Introduction
Since the last decade, the interaction between gender, leadership, and democratic politics has been of increasing academic interest to political science researchers. Whereas research on electoral politics tends to treat institutions, parties, and voting behaviour more generally, the gendered construction of leadership and the exercise of authority has increasingly contributed to the discussion of political legitimacy and democratic practice. Within this frame, the theory of political masculinity has been a helpful and insightful lens to look at how concepts of strength, protection and decisiveness are mobilised through political speech. Indeed, in the Indian context, electoral politics from 2014 has seen the elevation of leadership imagery, nationalism (e.g., in the form of symbolic imagery in the language of nationalism and emotional defence narratives of protecting the nation) and civilisational pride. These discursive modalities have been criticised frequently incorporating hegemonic masculinities which depict a political form of authority using terms such as strength, decisiveness, and protection (Connell, 2005; Waylen et al., 2013). They function, not only rhetorically, but as political assets to manage voters and institutions. The present paper focuses on the linkage between political masculinity, illiberal democracy and electoral politics in India in the present. It suggests that gendered forms of leadership operate as a meso-level apparatus which connects domestic political rhetoric to wider transformations in democratic practice at home and global political positioning abroad. It shows how masculinised authority is the basis for the consolidation of strong leadership imagery in India’s democracy based on electoral rhetoric, media coverage and public political rhetoric. At the same time, the paper acknowledges that Indian politics is anything but monolithic. The politics of women’s political leadership, feminist mobilisation and institutional resistance are three powerful, shifting forces that continue to shape the political landscape. Based on this analysis, the report locates India in the context of wider debates on illiberal democracy, populist leadership and gendered political agency within the Global South.
Political Masculinity and Gendered Leadership: Theoretical Perspectives
The theoretical perspectives of political masculinity and gendered leadership. Political masculinity is grounded in feminist political theory and gender studies, which suggest that traditional political institutions and leadership norms are structured through gendered expectations in history. Connell (2005) defined hegemonic masculinity as a culturally dominant form of masculinity that legitimises male power and authority in societies where men and women hold different roles, authority and control over the institutions. Hegemonic masculinity in political practice is expressed in the language of strength, decisiveness, discipline, and protection. Such stories construct leadership as essentially masculine and political power as a tool of protective guardianship over the country. It has been emphasized by scholars in The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics that gendered power relations produce representation as well as normative notions about leadership and governance (Waylen et al., 2013). In democratic systems, these gender-defined constructs may influence how voters evaluate political leaders. Leaders who embody ideals of strength and decisiveness are often perceived as capable of defending national interests and maintaining social order. Conversely, traits associated with empathy or compromise may be seen to signal weakness within tight electoral environments. There have been long-standing gendered representations of political leadership in India. And histories of leaders like Indira Gandhi repeatedly cite masculine and feminine imagery. Indira Gandhi was commonly referred to as the “Iron Lady,” a metaphor that emphasized strength and decisiveness but recognised the gendered novelty of her leadership. But new scholarship indicates that the politicisation of masculinity has become more prominent in electoral discourse in the past few decades. Praveen Rai (2024) argues in The Silent Feminisation of Indian Politics that although women’s participation in politics has grown, electoral campaigning is often structured along masculinised lines of authority and control. The stories get amplified through media narratives and campaign rhetoric and political symbolism. Consequently, political masculinity operates as a discursive tool that regulates the relationship among such components of leadership, citizenship, and national identity.
