This is an archive. The forum is not taking new registrations or allowing new discussion, despite what the buttons might suggest.
Chile's female president, a great example for the world
photo: El Mercurio, Michelle Bachelet with her daughters, http://www.emol.com/noticias/todas/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=208038
The Chilean Presidential Candidate Michelle Bachelet: consistent progressive and inclusive politics in Chile are not the exception, but the rule
by Beatriz C. Maturana
In the last few weeks we have heard about the presidential candidacy of Michelle Bachelet in Chile. Today she became the first Chilean female president with a 53.49% of the votes.
It is interesting to note that, even within the independent media, news have been expressed in such a way that cast doubts about the capacity of the Chilean society to be progressive and about the role that women have played in Chilean society and its history. Most articles speak of a conservative society in which, the sudden candidacy of a women is the unexpected exception and not the result of a long process of social inclusion, participation and progressive policies.
I am concerned with a few aspects of this portrayal and to illustrate my concerns, I will refer to the article written by Roberto Espíndola Michelle Bachelet: a break with Chiles male-dominated politics (OpenDemocracy, December 6, 2005). However, it would be fair to say that most of the articles written in the last few weeks have expressed similar notions (See also: Presidency beckons for a victim of Pinochet torture, The Age, Saturday, December 10, 2005). The first one of these notions is that Chilean politics are male dominated, and my question is, compared to what? The US? Australia? Also with the notion that, the majority of the population identifying themselves as Catholics necessarily means being a conservative society is this so? And lastly, with the use of the term Latin-America
In relation to Chile having male-dominated politics, the reality is that even during the Pinochet dictatorship, women had important roles in politics (inside the dictatorship and within the opposition). Monica Madariaga was Pinochets Minister of Justice and Education. Gladys Marin, who died recently, was the president of the communist party and a deputy leader for many years. She was an unrivalled politician, well respected by everyone, including right-wing political leaders (For more information about Gladys Marín see: Mullan, Michael. Chilean communist leader unremitting in her fight against Pinochet. The Guardian, Wednesday March 9, 2005).
For some, the reasons to declare Chile a male dominated country may spring from the fact that the majority of the population is Catholic well, is this enough to validate the preconception?
In the case of Chile, as for many other countries, in their diversity of religions, Catholicism is a cultural imprint, rather than a set pattern of behaviour. It is important to note that Chile is a secular country, where the separation between religion and state is actually practiced. The mention of God has no place in political discourses serious ones - and there is no precedent of any former or actual religious leader taking on political roles, such as Governor General (The Right Reverend Dr Peter Hollingworth, Australia 2001-2003) - this situation would be unthinkable. In 1973, Savador Allende Gossen, a doctor, an atheist, a profound democrat and a socialist, was elected for to become the Chilean president. Todays Chilean president Ricardo Lagos, is also an atheist, socialist and a divorcee. In 1818, the first Chilean president Bernardo OHiggins, was an atheist, born to a single mother.
What all this means is that the candidacy of Michelle Bachelet, whilst it represented a most welcome and progressive step for any nation, is the result of 200 years of consistent progressive policies. Since independence from Spain in 1818, this progression was only interrupted by a dictatorship backed by right wing extremists supported by the US - a persistently declared Christian nation.
Michelle Bachelet was not only tortured by Pinochet, the perpetrators were those all too familiar retrograde minority sections of society, who at that time found an allied in the US international policies of intervention.
Without denying the conservative character of the church - any church - the important factor in a progressive society is the agreement reached by all, without church interference. To mention a few, in Chile, religious matrimonies have no legal weight they constitute a ceremonial option, generally unassuming and diminishing in numbers. Women do not loose their identity after marrying - women maintain their name. And while divorce was legally approved recently, there was a legal loop that made it possible. This is how my grandmother divorced her husband and my mother and myself also divorced women have a very important role in society. Individual exceptions to this can be found everywhere, including in rich countries such as Australia and the UK. How many women candidates for Prime Minister have there been in Australia, or in the US? And how many socialist and atheists candidates? A look at todays politics in Australia tell us that, as other countries go steadily forward in their thinking, Australia and the US are sadly not - but more regrettably, we dont seem to realise it or to care enough.
After living in Australia for almost 20 years, I have some insight in relation to the role of women in this society. Also in relation to tradition and prejudice and I dare to say that in Australia there is no opportunity in high ranks politics whatsoever, for an atheist, a single mother or a socialist, whether male or female. And, in todays current environment, I cannot envisage the possibility of a woman, of any affiliation, to ever become a Prime Minister.
So, my question again, instead of presenting Chile as making a temporary exception to the rule, shouldnt the soundness of that rule or prejudice be questioned? Instead of presenting Anglo-Saxon societies as the models against which other countries should compare to when measuring their progress, should not we look at how male domination, or traditional values are expressed in our own societies first? The reality is that we are not free of any of these. This only is expressed differently and in the case of womens name or identity in an offensive manner according to this Chilean.
It is too easy to continue to re-enforcing stereotypes, to give the readers what they expect to find when reading about a country in South America in this case Chile. While this is not the general tone of Open Democracy, we have to be mindful as this trend does not assist in expanding our knowledge; on the contrary, it promotes complacency, and at its worst, ignorance, narrow-mindedness and arrogance.
