Carmen Beramendi
“The lack of political participation by women marks an important democratic deficit. All structures that make democracy more effective are also structures that can contribute to increasing women’s participation, though this is not automatic. At least this is a lesson from my own personal experience: the more democratic the structure, the more women that are elected." - Carmen Beramendi
iKNOW Politics: I would like to begin by asking you about your career in politics. When did you start and what motivated you to get involved? What opportunities or obstacles have you encountered as a woman?
I became politically active at a very early age when I was still a student. As a result, I was in prison for seven years during the Uruguayan dictatorship. I later participated in the union movement. I was not only the secretary of my union, but also president of the fishing industry workers organisation in Uruguay. I was also a member of a political party, and was elected deputy from 1990-1995 by the Broad Front coalition [Frente Amplio]. There were twenty deputies at that time who were government appointments, but I was the only woman. Thought there were also women in other political parties, there were only six women parliamentarians.
I have encountered obstacles ever since I became a party member. Back then, I didn’t attribute it to gender discrimination because I hadn’t adopted that perspective yet. I remember when I joined a movement of very clandestine political activism; a man said that he couldn’t talk about secret matters in front of women because women couldn’t keep secrets. When they held debates that had to be kept quiet, he refused to let women participate. I had been chosen to form part of that mobilisation committee with many more votes than he had; however, he reserved for himself the right to veto my presence. Being seventeen years old, I was perplexed and didn’t understand at all. That was when I realised how tough it would be participating in politics, even having votes. I emphasise having votes because I think that votes contribute to legitimacy in politics.
In the union, if elections were done individually, the number of votes in my favour would have skyrocketed. But if elections were done based on lists made in a small political circle, I would be relegated to second place. When voting was done name by name, women received many more votes. This is what happened to me in the fishing union: I won by a margin of thousands of votes over the person who came in second place. This is how I became president of the fishing union for many years – I received majority of votes from the workers.
With time, I started to understand that men’s way of associating themselves with power structures is different than women’s, and that men’s exercise of power is deemed more legitimised. Much less is placed on the table when it comes time to evaluate a man’s political conduct and much more is considered when it comes time to evaluate a woman’s political conduct.
Over time, men have developed many ways to guarantee their permanence in politics; they know how to establish alliances, while we women have a difficult time establishing alliances between us. Perhaps it is the result of gender influence that leads us to “affectivise” [make personal] our ties, relationships. Men are able to form alliances even though they argue, fight and confront each other. They don’t affectivise their relationships like women do. If we get angry, it is very difficult for us to form an alliance with the people we get angry with. The way men are socially constructed allows them to disassociate their feelings from their decisions and this gives them an advantage in the political sphere, which is very competitive; this is very uncommon among women.
My being elected to Parliament is due to my political activism in university and in the union. The party that I belonged to greatly favoured workers. Being a union leader gave me important credibility that – when added to my university education – gave me comparative advantages to reach decision-making offices. Even my imprisonment turned out to be very valuable for the left-wing here in Uruguay.
Leadership is developed over long periods of time in the lives of all human beings, not just women. I believe that we women have trouble in this aspect; we have a very difficult time developing leadership and helping develop other women’s leadership.
iKNOW Politics: How much has women’s access to the public sphere changed in Uruguay? What has been the role of women and women’s organisations in this process?
At the beginning of President Tabaré Vásquez’s administration (March 1, 2005 to March 1, 2010), four out of thirteen of his ministers were women. This was unprecedented in the country, more so because he placed women ministers in positions that were usually not given to us, such as the Public Health or Development. He even appointed a woman Defence Minister, and later designated a woman as Home Secretary.
This had a double effect. First, we women had a much greater presence in the public sphere. Second, holding these kinds of offices largely helped prove that women can effectively hold these positions in society. However, this is not reflected in Parliament, where women only occupy just over 10 percent of the seats.
In order to revert this situation, we have promoted the so-called “empowerment triad.” This consists of uniting women in public bodies (in my case, the body that governs gender policies), women in political parties, and women in social movements. This trio – an initiative from civil society – held meetings such as the Uruguayan Women’s Meeting. In addition, the trio held several assemblies where women from different backgrounds met in order to reflect and commit to a common agenda, including the promotion of women’s participation in politics. In efforts to separate this initiative from political party logic, we have formed a network of women politicians in Uruguay and the feminine bicameral caucus with women members from all political parties.
