Global approach to women’s leadership

The call by Human Services and Social Security Minister Dr Vindhya Persaud for a fundamental shift in the global approach to women’s leadership deserves serious consideration, particularly at a time when decisions on peace, security, economic policy and the allocation of resources continue to shape the lives of millions.
Addressing the Forum of Women Parliamentarians at the 153rd Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) in Arusha, Tanzania, Persaud made an important distinction between having women present in decision-making institutions and ensuring that women exercise meaningful influence within those institutions. Representation, while important, cannot be regarded as the final measure of progress.
The more consequential question is whether women have the authority, resources and opportunity to influence the decisions being made.
Women have long demonstrated their capacity to contribute to peacebuilding, diplomacy, governance and economic development. Yet participation in these areas has not always translated into proportional influence over the policies and resources that determine national and international priorities.
Persaud’s argument that leadership must become a “natural progression” based on merit, equality and equity therefore speaks to a broader issue of institutional fairness. The objective cannot simply be to increase the number of women occupying seats at the table while leaving the structures governing access to power and resources largely unchanged.
Women must be positioned to help determine what is placed on the table in the first place. This is particularly relevant in relation to global finance and resource allocation. Economic decisions affect access to education, healthcare, employment, childcare, housing and social protection. Women, who frequently bear a disproportionate share of unpaid care responsibilities, are directly affected by these policies. Greater participation in economic decision-making is therefore not merely a question of representation; it is central to ensuring that policies reflect the realities of entire societies.
Guyana has a credible basis for making this argument internationally as the programmes highlighted by Persaud, including initiatives promoting equal opportunity in employment, women’s entrepreneurship, the Care Economy Co-Invest Programme and the expansion of free day and night care and early childhood development centres, demonstrate an approach that recognises that barriers to women’s advancement are not always located in formal institutions.
Economic independence, access to childcare, education, finance and opportunities for entrepreneurship can determine whether women are able to participate fully in the workforce and assume leadership responsibilities.
Addressing the care economy is particularly significant as unpaid care work has traditionally fallen disproportionately on women, limiting opportunities for education, employment and advancement. Policies that expand access to childcare can therefore have implications far beyond the immediate provision of a social service. They can help remove a structural barrier to women’s economic participation.
Guyana’s position is also strengthened by its contribution to international diplomacy and peace and security through Ambassador Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett. Her role during Guyana’s presidency of the United Nations Security Council and her advocacy for children affected by war, poverty and underdevelopment demonstrate the value of women’s participation in international decision-making.
The example is important because it moves the discussion beyond the principle of women being represented to the practical question of what women can contribute when entrusted with meaningful responsibility.
As technology becomes increasingly embedded in political, professional and social life, new forms of harassment and abuse can undermine women’s participation in public affairs. Governments and legislatures therefore have a responsibility to ensure that laws and institutions keep pace with emerging threats while protecting fundamental rights.
The minister’s challenge to parliamentarians to examine whether women are regarded as “natural choices” for leadership is equally significant. Structural barriers cannot be removed solely through legislation. Political parties, institutions, businesses and communities must also confront attitudes that influence who is considered suitable for positions of authority.
Education, access to finance and mentorship are essential, but so is genuine decision-making authority.
The global objective should be to make women’s leadership ordinary rather than exceptional. A woman entering a position of influence should not be treated as evidence that a system has solved the problem of inequality. The measure of progress should be whether women have sustained and meaningful access to the institutions where consequential decisions are made.
Guyana’s advocacy at the IPU reflects a position that should receive regional and international support. The country’s argument is for greater influence, greater access to resources and greater authority to shape decisions.
That is the more substantive definition of equality.
If women are expected to contribute to solving the world’s most pressing challenges, women must also have a meaningful role in determining the priorities, policies and resources used to address those challenges. Representation opened the door and the next step is ensuring that women have the authority to help determine where the door leads.