Source: TedTalks, Atlanta, Georgia, October 2023
In 2021, Gabriel Boric became the elected President of Chile. He was one of the youngest worldwide and one of the most voted in the country’s history.
He was supported by a political party called Convergencia Social. And by the time of the election, I was in charge of the feminist front of that party.
So even though I was very confident our candidate was going to win, the night itself of the election was still very overwhelming, especially so when we got to walk through the crowds, held by security.
You know, it suddenly all felt so real because we were walking to a stage in front of where thousands of people had gathered to celebrate the victory.
Because Gabriel Boric was not just a candidate I was supporting, he was also my partner.
So soon enough, this meant for people that I was about to become a First Lady. And now I come to you, this great audience, and want to ask you, have you ever thought of becoming a First Lady?
Is it something you thought of growing up or lately, I don’t know?
Well, I didn’t think so. Me neither. Until I was about to become one.
Because really, whatever your partner does, you know, do you picture yourself getting up in the morning and accompanying him or her to his or her job?
You know?
And now picture that job being to rule over a country. But as much as it comes as a surprise to me, imagine what a surprise it might be to the voters that don’t elect you.
They elected the president, right?
And the president chose me, but surely not thinking of me becoming an authority one day.
And so I first rejected the idea of becoming a First Lady, and all of, you know, what that meant.
And so, many people criticized me, but many feminists applauded me, right.
Because, as a feminist, I can see that feminist beliefs seem contradictory or incompatible with being a First Lady.
On the one hand, OK, what does a feminist possibly want to do in such a conservative space?
But on the other hand, ain’t the pursuit of taking feminist action, even more so in such an unlikely place, something that is worth doing more than caring about your coherent image as a feminist?
So I decided to meet up with former First Ladies of the last decades and talk to them about their achievements, about their experiences.
So I talked to them, and that was very important.
It was crucial.
And I also made meetings with feminists from different generations to talk it all through.
But the point and the moment that really struck me was my meetings with attorneys, because they told me the following.
They were like, “Well, this is great for you. You will have so many opportunities and the chance to do whatever you want with your interests.”
And I was like, this doesn’t sound right.
You know, he was like, “Yes, because you can create projects, you can create new foundations, because this is not regulated and there are many gray zones.”
I realized what this construction was all about. In Chile, First Lady’s institutionalized version looks like this, because they got progressively more and more functions, alright?
So they are anchored in the state through diverse set of things.
On the one hand, you’ve got foundations, a set of foundations, for example, for childhood education.
Then you’ve got a foundation for recycling computers.
Then you’ve got a foundation for empowering women.
Then you’ve got a museum with a focus on interactive approach.
Then you’ve got education and music. But they were all formed by former First Ladies.
And you get to preside [over] all of these foundations, regardless of your professional background.
And through them, you can do your projects or make more foundations, right?
And then you’ve got protocol, OK?
Protocol is accompanying the president to several events, ceremonies, engagements.
And then you’ve got something very important.
Or at least I find it very important because it’s so symbolic. They give you an office right inside of the presidential palace. But it’s not just an office, it’s the most beautiful one. Like, people actually call it Versailles, OK?
And you get to choose a team, which I would publicly like to thank.And so I decided to make a plan.
And my approach would be to tackle both issues, the democratic illegitimacy of having the institution of marriage so embedded in state, and on the other hand, you know the gender-biased imaginary around this figure, OK?
But this meant making a turn again, towards action this time, because I thought, OK, on the one hand, if I do nothing, if I don’t take the job, nothing will change.
If I do take the job, at least I have the chance to change something. And we all know how traditions work. They repeat in time until something or someone interrupts it. So this meant making a new press conference where I would say that I was to take office in order to transform the figure of First Ladies.
Of course, I got criticism again, and a lot of people actually didn’t understand this. But something a bit painful was, of course, that many feminists criticized me too.
So in that criticism, you know, is bad press when you come from a feminist party or a progressive party, for sure.
But while it was super uncomfortable and I knew I was going to be, I was very convinced that I should use my power this way.
That’s what I felt, at least. So I started presiding [over] the existing foundations. So I wanted to know if they were still, you know, following their social goals.
And in order to have that diagnosed, I talked to the unions, to the workers, I wanted to understand if they still felt valued, if they still felt that they were taken, you know, into account as professionals or if, you know, politics were making something else out of them.
And I talked to them. I improved salaries. I, you know, I made job listings public. We made processes more transparent. And we also tried to make standards higher in general.
So after all of this was done, we were ready for the next step, which was the First Lady not presiding over these foundations anymore.
So … Now you’ve got the ministries making the decisions.
So, for instance, now that we do have a Ministry for Women and Equality, she decides who will be the president of the foundation about empowerment for women, right?
The Minister of Education is the one who decides who will be the president of the foundation for childhood education.
Makes sense, right?
All these changes took about nine months.
Now I’m just me. I have no team, no office, and no official role. I don’t take any resources from state.
And I still have a lot of public exposure, and I would still attend meaningful events with my partner.
Which brings me to the next issue I wanted to tackle, which is gender stereotypes, right?
Because it turns out we actually still look at masculine authorities as people that need to be complemented by a feminine other.
But if you think about a woman that has just been elected, or a woman in power, we expect her to have both male and female qualities.
So this not only tells you that relationships in such high rank, like in a visible platform, are expected to be heteronormative and traditional, but it also tells you how embedded marriage is in state.
Turns out it was very normal to have the wife around. So I thought this kind of condescending constellation around the president is something that will not be well-received from the new generations of politicians.
Because if you think about it, women accompanying presidents are still seen as assets.
They are seen as someone who gives the president an image of more stability, of completeness and of balance.
But that is because of our accustomed view of duality.
And I think we were already past that.
I mean, church and state, state and love, state and marriage.
Doesn’t it sound antiquated already when you say it out loud?
When it comes to women in politics, yes, of course we want as many as possible.
But the good news is, we can vote for them, right?
Yeah. I say we keep marriage out of the presidential must-haves and legitimize the person we vote for.
My goal for taking on the institutional side of First Lady was to make change.
To take away power from a position that is a result of affection and not of democratic process.
Some people may think that this is a personal rejection of a privilege. Instead, it’s a political rejection of power from where it doesn’t belong.
I am not to have… Thank you.
I am not to have power that people have not given me. So I see state innovations as crucial to turn the game around when it comes to the devaluation of our democracies.
Because when you think about it, making changes in governmental institutions, updating them, making them more legit again, and taking away parts that don’t represent contemporary needs anymore might make people feel more close, more reflected in the instrument of democracies.
And that’s what it’s there for.
So if making symbolic, cultural and institutional changes increases our attachment to democratic values, then I say it’s worth a try.
Thank you very much.
Profesorbaker's Worldwide Bilingual Blog 