From a democratic perspective, we have a significant deficit due to the scant political representation of women in our country, most of all in the “plain and simple” [puro y duro] level of politics: political parties. What we experienced with the debate on the quota law (2009) testifies to Uruguay’s backwardness in this area. This is contradictory, given that in Uruguay we have double the number of women university graduates in comparison to men, and we were one of the only countries that first had universal suffrage, a divorce law allowing for divorce based on a woman’s initiative, and a series of other issues regarding gender equality. However, we are completely behind in terms of political participation. There is no direct relationship between the advancement in women’s rights and political participation in our country. Today we have public policies that I consider to be quite important regarding gender equality, such as the law on equal opportunity and rights and a plan for equality that is in the making. The plan for equality includes a policy of mainstreaming equality in all government sectors – which is particularly emphasised in five bodies – and policies in public companies and advances in the national budget. However, equality is still very difficult in the political realm; there is no correspondence between the political advancements in equality of opportunity and rights and political representation.
iKNOW Politics: Why such a gap?
I believe that this is because the core of political parties is still the toughest established power in our country, and this power is profoundly patriarchal. This is demonstrated when electoral lists are made; these lists are created based on patriarchal criteria. Only during the last campaign did the issue of equal participation in lists surface. In the Broad Front’s internal elections, one of the candidates – the one I am with – suggested it. He even announced that, in the event he was elected, he would have an gender equal cabinet. This was the first time for this to occur, which I think is a result of the strong fight that women’s social and political movements have carried out over the years.
One curious thing is the quota law, makes quotas obligatory for internal elections – beginning with the next elections – but not for general elections. The arguments for this have been absurd, in particular the assertion that there are no qualified women, as if men were naturally qualified without having become so through practice. By exercising representation and power, one learns. On the other hand, it is evident that the most capable people are not currently in Parliament; there is a series of circumstances that allows these people to get to this sphere. This is an issue that we must forcefully address.
iKNOW Politics: How do you view the process of developing and creating new leaderships? What is the role of political parties in this process?
I don’t think there is a process of creating new leaderships, but what we do just barely have is the presence of some innovative candidacies. In Uruguay, we women who have set precedents are over 50 years old – the well-known leaders for the population are adult women. There are very few young women participating in political offices. A lot is said about creating new leadership because it sits well and is politically correct, but when it comes time to look at which candidates could actually be president, the average age is between 60 and 70 years. And I think that parties have even blocked the possibility for new leaderships to appear.
iKNOW Politics: As director of the institute that governs the country’s gender policies, what strategies are being employed in order to promote equal access to political representation for women? What goals do you expect to achieve?
Our Plan for Equal Opportunities and Rights clearly aims for equality. We have promoted some meetings, areas for reflection and discussion seminars on this topic. Additionally, we have supported initiatives from civil society that have similar aims. When the debate on political parties law took place, we asked parties to give their opinions on this law, but saw little success. The institute is recognised when it comes to policies implemented from the executive branch, but there is little receptiveness when it comes from other government powers. For this reason, in 2008, we advocated regional assemblies of women that ended up drawing over 4,000 women in order for them to adopt the plan. We made the 2009 electoral year an issue in the assemblies, encouraging women to closely follow the process of creating lists and to get involved. We sought to motivate women to not only vote for more women, but to vote for women who are committed to women’s rights.
iKNOW Politics: You have been the Uruguayan representative in the Specialised Meeting on Women (REM). Could you explain to us what REM is and what its impact has been in the region?
