aggravating) role in the responses directed at her for decisions that would have elicited different responses had a male leader been in the PM’s office.

Number 10, Downing Street, was never an oasis of political tranquility and being sworn-in as UK PM remains one of the toughest jobs on the planet. It’s just that gender cannot be ruled out as an antagonising element in this congregation of bloated egos and floundering big names.

A reading of Truss’ resignation letter will drive home this point well: “I came into office at a time of great economic and international instability. Families and businesses were worried about how to pay their bills. Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine threatens the security of our whole continent.

And our country had been held back for too long by low economic growth. I was elected by the Conservative party with a mandate to change this. We delivered on energy bills and on cutting national insurance.

And we set out a vision for a low-tax, high-growth economy that would take advantage of the freedoms of Brexit.

I recognise, though, given the situation, I cannot deliver the mandate on which I was elected by the Conservative party. I have therefore spoken to His Majesty the King to notify him that I am resigning as leader of the Conservative party.

This morning I met the chair of the 1922 Committee, Sir Graham Brady. We have agreed there will be a leadership election to be completed in the next week. This will ensure we remain on a path to deliver our fiscal plans and maintain our country’s economic stability and national security. I will remain as prime minister until a successor has been chosen. Thank you.”

This is not to say that women in politics in other countries across the world have fared any better. From Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton to Sarah Palin, from Jacinda Ardern to Sanna Marin and from Indira Gandhi to Sheikh Hasina — they have all been subjected to grotesque insinuations, unwarranted character assassinations and just plain rancour for merely being what they are — women in positions of power and authority.

Unfortunately, the longer patriarchy and its off-shoots take to come to terms with women being leaders in politics (and other spheres), the tougher and more cantankerous it will be to get on with the job of ruling countries and making life better for all concerned — women as well as men.