By Alexandra Armitage

By nature, fashion is inherently political; it is a manner of advertising your point of view and belief system. Since the beginning of time, clothing has been a consistent tool in the arsenal of those wanting to make a statement, political or otherwise. There is no such thing as neutrality in fashion- even the decision to not care about what you wear is a decision on how you want to be to be perceived by other people (Miranda Priestley said it best). The conscious and unconscious associations we make based off how someone presents themselves from their clothing often serve to communicate their intended message far more quickly than speeches or campaigning.

So called ‘diplomatic dressing’ has been honed into an art form, spurred on by the fact that every small clue (intentional or not) is almost guaranteed to be picked apart by keyboard political theorists. Online sleuths jumped through hurdles to try and deduce if the Queen was really dissing Donald Trump with her broach choice, Melania Trump’s ‘I really don’t care’ jacket when going to see detained children was taken as a middle finger to the Mexican migrant crisis. Men aren’t exempt either (although they aren’t cross examined to the same degree)- remember the time Obama’s beige suit sent Republicans into a frenzy?

Anyone who says fashion is not political hadn’t noticed the length of Donald Trump’s red ties or thought that the Democrat women dressing in unanimous sufragette white in protest to his speech was simply a stunning coincidence. If we consider fashion the ultimate means of manufacturing persona it is only natural that ambitious politicians everywhere are harnessing its power. What politicians wear is as much a carefully constructed message as any propaganda or campaign.

More relevant to today’s news given the current horrors in Ukraine, is how Ukrainian politicians and public figures have been using fashion as a tool for years to promote Ukrainian patriotism; Olena Zelenska, wife of Ukrainian president (and) Volodymyr Zelensky wears almost exclusively Ukrainian designers to public events as an opportunity to support Ukrainian designers and promote them on the world stage. Years earlier, when former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko needed an image rebrand from energy oligarch she remade herself into a modest teacher straight off a biscuit tin, with demure feminine dresses in light colours and a golden crown braid, a traditional Ukrainian hairstyle. You could write a dissertation on just her hair and the implications it holds of Ukrainian folklore, patriotism, purity royalty and sainthood.

I’m not going to sit here and say that there is no sexism whatsoever in how we analyse female politicians’ clothes and don’t turn nearly as much attention to their male counterparts. Nor am I going to pretend that Theresa May’s (admittedly rather fun) kitten heels matter as much as her policies. You could argue that focusing on what women are wearing is one way of reinstating a gender hierarchy and diminishing their capabilities and you would be completely right. Clearly there is an issue in how our culture places more emphasis and attention to women’s appearance rather than their intellectual and professional accomplishments.

But is it totally trivial to discuss a politician’s fashion choices?

In a field as image orientated as politics I’d argue not- every aspect of a politician’s public persona is carefully curated, and clothes are no exception; what a politician wears are one of the first visual cues we get on how they want to be perceived by potential voters; Boris Johnson’s dishevelled hair and rumpled suits are deliberate choices to back his ‘loveable buffoon’ persona. AOC’s bold pantsuits, red lip and hoop earrings didn’t happen by accident, they were the result of careful and calculated deliberation so that with a glance a viewer is conveyed her message of female empowerment and Latina pride, youthful energy, and a force for change. All that from one look.

ST. ART Magazine doesn’t own the rights to any images used in this article.