Women MPs won’t make us peaceful or honest, just nicer

Last week, Rwanda became the first country in the world to have more women than men elected to parliament, following elections in which the ruling Rwanda Patriotic Front won 78 per cent of the vote. Its 80-seat Parliament now has 44 women, or 55 per cent.

Already, Rwanda was neck and neck with South Africa in having the highest percentage of women in government in Africa.

Feminists argue that if women dominated power in Africa the way men do, the continent would be more peaceful and prosperous because the gentler sex are less warlike and are not corrupt like our men.

Going by this, one would assume that the influence of the large number of women in Rwanda’s leadership would present obvious differences with other countries.

The problem is that it is difficult to isolate the influence of women from that of men in policy and actions by governments. The recent car designed by women for women by a Swedish carmaker, however, suggests that you can see some differences.

The car has several features you wouldn’t find in one designed by men: Compartments for handbags (which men don’t carry), doors (that can be set to open automatically when you reach them) that make it easier to load and offload large objects and children, and computerised assistance for parallel parking.

Parking is a macho exercise for most men, and relying on clever aids would somehow reduce their manhood.

Rwanda has the most orderly traffic in the region. African men tend to bully women in traffic, and a town that’s easier to drive in makes a huge difference for women.

The gains of having women in significant enough numbers in power in East Africa, however, will not come from more peaceful or corruption-free countries, because history has shown us that women can be as warlike as men.

We shall probably have less corruption, and that which remains will be different in character from the male-driven one.

First, the old boy's network forms one of the pillars of corruption in Africa. There are so many debts to pay, favours to return, and watering old links that boys form drinking, playing football and rugby, burning down dormitories and beating teachers during strikes, and even raping women in gangs.

Because of this, when the boys are older and in power these networks function with fairly low moral standards, hence plundering public money, for example, will not be met with much reproach.

These networks tend to survive longer among men, because they carry on in the form of fan clubs supporting Manchester United or Chelsea. Motherhood, and the fear of offering their philandering husbands temptation, means women don’t keep their school networks as active as the boys do.

Also, there is a certain amount of functionality and “positive” value to women’s corruption. A woman will invest stolen proceeds in her children, buy good quality curtains and chairs, cooking pots, and look after her mother. Men will drink the money, and take on more wives and mistresses.

A corrupt female public servant, therefore, is likely to distribute her ill-gotten booty in ways that improve society more than a male one.