I have been reading about feminism on the net, and have come across the idea , popular among some feminists, that more women should be at the head of governments because this will lead to a more peaceful world, given men's brutal instincts. I guess the people behind this idea have never been near a history book, or have never been in charge of any group of people. It is true that there is an agressive instinct among men, which will lead to fights and competition. But to imagine that the president of a country reacts to news of a border incident - a clash between two patrols - or to a report that country X is conducting trade dumping policy towards his own country, by an immediate macho let's crush their balls posture , is to betray a shocking ignorance of the power games inside states.

Suppose there is a border incident - "our " fishing boat was caught by "their" coast guard for fishing into their waters. The area in question is actually disputed. Immediately, everyone within the system starts shouting at the top of their voice. The tabloids go bersek. The fishermen communities ask for navy protection against this type of harassment. The industry guy says we must bear in mind the valuable cross border trade and investment opportunities in "their" country. The political advisor says that in view of coming partial elections in a conservative constituency, it may be good to look tough, within a certain limit. The diplomacy guy advises that the delivery of a note of protest, followed by a phone call to their president would be sufficient. After all, talks are still ongoing on the area under question, and should not be allowed to derail because of an isolated incident. And so on, every one chips in, defending his own turf. The president himself, is torn. His better angels tell him that the diplomat may be right. But a dark voice is also whispering that it may not be bad if relations with their country goes sour for some time, that would cancel the proposed investment trip to be led by the minister of finance and the minister of industry - these two have lately grown a bit uppity, have been making jokes in party circles about the old man losing his grip, that it is time for a change at the top.. it would be nice to clip their wings - the relations can always be repaired in good time... this is how politics work - everyone wants something from you, you also want something, at the same time, you are supposed to work for the benefit of others, not for yourself. There is the political cunning, but there is also what President Bush senior called "the vision thing" which means you must have (i) a vision (ii) the ability to realise the latter (iii) the ability to articulate this vision to the people. All this has nothing to do about being a man or a woman. Some people have the "political instinct". It is a fine balance: to be able to relate to the people, and to listen to advisors, yet without becoming fuzzy. To have political cunning, yet not become a Machiavillean figure. To have a vision, yet not become the preacher type.

Even in the premodern world, where things were supposedly more rough, where a king could simply order his armies to conquer other countries for the sake of his personal glory, things look pretty complex when you examine them closely. From the 15th century onwards, two great powers in Europe were in competition - the Habsurgs and France ( "the rivalry of a family and of a nation" as a historian put it) . Had there been only two such powers in Europe, maybe they would have reached balance. But of course, there were smaller states, and their internal problems would lead to wider conflicts. When Milan called for the assistance of France against Naples in 1494, this started a long war in Italy between the two powers. Similarly, the failure of the Spanish royal family to produce male heirs would produce repeated European wars, for both the Habsburgs and the Bourbons had valid claims to the succession, and none could afford the other having Spain as its ally, for this would strongly upset the balance. On top of it, Europe was not a stagnant entity. New religious currents, mixed up with the resistance of local nobility to the centralising tendencies of both Bourbons and Habsburgs would lead the French civil war, and the Thirty Years War. Then come economic developments- the struggle for the mastery of the seas and of commerce, both the Baltic sea route, and the Atlantic trade with the new world. In the middle of all this, one sees women rulers doing their bit of warfare just as much as their male counterparts - Elizabeth the First, Isabella of Castile, Bloody Mary, Catherine the Great.

Power is not some playgroundwhich enables one to indulge in some fancy games of toy soldiers. It is a crushing burden involving enormously complex decision making. The problem is that when it comes to history, most people are only familiar with the second world war, which is such an exception in history, because it involved a good side and a bad side, and thoroughly bizzare characters, Hitler and Mussolini, mad bloodthirsty clowns driven by strange dreams. Not to mention Stalin. They were brought to power by bad poetry: the obscene poetry of fascism and the dangerous naivete of communism. Unfortunately the world is not yet done with dangerously naive ideas, if now they tell you that's just a question of putting women at the top, and we will have a peaceful world.