It’s not often full page newspaper spreads here in the UK are dedicated to Latin American politics. So perhaps it was quite a surprise to find Monday morning's newspapers adorned with the face of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Argentina’s newly elected President. But given the uncanny resemblances between Cristina and the only other Argentine political figure we’ve ever bound to have heard of, Evita, perhaps it shouldn't be too much of a surprise after all.
I don’t think even in Argentina people were able to get too overwhelmed by the whole election. For many the result was a forgone conclusion right from the very outset of the campaign. Was this down to the success of her husband, Nestor Kirchner, in bringing the country back from the economic and political quagmire of 2001/2002? Or was it down to the inability of the opposition forces to unite against a charismatic female leader who was always able to draw on the inevitable Evita undertones and resemblances as a sure means to derive support from the Argentine masses? Furthermore the election campaign was an unorganised affair, with people wondering as to why Nestor Kirchner chose not to stand for re-election, and why it was that Cristina spent much of the campaign abroad and less than willing to participate in debates and unveil concrete policy issues?
So Argentines are yet again left in the dark as to what expect from the future. Whilst the emergence of yet another female as a head of state in Latin America (Michelle Bachelet became the President of Chile last year) in otherwise macho dominated arena can only be a good thing, it still remains unclear as to whether she will be able to do anymore than her husband in redistributing the profits the country seems to be raking in with an annual growth rate of 8%, or be able to anything to dampen the impression of Nestor’s Kirchner’s perceived undermining of democratic processes. And how will she be able to reposition Argentina internationally after Kirchner’s presidency has left Argentina isolated, given his anti-US rhetoric and strong ties with Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela? One thing is for certain, dinner at the Kirchner’s must be quite something if her policies start to deviate considerably from those of her husband’s.
I don’t think even in Argentina people were able to get too overwhelmed by the whole election. For many the result was a forgone conclusion right from the very outset of the campaign. Was this down to the success of her husband, Nestor Kirchner, in bringing the country back from the economic and political quagmire of 2001/2002? Or was it down to the inability of the opposition forces to unite against a charismatic female leader who was always able to draw on the inevitable Evita undertones and resemblances as a sure means to derive support from the Argentine masses? Furthermore the election campaign was an unorganised affair, with people wondering as to why Nestor Kirchner chose not to stand for re-election, and why it was that Cristina spent much of the campaign abroad and less than willing to participate in debates and unveil concrete policy issues?
So Argentines are yet again left in the dark as to what expect from the future. Whilst the emergence of yet another female as a head of state in Latin America (Michelle Bachelet became the President of Chile last year) in otherwise macho dominated arena can only be a good thing, it still remains unclear as to whether she will be able to do anymore than her husband in redistributing the profits the country seems to be raking in with an annual growth rate of 8%, or be able to anything to dampen the impression of Nestor’s Kirchner’s perceived undermining of democratic processes. And how will she be able to reposition Argentina internationally after Kirchner’s presidency has left Argentina isolated, given his anti-US rhetoric and strong ties with Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela? One thing is for certain, dinner at the Kirchner’s must be quite something if her policies start to deviate considerably from those of her husband’s.
