Opinion article by Lusanda Madikane, Assistant, Directorate for International Partnerships and Relations. 

August is a month dedicated to honouring women who have led in times of crisis and hopelessness, when South Africa was fighting apartheid injustices, particularly under the pass laws. Women took a stand and declared: “Enough is enough”. The month also commemorates the historic 1956 Women’s March against the pass laws, led by Lilian Ngoyi, Helen Joseph, Rahima Moosa, and Sophia Williams-De Bruyn. It is not merely a time to honour women leaders but an opportunity to assess how far South Africa has progressed in embracing women as capable leaders. It is equally important to ask whether South Africa is truly prepared to be led by women in the digital era. It appears that women’s leadership receives public scrutiny from both women and men, suggesting that significant barriers to inclusive leadership remain.

Persistent barriers to women’s leadership

Women’s capabilities are persistently overlooked, as some men and women often refer to a courageous woman as a man, saying “Uyindoda” ─ “You are a man” when a woman takes on a leadership role. This suggests that even women themselves doubt their capabilities and associate courage with men. Patriarchy remains one of the most persistent structural barriers affecting women’s advancement, and it is a struggle to dismantle it. Some argue that women now enjoy greater opportunities, yet the continued existence of feminist movements reflects ongoing struggles for equality and representation. As long as stereotypes portray women’s leadership as emotional and men’s leadership as rational, genuine leadership equality will remain difficult to achieve. The high number of reported workplace sexual harassment cases further undermines women’s ability to compete equally for leadership positions, because these cases prove that men continue to exercise power over women in the workplace. Many women leaders continue to face pressure to tolerate hostile workplace environments or risk professional marginalisation. This also raises the question: do women in the contemporary era face barriers that differ from those confronted by Ngoyi’s generation, and are we doing enough to address this?

The role of young women in shaping South Africa’s future

The women of 1956 have passed the baton to the women of the digital era, to lead courageously and eradicate the barriers that hindered and suppressed them during the apartheid regime. Although more young women are entering leadership spaces, relatively few reach senior leadership positions and remain there. Those who succeed are often portrayed negatively or subjected to intense criticism. Constant scrutiny can force women leaders into a defensive leadership style that is focused on survival rather than innovation. Young female leaders, together with institutions and society, have a responsibility to challenge barriers that continue to restrict women’s leadership.

Women are often recognised as effective leaders during periods of crisis, particularly when institutions require stability and credibility. This was evident when Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka was called to lead the country during a crisis. Her appointment occurred during a major political crisis within the ANC and government, and she stepped into a highly contested and unstable position rather than inheriting a stable office. Mlambo-Ngcuka was called upon not simply because the country was ready for a woman deputy president, but because leadership needed someone to restore credibility and stability after the Zuma scandal. Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, as Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, became a central figure responsible for managing lockdown regulations and disaster governance. She was effectively tasked with steering one of the most difficult governance challenges in post-apartheid South Africa. These examples suggest that women are frequently entrusted with leadership responsibilities when institutions face uncertainty, reputational damage, or governance challenges. Unless attitudes toward women’s leadership change, women risk being viewed primarily as crisis managers rather than leaders capable of guiding institutions during both stability and adversity. Leadership scholars describe this phenomenon as the “glass cliff”, when women are more likely to be appointed to leadership positions during periods of crisis or instability, when the likelihood of failure is highest. Rather than being trusted with leadership in ordinary circumstances, women are often called upon when institutions need rescuing.