In regards to the use of the term Latin-America, it goes without saying that America, the continent, is predominantly Spanish/Latin based language speaking. The United States of America, USA, acknowledges in its name the fact that their land belongs to a continent called America.
I am always startled at academics, writers and journalists, unquestionable acceptance of the tyranny of an imposed notion of Latin-America. I only know of one America, the continent. There is no need to call it Latin - as Latinity is the rule and not the exception in America. However, if we were to apply it, it should then include French Canada.
The adjective Latin is being used to describe some racial and cultural features, which besides being inaccurate, amount to a racist description. More appropriately, geographic descriptions are used when, for example, distinguishing between East and Western Europe.
If we accepted and made an exception in America - which would allow describing people by their perceived cultural or language background - it is then the exception and not the rule that would require an epithet. If this were the case, then it would logically follow to speak of America (as a term for most of the countries in the continent) and Anglo-America (to represent the exception and the minority).
Latin-America is described as such, by people who cannot understand or do not care to understand the diversity of the American continent, or by uninquisitive repetition. By utilising this amorphous term, the American people of those countries are excluded from their own distinct culture and pride. This is not only damaging for those American countries, it also promotes ignorance in the rest of the world.
These oversimplifications take away the distinct humanity of the people in these countries and diminish the chances of learning from one another. It makes it easier for the powerful rich nations to exploit, invade and impose their dominant culture. Why should we accept this?
America, from Mexico to Chile, has been submitted to similar patterns of colonialism. However, the responses have been as diverse as their different local cultures, industrial development, and geography could produce.
Common history has provided an instance in which citizens have chosen their identity as opposed to description imposed by foreign powers. These names represent the people, their culture and their choice this should be respected. Regions should be acknowledged by their geographic proximity and not on the basis of the fallacy of a single homogeneous culture. Unity between nations should be a form of collaboration, not one that denies it from their diverse cultural wealth and identity.
Finally, I would like to suggest that more could be done while objectively informing, and this is to challenge the frame of prejudice and subjectivity within which most political commentary is structured these days.
end
Chile elects first female president
continue reading: the ABC, http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1548023.htmChilean voters have elected a socialist single mother to be their first female president.
Conservative billionaire Sebastian Pinera has conceded defeat in the presidential poll, paving the way for Michelle Bachelet.
The result marks an amazing turnaround for Dr Bachelet, who was tortured under the regime of former president Augusto Pinochet and forced into exile.
Dr Bachelet was swept to victory in the national election with 53 per cent of the vote.
Her campaign promptly proclaimed victory saying Dr Bachelet will be "the president of all Chileans". (....)
About the articles mentioned above:
Roberto Espindola's Michelle Bachelet: a break with Chiles male-dominated politics: http://www.opendemocracy.net/content/articles/PDF/3097.pdf[/img]
For more information about Gladys Marín see: Mullan, Michael. Chilean communist leader unremitting in her fight against Pinochet. The Guardian, Wednesday March 9, 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,1433190,00.html
Who is Michelle Bachelet (in Spanish): http://www.michellebachelet.cl/m_bachelet/
El Mercurio (Chile- English): http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=208035
More about Michelle Bachelet and the election (Chile): http://www.emol.com/especiales/elecciones_2006/multimedia.htm#
Comments
-
In her article, Chile's female president, a great example for the world, Beatriz Maturana refutes the assumption that Chile is male dominated, conservative and influenced by Catholicism. She weaves together three arguments - the use of the term Latin America; media representations; and feminist politics to counter the popular image of Chile.
Women have had greater independence longer in Chile than in western countries, and Bachelet is not the first woman involved in high level Chilean politics: Gladys Marin was Communist Party president; and even under Pinochet, Monica Madariaga was Minister of Justice and Education.
Beatriz contrasts the progressive state of Chilen politics with the conservativism of the US and Australia; not just in socio-economic policy and womens involvement, but in relation to religion. The separation between religion and state is actually practiced in Chile, unlike some western countries. Take Englands monarch, for example, holding the titles of both head of state and religion.
Beatriz demonstrates how the media have perpetuated the misrepresentation of Latin America. As an analogy, if you look at media representation of the Iraq wars, western casualties are calamities, whereas local deaths are collateral damage. In the recent, appalling strike on a wedding party by the US in Pakistan which also transgressed a sovereign border - US government comments that it was justified because they were targeting a known terrorist were echoed almost unquestioningly in the media, sanitised of humanity.
I particularly like Beatrizs astute observation that while imposed colonialism took a standard form, the response to it reflected the diversity of the cultures being colonised. It was only by US intervention in Chiles domestic politics that a conservative regime was installed, halting 200 yrs of progressive policies in Chile.
It is ironic that this article is on an architectural website, when what Beatriz is arguing is the artificial construction of identity. She calls for respect for peoples identity, for people to be identified by geographic location rather than being bundled together as a homogeneous culture: it is up to the people themselves to decide how they identify themselves.
Beatriz article offers an important insight into western representations and assumptions of other cultures. Being Chilean herself gives her a powerful stance of authenticity and integrity in being able to speak from amongst those under discussion. It is a valuable contribution to the socio-historical knowledge of the area.
Howdy, Stranger!