Javier Milei meets Congress againbut it is not because of any law that can threaten its adjustment with “zero deficit.” There are no resources at stake. What the libertarian president does not want is for them to limit his ability to govern by decree bypassing Congress. In just 10 months it has already issued at least 42 DNUs. The most problematic was the megadecreto 70/2023 which continues to negatively affect those who rent, pay (or paid) a prepayment, those who need medication, among many other problems that it brought for the majority. It is still in force: despite the fact that the Senate rejected it, the silence of the Chamber of Deputies that did not deal with it is enough for it to be maintained. This is one of the points that makes it easier to govern by decree, thanks to the ley 26.122 that regulates them, and that is now being questioned by several opposition blocs.
Why does Milei defend Cristina Fernández’s law?
Javier Milei prefers Cristina Fernández’s law that currently regulates the DNU. That is why he announced that, if Congress wants to change it, is going to veto it. “What they are trying to do is a coup d’état” he said last week at the end of his speech in front of businessmen at the Idea Colloquium. Curious argument when those who have governed by decree have been especially military dictatorships. The scenario he chose to launch his threat was no coincidence: the mega DNU 70/2023 that he dictated at the beginning of his government was celebrated by the economic powerbut he is short of papers. Milei constantly needs to show signs of a strength that he does not have to wink at the business community that demands “predictability” and “durability” of the changes. With fewer allies in Congress than at the beginning of his mandate or more conditioned by collaborationist blocs, The libertarian president depends much more on authoritarian tools such as the veto and the DNU.
In this new crusade The PRO accompanies him openly, although they have been critical of the law when it was their turn to be in opposition and they even have projects among the 16 in total to modify it. “If we try to limit governability we would be returning to those tyrannies of the majority” said Silvana Giudici of the PRO to try to justify himself. “Chipi” Castillo came out to the intersection: “He talks about the tyranny of the majority, but defends the tyranny of the minority. It’s very funny if he weren’t a hunchback for the majority of the population.”. The left-wing deputy assured that if a plebiscite were held on the two presidential vetoes, the rejection of the veto would widely win, and added that even in the votes the ruling party supported them with a minority (87 and 84 votes respectively out of 257 deputies). “A tyranny of the minority is consecrated by constitutional mechanisms” ended. Carbajal from the UCR He also questioned the argument of his former partners in Together for Change: he answered Giudici that now he does not want to change the law because he is in the exercise of power.
The only deputy of Freedom Advances what was pronounced was Lisandro Almirónwhich claimed both the veto and the DNU as “tools that provide governability.” He compared his government to two complicated moments in our country: “Imagine having to deal with the crisis of 2001 and 2002 without DNU, or the transfer from the Alfonsín government to that of Menem”. A sincericide that the ruling party senses that a crisis of that magnitude is coming?
The contradictions of opponents
On the opposition side there are also curiosities. Although The debate is promoted by blocks such as the UCR, Pichetto and the Civic Coalitionare the same ones that, for the most part, They have been refusing to deal with DNU 70/2023, favoring the government of Freedom Advances. They want to change it forward, but not address the megadecree that many consider unconstitutional and even has parts stopped by justice. Agost Carrenofrom Encuentro Federal led by Pichetto, said that he considers many of the changes it contains positive, and focused his concern on making them durable so that another government does not come and repeal them. Juan Manuel López of the Civic Coalition He also said that it matches “mostly with the content but not with the tool”. It is these coincidences with Milei that end up weighing when it comes to supporting DNU 70.
In the case of Union for the Homelandwere singled out for the sudden change of opinion: as government supporters they promoted the law that they now also intend to modify. Its deputies defended it and maintain that it must be understood “in each context”. “It would be a mistake not to recognize that the constitutional tool is not the same whether it is in the hands of one president or another” said German Martinezpresident of the bloc, to explain why they are now willing to change it. Others, like Carolina Gaillardthey excused themselves on the grounds that the experience of its validity warrants making modifications.
