Gender and constitutional design.

• Author: Monopoli, Paula A.
• Position: Symposium on Executive Power

One of the themes of this Symposium is whether a more or less expansive executive is the most effective, efficient, or constitutionally sound model. I would ask a different question: Does the allocation of power between the legislative and executive branches, and the way we define the scope of the executive, affect whether women ascend to executive office? I argue that the constitutional process of boundary-drawing between the legislative and executive branches of government has implications for how successful women will be in ascending to executive positions.

In The Federalist No. 70, Alexander Hamilton lauded energy in the executive as essential to protecting the young nation from internal and external threat. (1) For Hamilton, the energetic executive was characterized by the agentic attributes of decision, dispatch, and action. These attributes, however, are not gender neutral. Men are "assumed to be more assertive, ambitious, dominant, forceful, independent, self-sufficient, and prone to act as leaders." (2) In contrast, women are perceived as "more affectionate, helpful, sympathetic, interpersonally sensitive, and nurturing"--communal traits that differ sharply from the agentic traits associated with men. (3)

Thus, women are unlikely to be associated with the cowboy/warrior image attached to many male activist executives today. (4) Executive activism that reinforces such gender schemas may therefore be "dangerous" to our society in a sense other than that suggested by the title of this Symposium. Power is associated with agency, and agency with masculinity. Consequently, an expansive executive may lead to an even more firmly entrenched "monosexual democracy," (5) especially given the power of incumbency.

If such an external effect exists, there remains the question of how heavily it should be weighted, if at all, when deciding how broadly to define the scope of the executive. I would argue that if increasing the number of women in executive office is a desirable normative goal, such subtle or invisible barriers to their engagement in political behavior should be a policy consideration. If we believe that gender diversity in political leadership is itself an important fulfillment of the promise of the Nineteenth Amendment--in other words, that the Amendment did not only grant women the vote but ensured equality of opportunity to hold political office (6)--then we should pursue this question. (7)

This Commentary posits that the Hamiltonian vision of an expansive executive with plenary power is the model least likely to result in women's ascending to executive office. It first traces the philosophical heritage of Hamilton's vision. It then outlines the empirical research that links voter perceptions about competence to the gender of candidates. It subsequently explores the stagnating progress of women in American politics, particularly in a post-September 11 environment. Finally, it concludes that the choice of a more communal executive model, rather than an exclusively agentic one, may help reverse that trend and may actually result in a more effective executive.

Certain attributes have long been associated with gender. For example, the association of women with emotion and men with reason dates back to ancient Greek philosophy. Reason was an essential prerequisite to political participation. Those who, for lack of natural inclination or lack of education, were unable to reason were unfit to participate in governance. (8) The Framers were well versed in the works of the ancient Greeks and seventeenth- and eighteenth-century political theorists, including Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Hamilton's ideas about constitutional design reflect much of this theory. For example, Hamilton placed great import on a singular rather than plural executive. This emphasis on the need for an indivisible authority in civil government echoes the views of that time on the proper role of fathers within the family. For example, Rousseau looked to Hobbes and Locke in his Discourse on Political Economy to argue why, "[i]n the family it is clear ... that the father ought to command." (9) Political theorist Diana Coole has observed that "Rousseau accepts claims by Hobbes and Locke that authority in the family is indivisible. The case [for] making the father its repository relies on a variation of Locke's 'abler and stronger' theme ... tied to woman's reproductive function...." (10)

Similarly, Hamilton's argument for a singular executive with plenary power (as opposed to a multi-member council) is premised on the idea that unity was a primary ingredient of the energy essential to an effective executive. (11) Hamilton conceived of that energy, consciously or not, as an archetypically male attribute. He endorsed a "vigorous executive," (12) and his

vision of vigor and energy was synonymous with virility--and with agentic, as opposed to communal, traits. (13) Appearing in court to defend a female client, Hamilton argued that "[w]oman is weak and requires the protection of man." (14) That general fear of weakness, and its association with the feminine, presumably worked its way into Hamilton's vision of an authoritarian executive, in which the sharing of...