Political Masculinity in Contemporary Indian Electoral Politics
In India electoral campaigns in elections often depend on symbolic language such as metaphor to express strength, safety and national pride. Political speeches, campaign ads and televised debates tend to shape such leadership terms in terms that are perceived as masculine to masculine in character: tough, authoritative, strong-willed. For example, slogans for political action that place an accent on strong leadership and decisive governance have emerged as a prominent form of electoral communication. Successful leaders are often painted as those who can protect the nation against both internal and external threats in media narratives. These representations only affirm and reinforce the idea that political authority and masculine power are linked. Newspaper stories often reflect this dynamic. Indeed, a Deccan Herald analysis on contemporary post-election marketing shows that policy messaging tends to be “decisive leadership” and “strong governance”, constructing electoral decisions around overlapping models of authority rather than detailed debates on policy implications (Deccan Herald, 2023). Similarly, the Indian Express (2024) found that voters rely largely on political narratives of protection and security, especially with regard to national identity and geopolitics. Such narratives validate the idea that strength, and the ability to maintain control over others, is the determinant of political legitimacy. These developments have been interpreted analytically in the light of illiberal democracy, a term popularized by Fareed Zakaria (1997). Illiberal democracies maintain the electoral competition, but show weaker institutional checks and less tolerance of dissent across the board. In those environments, powerful leadership imagery may especially resonate politically. According to gender scholars, masculinised leadership narratives may also play a part in this process. By defining leadership mainly in terms of strength and decisiveness, we can object that measures of democracy that include deliberation and compromise, are weaknesses. Economic and Political Weekly (EPW) has produced several analyses regarding the gendered nature of political discourse in India. Mary E. John (2007) has noted that gendered power structures still influence political institutions and leadership norms even as women’s representation gradually increases. Likewise, Raychaudhury (2021) illustrates how political leader myths can be formed at the level of gendered symbolism, especially in regional politics. The above investigations illustrate that gender is still a dominant characteristic of political legitimacy in India’s democratic politics.
Signalling of Foreign Policy and Political Masculinity.
Recent trends in International Relations have brought the relationship between political masculinity and foreign policy behaviour into focus. Because that tends to favour structural explanations such as material prowess, strategic interests, or institutional barriers as well as normative theories of national and global governance and institutions, scholars who examine the gender-politics nexus believe, in the past academic literature of how institutions construct leadership as a symbol, that power can shape how states express power internationally. Political authority is not strictly an institutional and policy exercise; rather it is enacted, in the same way that the state deploys political power: narratives that define a leader as a decisive and protective presence who’s tasked with keeping the country safe. In this way political masculinity functions as a kind of international policy signalling. Leaders who build public displays of strength and decisiveness then habitually interpret these symbolic performances by translating these presentations into international behaviour in favour of assertion, national honour, strategic autonomy. That kind of signalling has two purposes at once. At home, it reinforces the leader’s legitimacy as a defender of national interests; abroad, it conveys resolve to allies and adversaries. Comparative political realities show how these dynamics play out in practice in several countries. In Turkey, for instance, the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been frequently characterized as encapsulating an ideal of civilisational revival and national might. Erdoğan’s political rhetoric often casts Turkey as reclaiming its past role as a great regional power, and able to meet external threats. But analysts say this symbolical framing has helped legitimise a more assertive foreign policy posture in parts of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. By placing national pride with strong leadership, such narratives frame foreign policy decisions as a manifestation on the international stage of masculine authority. A similar phenomenon occurred during Brazil under Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency. Bolsonaro’s public persona leaned heavily on the militaristic imagery and use of personal toughness. His foreign policy rhetoric often rested on themes of national sovereignty and ideological struggle. People noticed that such leadership style appealed to segments of the public who recognized a political authority as decisive and strong so as to maintain the political atmosphere as an environment of strong-faced foreign policy talk was an example of leadership. Donald Trump’s presidency is another manifestation of how masculine political symbol can produce international signalling. Trump’s political rhetoric kept repeating images of national supremacy, competition and triumph. This is evident in a foreign policy characterised by unilateral decision-making, adversarial diplomatic tongue, and an interest in the primacy of national strength in international talks. Scholars point out that such leadership styles obliterate the distinction between domestic political performance and international diplomatic posture, and turn foreign policy itself into an experiment in sheer political authority. In the Indian milieu, leadership imagery and foreign policy issues have also stirred considerable scholarly debate. The commentaries can be found in articles like Deccan Herald note that current political rhetoric most often casts India’s position in the international environment through narratives