by Virginia Vargas

Virginia Vargas is one of two Peruvian feminists who, at the very last minute, stood for parliament during the run-up to the country's last elections in April 1985. Both took part as independent candidates under the umbrella of the broad socialist alliance. Izquierda Unida (United Left). Although neither was finally elected, the participation of two feminists in the electoral process marked an important step in the history of women's struggles in Peru.

Redefining our Feminist Position

The new wave of feminist activity which emerged in Peru in the 197()s. in the midst of great national upheaval, heralded the slow and painful transition we had made from an initial identification with the ideas and practices of the Peruvian Left towards an autonomous position, in terms of both ideology and organization. Through a process of consciousness-raising and reflection we had managed to formulate our feminist position and evolve a way of working collectively and on a personal level toward the elimination of women's oppression. Moreover, we had reached this point without suffering any great internal ruptures.

The fruits of our efforts during those eight years can be seen in the opening up of discussion about so-called women's problems, leading to the integration of new themes into political debate, and the upsurge of new groups, alternative publications, feminist work-places, research, and literary and artistic output. Nevertheless, the development of the women's movement was far from even. Moments of progress would suddenly be met by apparent deadlock. There were tensions, notably between the need to consolidate our own internal work and at the same time respond to the growing complexity of women's demands in the wider society. The tendency to cut ourselves off, taking refuge in what we had learned, may have given us valuable strength but it threatened to divorce us from the experiences of women outside. We also ran the risk of becoming increasingly isolated from the overall political struggle.

The need to break this inertia was especially urgent at a time when alternative political strategies were under constant discussion and when women, under pressure from the national crisis and hazards of daily survival, were developing new creative methods of organization without necessarily considering their own specific needs. It was time for us to expand our influence and build ourselves a more solid base in society, to transform ourselves into a visible movement capable of challenging political parties, institutions and the state.

A Remote Idea Becomes Reality

With the probability of forthcoming elections we gradually began to think about the electoral process as a possible opportunity for putting our increasing criticisms of the movement into practice. At this stage we weren't all thinking about forwarding our own candidates. However, we did share the alarming sensation that the electoral process highlighted the absence of a feminist perspective on themes of national importance, demonstrating our failure to reach a wider number of women.

First proposals for a list of women candidates in fact came from outside the women's movement. We had hardly even started formulating possible electoral strategies when certain newspapers and magazines were suggesting us as potential members of parliament. One publication went as far as naming one of us as the Minister for Women's Affairs in a hypothetical left-wing government. Meanwhile, the movement itself was engaged in various working groups, one of which focused precisely on this question of seizing political opportunity.

After some preliminary discussion about our position in relation to the electoral process enthusiasm for the idea of candidates soon began to take hold and it was decided to widen the debate within the whole women's movement, a step which led to some of the most valuable discussion we've had in recent times. Many questions came up: Weren't we meant to be an autonomous political movement? Did we really need to join the formal electoral process in order to establish our legitimacy? Why align ourselves to Izquierda Unida rather than APRA (the Popular Revolutionary Alliance of America)? Wouldn't this imply blatant conciliation with the patriarchal Left? Needless to say there was no one answer.

The degree to which we'd be able to retain our autonomy in such a seemingly "natural" affiliation proved to be one of the main stumbling blocks to our discussion, giving rise to three main positions. The first argued that the movement already identified itself with the Left, so to join the parliamentary lists would simply legitimize the situation. The second maintained that the lU had never shown any genuine interest in incorporating women's demands into its program and so upheld an absolute need for autonomy. There was also concern about the problem of not being able to shake off identification with a political party after the elections. Those who took up the third position shared much in common with the first and felt that emphasizing the dilemma of autonomy versus cooperation tended to paralyze initiative by imposing too much of a theoretical scheme on reality. Progress is seldom made without risks and it was worth encountering hostility if access to such a privileged political platform would bring us closer to other women.

We never saw the electoral process as the one and only solution. The movement clearly had to develop through a system of multiple strategics, confronting different parties and candidates about their position on women, opening up a permanent platform for debate about feminist priorities and programs, seeking alliances with candidates from all sides; in other words transforming ourselves into a permanent pressure group to ensure that women's issues remained an ongoing part of political debate. At the same time our candidates would aim to use the electoral space provided by the lU as a means of disseminating our ideas and, were we to be elected, of maintaining a permanent defense of women's rights in parliament.