REM is a specialised area for women within the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) whose objective is to influence policy within the institution. For instance, at the time of instating a MERCOSUR parliament, we made a recommendation calling for an equal number of men and women in future parliaments. Additionally, at the presidential summit we presented a resolution from all women ministers in the region, which was then adopted in Chile during President Michelle Bachelet’s administration. Perhaps the most important achievement has been the resolution of the Tenth Conference of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the “Quito Consensus” (2007) which was the first instrument to propose equality of men and women in decision-making areas, the redistribution of assignments within the division of labour, and the recognition of women’s unpaid work. It was a great achievement that linked two agendas: that of unpaid work or the sexual division of domestic work, and that of access to participating in power structures. Both agendas are associated with the distribution of power in the public and private sphere. It was a wise move by ECLAC’s Gender Affairs department to join these two issues. In MERCOSUR, we have worked toward spreading this approach and we now have a regional project for this. We will be able to work more as a region, joining different movements to promote women’s participation in politics.
iKNOW Politics: Certainly the change in regulations is only one part of what is needed to achieve equality. What structural changes would you propose to narrow the gap in inequality?
I think that Uruguay will have to have a much more intense constitutional debate and carry out an in-depth constitutional reform. This is the only way that women’s political rights will be truly recognised and in force.
The lack of political participation by women marks an important democratic deficit. All structures that make democracy more effective are also structures that can contribute to increasing women’s participation, though this is not automatic. At least this is a lesson from my own personal experience: the more democratic the structure, the more women that are elected. There are people who will tell you that the current system allows for women to be candidates, but this is not true, because candidacies are indubitably “cooked up” among a reduced group of people – mostly men. Adding to this, there are economic requirements key to maintaining a candidacy, and if the resources are controlled by the party’s leaders, these leaders will be the ones to decide who will be candidate. Thus it seems to me that political party reform is important and should include methods to ensure gender parity. The law should require equal participation among men and women.
I believe that we were shy in Uruguay. I am very critical of the quota law, however today I defend it because they want to shelve it, but in reality I think that full equality should be insisted upon.
iKNOW Politics: Referring back to what you mentioned on alliances and networks, what has been their role in your own political career?
I think they have been key. Men hold the power because they know how to create bridges and alliances despite their many differences. A good part of the things that we’ve been talking about in this interview will depend on whether we create strategies for alliance among women. Marcela Lagarde has greatly developed this through the concept of sorority among women. We have a lot to learn in this area. When a woman’s name surfaces, men, as well as women, instantly work to belittle that name. However, the names of twenty men surface and you don’t see anyone discredit them so easily. It seems to me that we women have a lot to learn in this respect.
When I was in the union, I started out as the only woman out of twenty leaders. Eight years later, there were ten women and ten men. There was a concrete policy that I promoted. I was the union president and there was a gender commission that I pushed through. However, three of four years after I left, women’s representation went back to being minimal. I ended up directing the National Women’s Institute (INMUJERES) not only due to the president’s decision, but also based on the unanimous opinion of women from all parties in the Broad Front coalition. My administration began with a very important presence and support from women of all Broad Front parties, which provided me with a lot of force to act.
I think that we women have great difficult in clearly stating conflicts. Sometimes I don’t do very well because of this, because I am very head-on when I state differences. In the long run, this creates greater legitimacy and I also feel that it gives me inner peace. I am convinced that there are many women in Uruguay who should be occupying the first places in lists. However, when this issue is proposed, we often fail to establish solidarity, leading many to withdraw. If a man lacks solidarity and seeks to fight for the spot, he doesn’t care if someone else thinks this is wrong. We women have been socially constructed to depend on the opinion they have of us – it is very important to us. And in politics this works against us. I don’t feel this anymore, perhaps since I am more of a veteran. When I was a deputy, I had a child under two years old, and it was a big deal to have been a deputy with a small child. For those of us women who enter politics, the cost is very high. Very few men take on equal roles in daily life and living with women who have high aspirations is difficult for them.
iKNOW Politics: To finish up, what suggestions would you give women, not only in Uruguay but in the entire region, who want to participate in politics but encounter enormous difficult in doing so?
We have to make a firm decision to strengthen ourselves as a group. I think that it is key for us to have networks if we really want to advance in decision-making areas and to build alliances among us. In this way, when we hear women arguing in public office, we will be able to support and encourage them. It’s about changing the way politics is exercised. I don’t like the idea of getting ourselves into politics only for it to continue to be extremely vertical, authoritarian and patriarchal. The challenge is to transform politics and humanise it more.