Only the deputy Christian Castillo of the Left Front made it clear that They oppose the existence of the DNU and that is why it is the only bloc that has never validated the tool under any of the governments that used it. He questioned that “The entire Constitution includes mechanisms that defraud popular representation”es “Bonapartist, authoritarian”. Castillo pointed out that The use of the veto and the DNU “is constitutional but it is not democratic, it is undemocratic”. He went further and assured that “In capitalism in general, democracy has fictional elements because you cannot discuss the economy. It is a restricted democracy, and in presidential ones like ours much more so: the people are removed from the decisions.”. Castillo countered that “Socialists aspire for the people to decide, for us the most democratic thing is for the people to deliberate, vote, decide and resolve”. He was also one of those who insisted that the Chamber of Deputies reject DNU 70.
The changes that Milei does not want
Los decrees of necessity and urgency (DNU) were formally incorporated into the Constitution only in 1994 as a power of the executive branch, although they were used before, by dictatorships and also by constitutional governments. Only 12 years after the constitutional reform, was sanctionedto the law in question to regulate them and establish the role of Congress for their validation or rejection. A controversial law, promoted by Cristina Fernándezwhich reinforced the presidential authority to legislate through these decrees, and designed to make it very difficult for them to be rejected. Successive governments knew how to take advantage of its advantages: Congress is not obliged to speak out, and silence is equal to validating them. The law establishes that the acceptance of one of the Chambers is enough for a DNU to be sustained, but for its rejection it requires that both chambers do so. That is to say, It is easier to validate a presidential decree than to sanction a law of Congress. Because for a law to pass it needs the approval of both the Deputies and the Senate. For this reason, in the 18 years that the law that regulates the DNU has been in force, only one fell due to the rejection of Congress: that of the funds reserved for Javier Milei’s SIDE spies.
There are two points on which a good part of the opponents have agreements of the direction of changes to the law that regulates the DNU and other presidential decrees. that he silence from Congress to validate them you must finish and set deadlines so that it must be pronounced.
Several deputies took the “Brazil model” as an example: if Congress does not speak out in 120 days, the decree falls. Quite the opposite of what is currently happening with Cristina Fernández’s law and which Milei now defends. However, there are nuances as to what that period should be: the projects propose a range between 30 and 90 days. If approved, it could complicate matters for the president of La Libertad Avanza since Congress would have another role, where the ruling party is a minority.
There are also some differences regarding How bicameralism should work. Although there would be agreement that To validate a DNU the two Chambers should issue in that sense (just as with a law), it is not the case for rejection. Even within the UCR there are differences: Carla Carrizo maintained that both Chambers should reject it, while Carbajal argued with his colleague, arguing that the rejection in only one of the Chambers should be enough to leave a DNU without effect (just as happens with a law). Agost Carreño from Encuentro Federal proposes the same requirements as Carbajal.
In Union for the Homeland They were expressed only for the validation cases. He deputy Giuliano made an emphatic defense of bicameralism “double representation of the people and the provinces is essential”. The man from Santa Fe omitted to talk about the requirements for them to be rejected.
Some deputies propose other changes. For example, increase the number of members of the Bicameral Legislative Procedure Commissionwhich is in charge of the technical evaluation of the DNU and is the one who issues an opinion if the deadlines are met (once the deadlines have been met, they can be dealt with directly at the venue). Currently the Bicameral Commission has 16 members: 8 Deputies and 8 Senators. Agost Carreño proposes that it become 24 members “so that minorities have expression”and Juliano from the UCR proposes that it be 20.
In some cases, projects call for that Congress has the power to make modifications to the DNU presidential elections, such as that of Agost Carreño from the Pichetto bloc and Mónica Litza from Unión por la Patria. Others, like Carla Carrizo of radicalism, focused on the need to limit the topics that a DNU can address. “That is the learning of DNU 70, it cannot have more than 9, 10 areas (…) it has to be one subject at a time” said.
It is Wednesday from 5 p.m. the Chamber of Deputies is going to resume the debate with guests. Due to the location voted in the last session, it was established that it must an opinion be issued before October 30. One week left. Freedom Advances and the PRO will try to delay any modification to the law that regulates the DNU, so that Milei gains time. They are looking for the issue to pass until next year. The opposition blocs do not want to delay it but they are racing against the clock to reach an agreement that is reflected in a common opinion.
Meanwhile, el DNU 70 is back in the spotlight. If around 20 deputies of those who question the law that regulates the DNU bowed to the rejection promoted by Unión por la Patria, the Left Front and other legislators, It could be dealt with in the venue and that megadecree falls that continues to harm the majority of the population on a daily basis.
Source: www.laizquierdadiario.com