Just as the feminist movement's wholesale identification with the Left might threaten our democratic tradition of embracing women with different political loyalties, so it was dangerous to interpret autonomy as simply deliberate isolation from political and social processes, or as a defense against fear of confronting the public world. True autonomy isn't about maintaining the cosy security of a small group, bent on preserving the purity of its doctrine. It's about taking risks and confronting patriarchal power at every level. Otherwise we simply end up using up our energies on isolated struggles which may be gratifying in themselves but have little impact on society, let alone the development of a global strategy towards eliminating women's oppression. In order to assert the movement's autonomy we needed to gather all forces in favor of women's demands, whatever negotiations and conflict this might involve.

All this discussion about the pros and cons of varying degrees of autonomy brought to light some of the most complex, controversial aspects of feminist theory and practice. How we organize, the ways in which decisions are made, the meaning of leadership, all add up to the tension between individual and collective interests/needs which tends to characterize the exercising of power. In this respect two unspoken questions haunted the early days of our candidacies: how to justify setting them in motion without consensus; and why we and not other women from the movement should be candidates.

In the end there was no consensus or vote taken to settle our proposals or define the strategy we were to follow. However, seeing as a significant sector of the movement clearly supported our candidacy, it was decided to form a committee in order to start publicizing our campaign. Petitions were printed requesting "signatures of support for two candidates from the feminist movement who are standing for parliament as independents on the lists of Izquierda Unida." (At that time the lU embraced eight political parties and a significant number of independents.)

The collection of signatures was our first real creative action, not only because it wasn't done by any other candidates but because it involved a kind of mini-campaign of conviction, face to face, within families, between friends, in the popular sectors, in work places, in hairdressers, markets and many more areas. In less than a month we managed to gather over 5.000 names from both women and men. The petitions were then handed over to the electoral committee of the lU whose task it was to prepare the final list of candidates.

The movement was simultaneously working on what was to be the "Platform for the Rights of Women," formulating a program of demands designed as the basis of our electoral campaign. This program also turned out to be a very useful tool for opening up discussion with different parties and political organizations on their position in relation to women.

The Obstacles of Working within Izquierda Unida

In general relations between the feminist movement and political parties have been plagued with disagreements and contradictions. In the beginning the Peruvian movement was very much linked to party militancy. As well as struggling hard for our autonomy, we were intent on raising the whole issue of gender and women's equal participation in political parties within the Left. But, although many party women led or at least joined this process, party leaders tended not to recognize the autonomy of the women's movement and felt threatened by criticism of their beliefs and organizational practice.

As a result we candidates were regarded with great mistrust. People within the lU found it hard to understand how we could have an independent political viewpoint from our male comrades. Individual political parties resented us as late arrivals and reproached us for our permanent criticism of women's position; and party militants viewed us as disloyal competition in territory that didn't belong to us. Only a few independents really lent their support, defending our candidacy and demanding that we be incorporated right up until the last minute. Our names as candidates were finally incorporated one hour before the time ran out for registering Parliamentary lists at the National Board of Elections.

The system of preferential voting used for the first time in these last presidential elections allowed for the personalization of electoral preferences. Voting was on three levels: for president, two national senators and two provincial deputies. It was also possible to combine different lists for each level. Under the umbrella of the lU we were allocated 29th place for senator (out of 60) and 31st place for deputy for Lima (out of 40). The general low support for the lU severely reduced our chances.

As official candidates we found ourselves entering a kind of vacuum in which we weren't strictly representing either the women's movement or the lU. Neither were we entirely independent. We didn't want to compromise the autonomy of the movement; we wanted separate space so that its activities could carry on as usual, although we still needed its strength and solidarity. In this atmosphere of ambiguities and insecurity we launched our campaign.