“The lack of political participation by women marks an important democratic deficit. All structures that make democracy more effective are also structures that can contribute to increasing women’s participation, though this is not automatic. At least this is a lesson from my own personal experience: the more democratic the structure, the more women that are elected." - Carmen Beramendi
iKNOW Politics: I would like to begin by asking you about your career in politics. When did you start and what motivated you to get involved? What opportunities or obstacles have you encountered as a woman?
I became politically active at a very early age when I was still a student. As a result, I was in prison for seven years during the Uruguayan dictatorship. I later participated in the union movement. I was not only the secretary of my union, but also president of the fishing industry workers organisation in Uruguay. I was also a member of a political party, and was elected deputy from 1990-1995 by the Broad Front coalition [Frente Amplio]. There were twenty deputies at that time who were government appointments, but I was the only woman. Thought there were also women in other political parties, there were only six women parliamentarians.
I have encountered obstacles ever since I became a party member. Back then, I didn’t attribute it to gender discrimination because I hadn’t adopted that perspective yet. I remember when I joined a movement of very clandestine political activism; a man said that he couldn’t talk about secret matters in front of women because women couldn’t keep secrets. When they held debates that had to be kept quiet, he refused to let women participate. I had been chosen to form part of that mobilisation committee with many more votes than he had; however, he reserved for himself the right to veto my presence. Being seventeen years old, I was perplexed and didn’t understand at all. That was when I realised how tough it would be participating in politics, even having votes. I emphasise having votes because I think that votes contribute to legitimacy in politics.
In the union, if elections were done individually, the number of votes in my favour would have skyrocketed. But if elections were done based on lists made in a small political circle, I would be relegated to second place. When voting was done name by name, women received many more votes. This is what happened to me in the fishing union: I won by a margin of thousands of votes over the person who came in second place. This is how I became president of the fishing union for many years – I received majority of votes from the workers.
With time, I started to understand that men’s way of associating themselves with power structures is different than women’s, and that men’s exercise of power is deemed more legitimised. Much less is placed on the table when it comes time to evaluate a man’s political conduct and much more is considered when it comes time to evaluate a woman’s political conduct.
Over time, men have developed many ways to guarantee their permanence in politics; they know how to establish alliances, while we women have a difficult time establishing alliances between us. Perhaps it is the result of gender influence that leads us to “affectivise” [make personal] our ties, relationships. Men are able to form alliances even though they argue, fight and confront each other. They don’t affectivise their relationships like women do. If we get angry, it is very difficult for us to form an alliance with the people we get angry with. The way men are socially constructed allows them to disassociate their feelings from their decisions and this gives them an advantage in the political sphere, which is very competitive; this is very uncommon among women.
My being elected to Parliament is due to my political activism in university and in the union. The party that I belonged to greatly favoured workers. Being a union leader gave me important credibility that – when added to my university education – gave me comparative advantages to reach decision-making offices. Even my imprisonment turned out to be very valuable for the left-wing here in Uruguay.
Leadership is developed over long periods of time in the lives of all human beings, not just women. I believe that we women have trouble in this aspect; we have a very difficult time developing leadership and helping develop other women’s leadership.
iKNOW Politics: How much has women’s access to the public sphere changed in Uruguay? What has been the role of women and women’s organisations in this process?
At the beginning of President Tabaré Vásquez’s administration (March 1, 2005 to March 1, 2010), four out of thirteen of his ministers were women. This was unprecedented in the country, more so because he placed women ministers in positions that were usually not given to us, such as the Public Health or Development. He even appointed a woman Defence Minister, and later designated a woman as Home Secretary.
This had a double effect. First, we women had a much greater presence in the public sphere. Second, holding these kinds of offices largely helped prove that women can effectively hold these positions in society. However, this is not reflected in Parliament, where women only occupy just over 10 percent of the seats.
In order to revert this situation, we have promoted the so-called “empowerment triad.” This consists of uniting women in public bodies (in my case, the body that governs gender policies), women in political parties, and women in social movements. This trio – an initiative from civil society – held meetings such as the Uruguayan Women’s Meeting. In addition, the trio held several assemblies where women from different backgrounds met in order to reflect and commit to a common agenda, including the promotion of women’s participation in politics. In efforts to separate this initiative from political party logic, we have formed a network of women politicians in Uruguay and the feminine bicameral caucus with women members from all political parties.
