Friday, 22 November 2013

Who is in charge?

“Dr Livingstone, I presume?”
The famous words of Welsh born, American journalist and explorer Sir Henry Morton Stanley. 
In November 1871 he found a sick David Livingstone at Lake Tanganyika (Livingstone's last known location) greeting him with the famous words. That encounter happened more than 125 years before the first time I read about it. In the same vein, when Ronald Reagan was president of the USA, I may have been a little too young to follow anything that was happening thousands of miles away. Therefore, any little information about Reagan and his presidency which I have come across over the years, is mostly from books and in some instances TV documentaries.

One interesting book about the Reagan presidency I have read is Kitty Kelley's Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography. In her book, Ms Kelley makes some sensational claims which she states are from 1,002 interviews with estranged Reagan family members, alienated former staff members and Reagan friends and loyalists. My pick of the many allegations in the book is the suggestion that, Nancy Reagan and not Ronald Reagan, was in charge of the White House for the most part of the Reagan presidency.

This comes to the question of the roles of first a first lady, what are they? “While there is freedom in how the first lady elects to fulfill her office, there are also many historic precedents that she is expected to follow. Perhaps the most imperative function she serves is White House hostess. The early first ladies, like Martha Washington, Abigail Adams and Dolley Madison, set a careful tone for this role. Given the United States' separation from England's monarchical traditions, it was important that the first lady be a woman of the people -- but for the sake of being taken seriously by other nations, she had to imbue the role with some queenly prestige” [source: National First Ladies Library].

“The first lady is an international celebrity, and she can leverage her title to serve as an advocate for social issues. That's why the first lady traditionally has a platform (or pet project, as some historians call it) for her term in office. Whether it's animal rights (Florence Harding), environmental beautification (Claudia "Lady Bird" Johnson) or literacy (Barbara Bush), the first lady's influential advocacy of her chosen cause will typically continue even after her term in Washington ends.
In the latter half of the 20th century, the first lady espoused more political roles, acting as a campaigner for her husband and drawing up support for his policies. In many instances, she acts as the president's informal adviser.” http://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/first-lady1.htm



In the Zambian context, while I may not have been old enough to remember the activities of Betty Kaunda, I do remember Vera Chiluba’s Hope Foundation social activities, Maureen Mwanawasa’s Community Initiative (MMCI), Thandiwe Banda and Dr Christine Kaseba have both engaged in various health and education initiatives.

To draw comparisons to Nancy Reagan, Maureen Mwanawasa was at times rumored to have had a lot of influence on government during Mwanawasa’s second term of office. The rumor was further fueled when some people within MMD endorsed Maureen as the successor to her husband. Maureen did not herself participate in active politics despite all the endorsements that went round. The irony of it all is that even after Levy Patrick Mwanawasa’s death, the story has not blurred away. This is despite the fact the Maureen Mwanawasa has lived life after state house largely as a private citizen. Make no mistake about it; Maureen is highly qualified to run for the highest office in Zambia. She just hasn't involved herself in active politics. Probably she was never active.

The question still remains, what is the role of a first lady? Maybe rephrased, what is the role of the spouse to the head of state?
Perhaps one nation where it might be argued that the first lady had a BIG hand in the running of the state is Argentina. This is so because during the reign of Néstor Kirchner, it was widely rumored in some circles that first lady Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was actually the one calling the shots in that country. The rumors gained some pockets of merit when after just one term, Néstor Kirchner stepped down and his wife Cristina Fernández de Kirchner ran for president and is still the incumbent now in her second term.
Néstor Kirchner & Wife Cristina Fernández 

It is widely expected that the head of state’s spouse might sporadically weigh in on personnel issues such as presidential appointments, but they would never meddle in policy. Are we expecting heads of states to be on a higher moral ground than the rest of humanity in keeping that rule? If the rule exists at all! Are couples in political office expected to only share romantic passions behind closed doors without a tinge of anything work related? To what extent does a spouse get involved?

In her book, Kitty Kelley affirms that Nancy Reagan, or "Mrs. President," as her staffers called her, not only ruled the White House, but with an  iron fist. When President Ronald Reagan was given his agenda for his first meeting in Geneva with Mikhail S. Gorbachev, Ms. Kelley recounts, he asked his aides, "Have you shown this to Nancy?"
"No, sir," they replied.
"Well, get back to me after she's passed on it," he told them. 

4 comments:

  1. Interesting Patrice and thought provoking. There are some that have called for the specification of the first lady's role by enshrining it in the constitution so that there is no ambiguity and that it can be funded from the nation's coffers. I am yet to look at the new draft constitution to see whether that has happened.

    The truth is it is very difficult if not impossible to prescribe a role for first ladies, let alone separate them from the activities of their husbands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keith,

      Thought provoking indeed. It is extremely difficulty to prescribe the role of a first lady.

      With or without the constitutionally enshrined office of the first lady, a first lady still holds some inert or indolent power. However, it wouldn't be wise to make the role a constitutional one. This would put a lot of power in the first lady and make other 'ceremonial positions' in government i.e role of Veep highly irrelevant. The first lady is the one ever at the side of a president.

      Delete