The design of the campaign united all that was most creative about the feminist movement. Even those who hadn't agreed with the candidacies lent their experience and imagination, carried forward by the theme "Women, Vote For Yourselves: Feminists in Parliament." Flyers dealing with themes such as sexuality, violence, work and organization, such as had never been seen before in an electoral campaign, gave weight to the famous "Women, Vote For Yourselves." The texts read as follows:

1. Because we have always been the targets of violence: ill-treated at home, assaulted in the street, harassed at work., raped...We reject war and destruction. Because we have always been the source of life we defend and want to change it. Because together we can fulfill our dreams. Feminists for Parliament! The Only Hope for Peace! 
2. Because we women have the capacity for organization we have created hundreds of community eating places, opened nurseries and kindergartens for children. Because day after day we confront our country's crisis with intelligence and because we can change Peru. Feminists for Parliament! For the Organization of Women!
3. For the fair recognition of housewives' work; because we should have access to better jobs; for equal wages for women and men; for a social security system that includes us all; and for laws to protect working mothers. Feminists for Parliament! For Equality at Work!
4. For the right to know and control our own bodies; for free access to contraception and family-planning methods; for our own choice in sexuality; for a health system to meet our needs. Feminists for Parliament! For Health as a Woman's Right!

Nevertheless, as we had suspected, our candidacies turned out to be an island within the dynamic of the lU. The predominant debate was profoundly masculine with only vague isolated references to women, usually bathed in cliches aimed at trying to maintain a certain modernity without having to make any significant compromises. Feeling trapped and angry, we quickly decided not to participate any more in these campaign meetings. Instead we would dedicate ourselves to our own campaign, based on our own strengths, on our feminist platform and our scarce economic resources.

So, What Happened to All of Us?

An electoral campaign is a serious event. More than anything, it's a "time for politics" in the institutional sense and not a "time for living" which is probably what most wore us out. Fueled by endless eloquent phrases, promises never intended to be fulfilled, the most inhuman means of destroying opponents and, above all, the ability to sell an image to the media as much as to the electorate, electoral logic has no let-up. We felt quite lost.

We found a basic conflict between this utilitarian concept of politics, aimed at influencing a mass of people without taking into account any of their individual diversity, and our own search, albeit hesitant, for a political approach anchored more in the specific identity of each social being.

Our approach also had its limitations. By concentrating on the day-to-day experiences and perceptions of women our feminist discourse let specific issues, hitherto forbidden, such as sexuality, the implications of domestic work, violence, reproductive rights, organizational autonomy etc., cover up the wider political dimension. No matter how much women (and the few men who were willing to understand) related to these themes and identified with the political aspects of their own personal grievances, given the tremendous burden of daily survival there simply wasn't time to overcome their fear of the unknown and redirect that knowledge into new methods of concrete action.

Despite our efforts we also encountered the opposite problem of our approach being too general. Again, in such a short time, how could we possibly demonstrate the unique diversity of women?

As women (irrespective of class) we tend to respond and adapt to whatever relations of power we happen to be engaged in. In the course of our daily lives we learn to develop many ways of complicity or resistance, including learning how to prioritize our demands. Similarly in relation to the electoral campaign we needed to reflect on the contradictions between our passive role as participants in the formal political system and the rebellious spirit which underlined our feminist demands. Unfortunately we lacked both the time and the necessary previous experience to embark on such a slow process. Instead we mainly had to rely on the impact of our slogan "Women. Vote For Yourselves."

The women who voted for us were basically those with whom we already had a direct relationship or else women who we managed to build much stronger relations with during the campaign. This was especially clear in the case of working-class women. When it came to middle-class women we benefited more from the influence of all those years of feminist communication through the mass media, alternative publications, seminars and cultural activities. In spite of the force of our slogans which had the potential of reaching all women our creativity became lost. One way or another against our will we fell in with the electoral dynamic of responding to the exigencies of the least organized sectors of the working class, concentrating our energies on thousands of small actions and meetings which, however positive our reception, were too limited to achieve the wide influence we needed. There were few opportunities to put for ward more global strategies aimed more at the middle classes who, given the complications of the preferential voting system, were a far more likely public.

In the end only two women from the lU were elected. Both became provincial deputies, not for their position on women but for the clout of their political parties. But in spite of all the problems it was an invaluable experience. We did succeed in planting a feminist viewpoint in an area quite unprepared for, let alone interested in women or feminists. We learned a lot about our own limitations as well as the limitations of the formal political process. Although the continuing development of our discourse and practice may bring us closer to women, it's very difficult to reach any kind of "total" perspective. But we're learning. Having opened up the way we must try new strategies for gaining power for women. Our next attempt is bound to be more successful.