From a democratic perspective, we have a significant deficit due to the scant political representation of women in our country, most of all in the “plain and simple” [puro y duro] level of politics: political parties. What we experienced with the debate on the quota law (2009) testifies to Uruguay’s backwardness in this area. This is contradictory, given that in Uruguay we have double the number of women university graduates in comparison to men, and we were one of the only countries that first had universal suffrage, a divorce law allowing for divorce based on a woman’s initiative, and a series of other issues regarding gender equality. However, we are completely behind in terms of political participation. There is no direct relationship between the advancement in women’s rights and political participation in our country. Today we have public policies that I consider to be quite important regarding gender equality, such as the law on equal opportunity and rights and a plan for equality that is in the making. The plan for equality includes a policy of mainstreaming equality in all government sectors – which is particularly emphasised in five bodies – and policies in public companies and advances in the national budget. However, equality is still very difficult in the political realm; there is no correspondence between the political advancements in equality of opportunity and rights and political representation.
iKNOW Politics: Why such a gap?
I believe that this is because the core of political parties is still the toughest established power in our country, and this power is profoundly patriarchal. This is demonstrated when electoral lists are made; these lists are created based on patriarchal criteria. Only during the last campaign did the issue of equal participation in lists surface. In the Broad Front’s internal elections, one of the candidates – the one I am with – suggested it. He even announced that, in the event he was elected, he would have an gender equal cabinet. This was the first time for this to occur, which I think is a result of the strong fight that women’s social and political movements have carried out over the years.
One curious thing is the quota law, makes quotas obligatory for internal elections – beginning with the next elections – but not for general elections. The arguments for this have been absurd, in particular the assertion that there are no qualified women, as if men were naturally qualified without having become so through practice. By exercising representation and power, one learns. On the other hand, it is evident that the most capable people are not currently in Parliament; there is a series of circumstances that allows these people to get to this sphere. This is an issue that we must forcefully address.
iKNOW Politics: How do you view the process of developing and creating new leaderships? What is the role of political parties in this process?
I don’t think there is a process of creating new leaderships, but what we do just barely have is the presence of some innovative candidacies. In Uruguay, we women who have set precedents are over 50 years old – the well-known leaders for the population are adult women. There are very few young women participating in political offices. A lot is said about creating new leadership because it sits well and is politically correct, but when it comes time to look at which candidates could actually be president, the average age is between 60 and 70 years. And I think that parties have even blocked the possibility for new leaderships to appear.
iKNOW Politics: As director of the institute that governs the country’s gender policies, what strategies are being employed in order to promote equal access to political representation for women? What goals do you expect to achieve?
Our Plan for Equal Opportunities and Rights clearly aims for equality. We have promoted some meetings, areas for reflection and discussion seminars on this topic. Additionally, we have supported initiatives from civil society that have similar aims. When the debate on political parties law took place, we asked parties to give their opinions on this law, but saw little success. The institute is recognised when it comes to policies implemented from the executive branch, but there is little receptiveness when it comes from other government powers. For this reason, in 2008, we advocated regional assemblies of women that ended up drawing over 4,000 women in order for them to adopt the plan. We made the 2009 electoral year an issue in the assemblies, encouraging women to closely follow the process of creating lists and to get involved. We sought to motivate women to not only vote for more women, but to vote for women who are committed to women’s rights.
iKNOW Politics: You have been the Uruguayan representative in the Specialised Meeting on Women (REM). Could you explain to us what REM is and what its impact has been in the region?