of civilisational pride, strategic autonomy, and national revival. These stories are consistent with domestic political rhetoric of leadership and the resurgence of national pride in global affairs. Moreover, India’s federal political structure complicates the equation between domestic leadership and international policy-making. Regional leaders, especially chief ministers of the border states, can wield powerful influence over diplomatic initiatives which directly affect their states’ economic or environmental interests. As one example from this context, the political life of Mamata Banerjee is a particularly instructive one. Banerjee’s involvement in negotiations over the Teesta River water-sharing agreement between India and Bangladesh is an example of how subnational political leadership can impact international negotiations. A proposed Teesta River Treaty between India and Bangladesh was put forward in 2011 to create a water-sharing deal between the two countries to solve long-standing problems of river flows affecting agricultural communities on both sides of the border. Banerjee sharply opposed the accord arguing that it had an adverse effect on water availability in the northern districts of West Bengal. Her failure to agree to the deal, which eventually caused the Indian central government to postpone signing the treaty on the occasion of a visit to New Delhi from the prime minister of Bangladesh. This episode mattered diplomatically. Bangladesh saw the agreement as vital in consolidating bilateral collaboration with India, and significant disappointment ensued within Bangladeshi political circles over the delay. The incident was seen as an illustration of how India’s approach to South Asia can be determined by domestic political negotiations with state governments. Meanwhile, Banerjee justified her opposition not with hard nationalist rhetoric but with a rhetoric of regional ownership and preservation of local livelihoods. Her stance was articulated, rather, as a defence of farmers and rural communities, rather than an assertion of national power. Such a case may, from a gendered approach, point us to an alternative form of political power that is inconsistent with strongman and masculinised forms of political leadership. Banerjee’s political identity has often prioritised simplicity, personal austerity and moral commitment to the grassroots. Instead of showing a bravado that runs counter to the need for toughness, her style of leadership is an attitude of symbolic claims of integrity and proximity to the popular plebeian. This provides evidence for multiple modalities in which gendered leadership identities operate within democratic politics. The general global trajectory of strongman leadership, however, shows that masculinised political power is still influential in shaping global political discourse. Through associating images of strength and protection with national identity, political leaders can package foreign policy decisions into symbolic gestures of strength and glory. Their performances tend to appeal to domestic audiences who see international assertiveness as one facet of their leadership. Simultaneously, the dynamic coexistence of alternative theoretical frameworks of leadership (for example, social-based, regional responsibility, participatory governance) indicates a fluid interaction between gender and political authority in the twenty-first century. How states articulate themselves in a new global order rests on the interplay of these competing narratives. This means that an understanding of these dynamics is vital for analysing the transformation of contemporary global politics. The performative performances through which leaders create political authority — and therefore masculinity — will also shape both the legitimacy of domestic politics and the behaviour of international diplomacy, as democratic institutions are tested by populism, nationalism and geopolitical rivalry across the globe.
Illiberalism, the Global Order, and the Politics of Masculine Authority
The emergence of illiberal democracy in many places has reinvigorated scholarly contestation about the future of the liberal international system. Where previously the field of studies of global order has centred on the allocation of material power, institutional structures and geopolitical rivalry, recent knowledge has drawn attention to the symbolic and ideological remaking occurring within domestic political orders. The emergent relevance of strongman leadership and the performative power politics of masculine authority indicate that shifts in global order exist and these developments require an analysis of political legitimacy as it is negotiated within countries. Illiberal democracy, principally developed by Fareed Zakaria, describes political systems in which the electoral process remains, but the liberal constitutional standards of minority rights, institutional independence, and protection of opposition fade. However, academics have noticed that for many of these political transformations, they have corresponded with a real reorganisation of styles of leadership in the last decade. Political power becomes personalised and personified by leaders who assume the role that protects national identity and sovereignty. In various political contexts, illiberal democracy in its consolidation has often been accompanied by leaders possessing the very symbolic traits. In Turkey, for example, the political personality of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been strongly linked to a discourse of national resurgence and civilisational prowess. Erdoğan’s political rhetoric typically depicts Turkey as reclaiming its historical autonomy in the face of Western influence and as a project of aggressive leadership by Turkey to keep national dignity high. They have been argued that these narratives echo larger populist discourses, describing liberal organisations and international norms as the limits imposed upon them by external forces. There have been similar patterns in the United States during the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump’s politics consistently featured strength and competitiveness, as well as the reinstatement of national primacy. Both domestic political language and foreign policy actions echoed these narratives as unilateral decision-making and