The now-well-established trend of female leadership in Latin America took off with the 2006 election of Michelle Bachelet in Chile, followed by Kirchner in 2007 in Argentina, and eventually Dilma Rousseff in Brazil last year. Mexico’s conservative ruling party has now nominated a woman, Josefina Vázquez Mota, to be its candidate in July’s presidential balloting (Vázquez Mota recently spoke at Zócalo). The trend is heartening in a region generally considered so machista it gave birth to the term itself.

The shift is the result of increased female participation in politics in the past couple of decades, a reflection of evolving social values. Despite the stereotypes, surveys dating back over a decade show a willingness to vote for women for high political office. Changing political structures-such as the parliamentary quota systems for women introduced in parts of the region-have boosted female presence in national and provincial legislatures. In Argentina, women represent 37 percent of Congress’s lower chamber and 39 percent of the Senate.

Cristina-she is referred to by her first name, joining Hillary, Dilma, and Ségolène-hasn’t swept her femininity under a rug. She has for years spoken to “todos y todas” in her speeches and, since assuming office, has been flanked by two female military officers at public events. She favors feminine clothing, refers to herself as a mother, and, since her husband and former president Nestor Kirchner died in October 2010, she stands before the country as a widow in mourning. She has inspired a loyal following, handily winning her re-election campaign last year with 54 percent of the vote

Such diversity in politics serves democracy. When people of different social classes, races, sexual orientations, and genders hold public office, they broaden representation. Often, however, pundits overreach in describing how epochal a game-changer female leadership can be. Does electing a presidenta ensure peace and prosperity for all? Of course not. While polls suggest that many voters do have higher expectations for hypothetical female leaders, possibly because they’re seen as a break from politics as usual, female leaders can of course be just as bellicose and corrupt as male ones.

They can also be just as unpopular. For all the admiration Cristina enjoys, she also inspires intense distaste, at least some of which has to do with an underlying misogyny. Just look at the sort of criticism Kirchner receives: her clothing is too costly, her palette too vibrant (before she took on mourning black), her tone of voice too schoolmarmish, the locks of hair that she brushes back from her face during speeches too flippant, her penchant for photo-friendly small microphones too coquettish. One also hears that she demonstrates that women are too volatile (read, hormonal) for politics and too soft to control the caudillos of provincial politics. Then, of course, there are ongoing theories that she is manipulated by men-lovers?-behind the scenes. On a lesser scale, there isn’t a significant female politician anywhere who hasn’t been accused in the public eye of shrillness, resentment, unattractiveness, bitchiness, or flat-out insanity. This litany, sadly, is the cost of doing political business for women.

Despite having a presidenta in the aptly named presidential “Pink House,” being female in Argentina and the region remains a handicap, at times a deadly one, as seen in the mortality rates for women due to domestic violence and lack of access to women’s healthcare (including the prohibition of abortion in most of Latin America).

Feminism, then, is not a relic of the past but a relevant category for contemplation, activism, and policy-making. Feminists, however, sometimes seem to focus more on what’s symbolically important than on what’s concretely important. For instance, it often seems we’re fighting to elect more female politicians because it will make things better for women. But that assertion is unfounded. Not only does this argument imply that women have monolithic interests; it also suggests that those interests are primarily gender-related. Female politicians represent geographic, economic, and ideological interests, and their female constituents, like people in general, do not share just one worldview. One need look no further than abortion debates across Latin America, where women hold impassioned views on both sides of the issue.

Thanks to the ascension of female presidents, the glass ceiling in Latin America has certainly been raised very high. But feminists’ focus should be less lofty: most women crash up against concrete barriers far before any crystalline rooftop. All over the world, women need security, healthcare, economic opportunities, and access to schools far more than they need a presidential office. It’s important to have female role models, but to change society requires more than that.

In sum, should we applaud the trend of increased female political leadership? Definitely. Should we expect certain preordained results from this trend? Absolutely not. As an Argentine, I am proud of what a female president can achieve in our country, in spite of the difficulties created by her gender. Society should strive to bring women into politics as a matter of justice, of equality, and to celebrate what their achievement says about us-men and women. Choosing a presidenta is similar to the milestone of Barack Obama’s election in the United States. His triumph was a historical accomplishment for the American people, but not one that eradicated bigotry from the land.