REM is a specialised area for women within the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) whose objective is to influence policy within the institution. For instance, at the time of instating a MERCOSUR parliament, we made a recommendation calling for an equal number of men and women in future parliaments. Additionally, at the presidential summit we presented a resolution from all women ministers in the region, which was then adopted in Chile during President Michelle Bachelet’s administration. Perhaps the most important achievement has been the resolution of the Tenth Conference of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the “Quito Consensus” (2007) which was the first instrument to propose equality of men and women in decision-making areas, the redistribution of assignments within the division of labour, and the recognition of women’s unpaid work. It was a great achievement that linked two agendas: that of unpaid work or the sexual division of domestic work, and that of access to participating in power structures. Both agendas are associated with the distribution of power in the public and private sphere. It was a wise move by ECLAC’s Gender Affairs department to join these two issues. In MERCOSUR, we have worked toward spreading this approach and we now have a regional project for this. We will be able to work more as a region, joining different movements to promote women’s participation in politics.
iKNOW Politics: Certainly the change in regulations is only one part of what is needed to achieve equality. What structural changes would you propose to narrow the gap in inequality?
I think that Uruguay will have to have a much more intense constitutional debate and carry out an in-depth constitutional reform. This is the only way that women’s political rights will be truly recognised and in force.
The lack of political participation by women marks an important democratic deficit. All structures that make democracy more effective are also structures that can contribute to increasing women’s participation, though this is not automatic. At least this is a lesson from my own personal experience: the more democratic the structure, the more women that are elected. There are people who will tell you that the current system allows for women to be candidates, but this is not true, because candidacies are indubitably “cooked up” among a reduced group of people – mostly men. Adding to this, there are economic requirements key to maintaining a candidacy, and if the resources are controlled by the party’s leaders, these leaders will be the ones to decide who will be candidate. Thus it seems to me that political party reform is important and should include methods to ensure gender parity. The law should require equal participation among men and women.
I believe that we were shy in Uruguay. I am very critical of the quota law, however today I defend it because they want to shelve it, but in reality I think that full equality should be insisted upon.
iKNOW Politics: Referring back to what you mentioned on alliances and networks, what has been their role in your own political career?
I think they have been key. Men hold the power because they know how to create bridges and alliances despite their many differences. A good part of the things that we’ve been talking about in this interview will depend on whether we create strategies for alliance among women. Marcela Lagarde has greatly developed this through the concept of sorority among women. We have a lot to learn in this area. When a woman’s name surfaces, men, as well as women, instantly work to belittle that name. However, the names of twenty men surface and you don’t see anyone discredit them so easily. It seems to me that we women have a lot to learn in this respect.
When I was in the union, I started out as the only woman out of twenty leaders. Eight years later, there were ten women and ten men. There was a concrete policy that I promoted. I was the union president and there was a gender commission that I pushed through. However, three of four years after I left, women’s representation went back to being minimal. I ended up directing the National Women’s Institute (INMUJERES) not only due to the president’s decision, but also based on the unanimous opinion of women from all parties in the Broad Front coalition. My administration began with a very important presence and support from women of all Broad Front parties, which provided me with a lot of force to act.
I think that we women have great difficult in clearly stating conflicts. Sometimes I don’t do very well because of this, because I am very head-on when I state differences. In the long run, this creates greater legitimacy and I also feel that it gives me inner peace. I am convinced that there are many women in Uruguay who should be occupying the first places in lists. However, when this issue is proposed, we often fail to establish solidarity, leading many to withdraw. If a man lacks solidarity and seeks to fight for the spot, he doesn’t care if someone else thinks this is wrong. We women have been socially constructed to depend on the opinion they have of us – it is very important to us. And in politics this works against us. I don’t feel this anymore, perhaps since I am more of a veteran. When I was a deputy, I had a child under two years old, and it was a big deal to have been a deputy with a small child. For those of us women who enter politics, the cost is very high. Very few men take on equal roles in daily life and living with women who have high aspirations is difficult for them.
iKNOW Politics: To finish up, what suggestions would you give women, not only in Uruguay but in the entire region, who want to participate in politics but encounter enormous difficult in doing so?
We have to make a firm decision to strengthen ourselves as a group. I think that it is key for us to have networks if we really want to advance in decision-making areas and to build alliances among us. In this way, when we hear women arguing in public office, we will be able to support and encourage them. It’s about changing the way politics is exercised. I don’t like the idea of getting ourselves into politics only for it to continue to be extremely vertical, authoritarian and patriarchal. The challenge is to transform politics and humanise it more.