confrontational diplomacy were justified as an adequate defence of national interests in a competitive global scenario. So too does the political trajectory of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil demonstrate how discursive masculinization of political imagery can combine with illiberal democratic impulses. Bolsonaro’s image in public included a complex of both militaristic iconography and the language of strength, depicting a figure who can, in his eyes, restore order and legitimacy to what seems to be a morally and institutionally decaying society. Analysts examining these developments suggest that those visions of masculine authority can work in ways that undermine democracy with the appearance of dissent and institutional checks as hindrances to meaningful rule. These are new and significant developments, they are a very interesting link in the relationship between internal political symbols and the current global order. In the words of academics (notably some of them, like Amitav Acharya), liberal international order has been increasingly challenged not only through power transfers but also through counter-visions within states. If domestic political legitimacy is intertwined with discourses on sovereignty, cultural authenticity and strong leadership, governments develop foreign policy stances that emphasize strategic self-reliance above liberal institutional cooperation. In the Indian setting, these dynamics have been played out within the context of the country’s own changing role in world politics. Today India is portrayed in the contemporary political discourse as an ascendant civilizational power in desperate search of acknowledgement in world politics. The rise of political narratives that celebrate national strength and strategic independence, have often appeared in discourse over India’s foreign policy (with commentary to such publications noted in Deccan Herald). Simultaneously, India’s democratic system remains mired in an elaborate entanglement between central leadership and regional political actors. Mamata Banerjee participating in the Teesta River water-sharing agreement debate with Bangladesh is an example of how sub-national dynamics in politics can shape India’s engagement with regional neighbours. Banerjee’s opposition to the 2011 proposed agreement, based on concerns about the water available to agricultural communities in West Bengal, caused the Indian government to delay the signing of the treaty. The episode showed how domestic political considerations played a role in diplomatic negotiations in South Asia. Perceptions of political masculinity in a gendered context make Banerjee’s leadership style a fascinating foil to the masculinised tropes that are often linked to strongman politics. Her political image has often been that of symbolic austerity, grassroots mobilisation, of moral commitment rather than an assertion of aggressive authority. We argue that the gendered nature of leadership identities in contemporary politics are, however, by no means monolithic or stable, and continually in process of negotiation, re-constituting. However, it is the wider global move toward personalised and strength-based leadership that reveals the pervasive impact of political masculinity on democratic discourse. When power is conceived as the domain (and in some cases the means) to make decisiveness and protection the normative discourse, that same debate can become more fraught and institutionally restrictive, as a problem for effective management. Indeed, the advent of illiberal democracy is not only a question of institutional reconfiguration, it also demands a change in the symbolic lexicon of political power. The relationship between political masculinity and illiberal democracy is thus an important framework through which to regard the re-shaping of the world order. As the liberal international order faces new pressures from geopolitics and populist politics, symbolic performances through which leaders wield authority (through narratives of strength or protection or national revival) will still be central to the shifting character of both domestic governance and international affairs.
Conclusion
This paper began with one main question: how does the performance of political masculinity aid the consolidation of illiberal democratic tendencies in the current global order? By situating this question at the nexus of gender studies, comparative politics and international relations, the study endeavoured to overcome traditional institutional accounts of democratic backsliding and explore instead the symbolic languages that allow political authority to be made and legitimised. The methodological approach used to analyse this paper has therefore been interpretive and discursive. With reference to feminist political theory, specifically the work of R. W. Connell who theorised constructs like hegemonic masculinity, the analysis examined the way in which political rhetoric, leadership imagery and electoral narratives both define power through idioms of strength, decisiveness and protection. Through a comparative analysis of political rhetoric across national contexts, the paper aimed to show certain formations in how these gendered narratives operate as instruments for political mobilisation and governance. The main idea suggested in this paper is that political masculinity acts as a meso-level mechanism connecting domestic political legitimacy to changes on a grander scale of the global order. Put differently, performance of leadership being strong, protective, decisive is not limited only in determining electoral results in individual states, it also determines how these states play out in world power politics. These ‘masculinised political narratives give us domestic expectations of authority translated into foreign policy signalling stressing sovereignty, autonomy and strategic assertiveness. The contrasting commentary on current political leadership in contemporary political narratives—from Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s rhetoric and the populist politics of Jair Bolsonaro to Donald Trump’s rhetoric and the confrontational politics of Wahington. This enables us to see how these dynamics play out across different political environments. Despite their varying institutional configurations and trajectories, the cases share a common