Any person who believes that with the ruling of the Supreme Court against Cristina Kirchner a issue of “corruption” is being discussed, he absolutely ignores the nature of the problem.
The Supreme Court, decreased to three members, made up of Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz and Ricardo Lorenzetti, is not interested in corruption. I would say that the bulk of the Judiciary is not interested in corruption, among other things, because the judiciary is corrupt.
Corruption, which is present in all the pores of this (capitalist) system that cannot work without corruption, is the excuse used by the supreme (and before, all the magistrates who intervened in the cause known as “road”) to make a political intervention, to make a political decision that directly interferes with the political system and the electoral process.
With this intrusion they wanted to give a quasi -mafia message to the entire political system, to all opponents, about the ability to protect a regime through judges who, in reality, are political cadres that respond to a fraction of power and are formed in the “cadres schools” of the “judicial party” in the US Department of State.
Why do they decide to intervene now? Well, there are several reasons. One of them is the precariousness of the government of Javier Milei and the entire political system that has been evidenced in the provincial electoral processes in which there is a strong abstention and the results of the government candidates are, to say it moderately, very discreet.
Apart from Cristina Kirchner’s political intentions and her program, what could have happened if it was an acting factor in an eventual defeat of the government (or even a draw that is read as a defeat) in the elections of the strategic province of Buenos Aires? Most likely, all the precarious economic-political bookcase of the Milei-Caputo duet entered into a risk zone. Without political guarantees, this economy of permanent indebtedness and an unstable balance can fall as a castle of cards (Mauricio Macri’s ghost in 2018 flies over all the time). The onslaught against democratic freedoms and in this we include the proscription of Cristina Fernández, have the objective of shielding a precarious political regime.
But, apart from the conjuncture disputes, there are more medium and long term reasons. North American imperialism and the power fraction that continues to support Milei wants to redesign the political options “in its image and likeness”, without any nuance with respect to the trunk nucleus of what they consider to be the rest of the country from here to the future. A reset that is basically the one proposed by Milei.
The proscription against Cristina Kirchner was carried out despite the efforts she had been doing to “get in tune” with the new winds: speaking of the need for labor reforms, “efficient state” or questioning public employees. Obviously there were not enough guarantees or the true owners believe that they have a correlation of forces that allow them (through the veto of the courtiers) to eliminate any nuance in the political forces.
In fact, his ideal is that all parties are a kind of fractions of the same party with a milesty spirit or make mileism by the means they want, but mileismo at last. Eye, in all parties and especially in Peronism, there are many who do not dislike this perspective because, in fact, it is what they have been doing.
Imagine whether they consider that they can do this with an opponent who has been moderating his speech and his program for a long time (very far away that narrative and the tone they gave to Peronism in the POS 2001 when the task was loaded to rebuild the task to rebuild the authority of the state), imagine what they could do, if this precedent is firm, against those who question their background power and believe that the root thing must be changed. Or against workers’ or youth leaders who want to really face power in factories, companies or on the street.
Hence the clear and necessary pronouncement of the left against the anti -democratic advance. It also has an aspect of self -defense and defense of basic democratic rights of an important part of the population. Moreover, perhaps, if a consistent struggle against proscription develops, progress can be made in the compression that the limitation of democratic freedoms and the adjustment are two faces of the same currency. And this disappoints a much deeper mobilization.
Eye, in Peronism there are people who consider that this dynamic can occur and therefore, beyond the pronouncements lit on social networks or in the media, in how much to concrete measures they are quite conservative and prefer to use all this for a perspective of “cold” electoral replacement that will evidently imply a victory of those who are now the proscripts or their bosses.
It is not about choosing between minor or older evils (preferring that someone corrupt occurs before they outlaw it). The method of choosing between “minor evil” or “bad greater” is not a method to orient in politics. Because I insist, this judiciary, this Supreme Court and the block of power to which they respond is not discussing corruption (present in all governments, including Kirchnerists), it is discussing something else, it has another “greater” objective and corruption consider it a “return” if it responds to their interests.
It is from this perspective that the task of defeating proscription with a mobilization process and forceful measures of struggle is raised. Just as they unite anti -democratic advanced to the adjustment and counter -reforms, we must unify resistance to adjustment to rejection of attack on democratic freedoms. The currency is in the air and the result is not given in advance, it will depend as always, on the fight.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