I wish I could say, “I told you so” to my grandmother. But she’s smart enough to know she was only partially wrong. We have a presidenta. Some things have changed. We’re working on the rest.

Jordana Timerman, a Buenos Aires native, is an adviser in Argentina’s Secretary of Transport and a member of the Centro de Estudios Perspectiva Sur, of Generación Política Sur (GPS). The views expressed in this piece are purely her own.

*Photo courtesy of Presidencia de la República del Ecuador.

The post A Presidenta is No Panacea, But … appeared first on Zócalo Public Square.

Note to Mexico City election lawyers: Vázquez Mota did all this off the campaign trail. As Muñoz Bata, the evening’s moderator, explained to the audience–who greeted the candidate’s entrance with a standing ovation–Mexico has rules that prevent presidential hopefuls from campaigning at this point in the electoral process. Vázquez Mota may not answer questions relating to the campaign, may not advertise, and may not even ask for a vote at the moment.

Why is Vázquez Mota the first woman with a real chance of becoming the president of Mexico? “I’m here not just because I’m a woman,” she said, but because “I have a different point of view on my country–an educational point of view.” Her experience also gives her perspective on the country’s economic problems and possibilities: she comes from a poor family–her grandmother sold food at the market in Puebla–and worked her way up the ladder.

Vázquez Mota emphasized Mexico’s democratic traditions, its youth (the average age is 28), and the people’s commitment to hard work. But the country is also facing challenges on many fronts, the foremost being education.

“We have to give education what it deserves,” she said. That means depoliticizing and democratizing the powerful teacher’s unions. “I believe in a union that provides freedom for its members, is pro-modernity, is pro-change,” she said–not to mention unconnected to any political party. She does think that the situation is improving, pointing to the fact that teachers now have to take an exam to secure a position, whereas previously in many states teaching jobs were bought and sold for as much as $15,000 or $20,000. But better education is the only way to make better citizens, and Mexico still has a long way to go.

Vázquez Mota also sees improvement in the economy, despite the effects of the downturn. A portion of the country’s middle class has been able to achieve financial stability thanks to working families with at least two people bringing in money. Seven million families have improved their situation, managing to buy a car, travel more, or even get their children a scholarship. In response to a question about those who have been left behind by any progress, Vázquez Mota said that she has visited many of the country’s poor regions–and that new economic regulations will help the poor as well as the middle class.

Part of Vázquez Mota’s plan to grow Mexico’s economy involves a closer relationship with the United States. Vázquez Mota met with Vice President Joe Biden–who called her the Mexican Barack Obama for her “Yes we can!” motto–to talk about immigration, human rights, and the North American economic agenda. Now is the time to build a bridge to Asia together, she said. “It was a meeting of trust and openness, and I believe it is time to strengthen this relationship and express confidence in what we can do.”

Crime and violence in Mexico was very much on Muñoz Bata’s mind. Nearly 50,000 people have died in the drug wars. Still, he pointed out, Honduras and Venezuela have also experienced many deaths yet without the same degree of negative news coverage.

“We have to acknowledge that a death is a death,” said Vázquez Mota, but she also agreed, noting that Mexico is dealing with other problems as well, and that tourism and social issues, as well as people who are facing economic adversity and moving forward, are also part of the picture.

In response to a question from an audience member about what she’s taken away from the way President Calderón’s administration dealt with drug trafficking and violence, Vázquez Mota enumerated several lessons. On the policy side, Mexico must improve local police, trace the route that laundered money is taking, and root out the politicians who are involved. There is also a human side to these lessons: “The victims need much more solidarity, and we need to go along with them in a more human manner, with more understanding, with all the force of the Mexican nation.”

Watch full video here.
See more photos here.

*Photos by Aaron Salcido.

The post La Presidenta, Possibly appeared first on Zócalo Public Square.