While the Kirchner presidency may already pique the interest of those familiar with Latin American politics, it may soon gain increasing global prominence because of the unique social, political, and economic phenomenon it is poised to become. After her successful bid for the presidency, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner will soon take command of the Casa Rosada—the Argentine equivalent of the U.S. White House—without even changing residences. Fernández is already quite familiar with the Casa Rosada from her role as the Argentine first lady, wife of current president Nestor Kirchner. The forthcoming Kirchner dynasty predicted by some, in which the Mr. and the Mrs. will attempt to take turns as president for the next several terms, certainly presents far-reaching implications for Argentine and Latin American politics over the next few years. In the here-and-now in Latin America, however, Fernández’ election serves as a point of departure for discussing the state of gender in Latin American politics and society. Many perceive the rise of female presidents and other political figures as a boon to women’s rights movements in Latin America, despite the fact that there appears to be little relationship in the region between a female executive and the furtherance of women’s progressive interests. In fact, powerful women may serve to the detriment of women’s rights, just as easily as powerful men may bolster the success and public profile of such movements.

Although Fernández’ election to the presidency represents an anomaly in Latin America and a relative rarity in the world, the female-dominated executive branch is not an unprecedented power structure in the region. Several Latin American countries, most notably Argentina, have been governed temporarily by appointed women or women succeeding their husbands. Meanwhile, other countries—Nicaragua, Panama, and Chile, for example—have seen the democratic election of female presidents Violeta Chamorro, Mireya Moscoso, and Michelle Bachelet, respectively. Electing a female president certainly represents a more progressive direction for Latin American societies, which are often characterized by serious entrenchment of traditional gender roles and machista-type attitudes towards gender relations. At the same time, however, it is important to note that these women have not only not campaigned on feminist platforms, but have also sometimes even promoted anti-feminist policies, as in the case of Chamorro. Even in the cases in which the gender agenda takes high priority, the national scope of executive policymaking is plagued by factors such as issue sensitivity and inadequate connection to the electorate. Executives must often grapple with numerous interest groups—the Catholic Church, for example—over controversial topics such as economic participation, political mobilization, sex education, contraception, and abortion. While these issues may be among the most important on the women’s agenda, the incentive may be diminished by structural factors, such as electoral laws that prohibit presidential reelection. The inherently contentious nature of issues vital to the women’s rights agenda, combined with the interest in not alienating the majority for the interest of a minority, may serve to reduce responsiveness to the wants and needs of female constituents.
The various disadvantages of national-level policymaking are in many ways complemented by the advantages of action by lower levels of government (and vice versa). The absence of laws preventing reelection, combined with more cultural factors such as the often personalized nature of Latin American politics, may make state and municipal officials more responsive to constituent needs. This greater accountability promotes a closer and more direct relationship between public demands and government responses. As a result, the prospect of promoting gender equality may be best accomplished by involving women at lower levels of government, if only because this may be a more plausible short-term goal; while only a small handful of countries in Latin America have succeeded in bringing women to the national stage, a much greater number see significant levels of female participation in politics at lower levels of government. Female participation at the municipal level in Latin America varies widely by country, with the lowest proportions nearing 3% (Mexico) and highest representation approximating one-quarter of the representative bodies (Nicaragua). Despite this varied range in female participation in local government, there exist many more opportunities to participate in local politics than in national politics, perhaps thus setting the stage for local governments to become more actively involved in supporting progressive women’s movements.
As illustrated by the wide range and diffuse nature of female participation in Latin American politics, the discourse on gender and politics in Latin America is characterized by somewhat paradoxical realities: female presidents who pursue gender-neutral policies at best, anti-feminist policies at worst; sufficient but unnecessary representation at the national level, but necessary and insufficient representation at lower levels of government; and conflicts between traditional—often religious—beliefs and modern realities. A brief comparison of the very divergent current treatments of abortion in Mexico and Nicaragua illuminates several of these major differences that exist in discussions of women’s rights in Latin America.
In the 1970s, the Sandinistas undertook a major social, political, and economic revolution in Nicaragua that bore a tremendous gendered aspect: women became major players in the revolution as workers, warriors, wives, and mothers. The leader of the Sandinista movement, Daniel Ortega, promoted a significant degree of gender equality and sought, as much as possible without disturbing the tenuous support of the Catholic Church, to promote contraception and loosen restrictions on abortion. The revolution ended with the election of the counterrevolutionary Violeta Chamorro who essentially tried to reverse all of the Sandinistas’ strides towards gender equality, albeit with limited success. Nicaragua, one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere, continues to struggle to recover from the economic devastation of the revolution, among other factors, yet retains comparatively high levels of female participation in politics. Mexico, by contrast, experienced revolution towards the beginning of the 20th century with little attention paid to gender, and went on to spend the rest of it ruled by a hegemonic party whose ideology tended to change with whoever was in power at the time. Although Mexico certainly experienced a women’s movement and a degree of female mobilization for politics, the effort was much less concerted than in Nicaragua.
At the present, it appears that the gender-related legislation for these two states has been the reverse of what would be expected, given the historical context. Daniel Ortega, leftist revolutionary leader turned conservative president, was elected to the Nicaraguan presidency at the end of 2006, and has made significant strides to hamstring the women’s rights he once labored to promote. One of his most notable accomplishments has been the complete illegalization of abortion in Nicaragua, earning the country the perhaps dubious honor of becoming the third country in Latin America to prohibit all abortions in any and all circumstances. Mexico’s struggles with abortion this year have largely centered on the legalization of abortion in the Federal District and increasing numbers of state-provided abortions at hospitals. While the legislation responsible for this change is still under review for constitutionality by the national judiciary, murmurs among other states suggest potential interest in decriminalization of abortion outside of the D.F.
Women’s rights in Latin America and around the world are complex and require a multidisciplinary approach that considers culture, economics, and politics, among other factors. Clearly, female political representation is not enough to promote gender equality, as illustrated in Chamorro’s Nicaragua, and lack thereof is not enough to completely stymie the expansion of women’s rights, as shown in Calderón’s Mexico. The rise of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to the Argentine presidency represents a great symbolic stride for women and their ability to accomplish greatness as individuals, but it remains to be seen whether she and others like her are mere symbols of progressive roles for women, or if they are willing and able to obtain benefits for the female masses.

Sources
Barrionuevo, Alexei. “Political Tango, Women in the Lead.” New York Times, 4 November 2007.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/weekinreview/04barrionuevo.html?_r=1&ref

=americas&oref=slogin

Tobar, Hector. “In Mexico, abortion is out from the shadows; The stigma attached to it has begun to fade as large numbers of legal procedures have been done in the capital.” Los Angeles Times, 3 November 2007.

Alcántara, Liliana. “México relega a mujeres a en cargos municipales: ONU.” El Universal, 4 November 2007. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/155600.html

Carroll, Rory. “G2: Killer law: Last November it became a crime to have an abortion in Nicaragua, even if her life was in mortal danger. So far it has resulted in the death of at least 82 women. Rory Carroll reports on the fight to have the law changed.” Guardian, 8 October 2007.