pattern, in which political power is inextricably linked to politicians who lay claim to the ability to defend national identity, reinstate collective pride. Stories like this resonate powerfully in moments of global insecurity. When societies face economic insecurity, cultural transition, or geopolitical rivalry, the belief in a powerful leadership is highly desirable. Political masculinity is, thus, a language through which knotty political anxieties are turned into straightforward moral narratives: strength versus weakness, order versus chaos, sovereignty versus dependence. But the implications of this change reach beyond electoral verbiage. When authority is consistently recast in the language of the power of force—and, at some level, of protection, then the very notion of democratic governance changes. Institutions that are grounded in thinking, that exercise deliberation and restraint, may start to appear slow, obstructive, or ineffectual. To dissent is to be disloyal, to compromise is to be weakness. And so the downfall of liberal democratic norms does take place not only through formal institutional alteration, but through the slow refashioning of political expectations. In this respect, illiberal democracy’s growth is so much more than a matter of structure or politics; it’s also about a cultural change on the symbolic grammar of politics. Power can no longer be justified only on this basis, as constitutional and social or even political authority; but also through performance that declares itself a power and performance of strength that is projected as the will and destiny of the nation. Simultaneously the analysis provided in this paper warns against overly deterministic conclusions. Political masculinity doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Democratic institutions, civil society movements, and competing leadership narratives still challenge the authority of strongman politics. There are spaces of negotiation, resistance, and democracy still exist, even when systems become illiberal. The broader significance of the study is in the ways in which it tries to reconnect the discussions of democratic backsliding to gender analysis. For too long, the global order has concerned itself with gender concerns on the margins, separately from political power concerns. But the evidence presented in this chapter shows just how critical gendered roles in performances of authority are to both domestic politics and the behaviour of political actors across the world. This is why, apart from the institutional arrangements of governance, we must attend to the symbolic dimensions of leadership as well as the broader structural features of state today. The stage of political masculinity—its proclamations of determination, its stories of protection, its invocation of national destiny—has emerged as one of the dominant idioms of twenty-first century politics. And maybe these are the deeper questions that arise from the analysis. If democracy is dependent, not just on institutions, but also on citizens’ political imagination, what happens when the imagination of politics becomes saturated with the parlance of strength and domination? When leadership is a capacity to command rather than persuade, to conquer rather than deliberate, the limits of democratic potential shrink. So this challenge for scholars and for citizens alike is less one of chronicling the growth of illiberal democracy than of interrogating the cultural narratives that maintain it. For at bottom, the battle over democracy isn’t just about institutions and laws — it’s also a struggle over the meanings of authority, legitimacy and power.
References:
Acharya, A. (2017). After liberal hegemony: The advent of a multiplex world order. Ethics & International Affairs, 31(3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1017/S089267941700020X
Banerjee, M. (1998). Struggle for existence. Kolkata: Chhabi Prakashani.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). University of California Press.
Hansen, T. B. (2001). Wages of violence: Naming and identity in postcolonial Bombay. Princeton University Press.
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown.
Mackay, F., Kenny, M., & Chappell, L. (2010). New institutionalism through a gender lens: Towards a feminist institutionalism? International Political Science Review, 31(5), 573–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512110388788
Rai, P. (2011). The silent feminisation of Indian politics. Routledge.
Sharma, N. (2022). She, the leader: Women in Indian politics. Rupa Publications.
Waylen, G., Celis, K., Kantola, J., & Weldon, S. L. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of gender and politics. Oxford University Press.
Zakaria, F. (1997). The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs, 76(6), 22–43.
Zakaria, F. (2003). The future of freedom: Illiberal democracy at home and abroad. W. W. Norton.
John, M. E. (2007). Women in power? Gender, caste and the politics of local governance. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(39), 3986–3993.
Raychaudhury, A. (2021). Gendering loyalty: Populist leadership and Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal. Economic and Political Weekly, 56(48).
Abraham, R., Ameen, H., & Basole, A. (2024). Structural transformation and the gender earnings gap in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 59(10).
Deccan Herald Editorial Board. (2023, August 12). Women leaders and the changing nature of Indian politics. Deccan Herald.
Chaudhuri, K. (2021, May 3). Mamata Banerjee’s victory and the evolution of regional politics in India. The Hindu.
Jha, P. (2024, June 4). Mamata Banerjee: What the next five years hold for Bengal’s leader. Hindustan Times.
Pandey, G. (2011, September 7). India-Bangladesh Teesta river deal stalled after West Bengal objections. BBC News.
Acharya, A. (2014). The end of American world order. Polity Press.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
Mudde, C. (2019). The far right today. Polity Press.
The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or policies of the Jadavpur Association of International Relations (JAIR) or any of their affiliates. JAIR Learning Commons serves as a platform for academic learning and student expression and encourages diverse perspectives and critical engagement.
About The Author
