The spectacle that unfolded this Thursday in Deputies with the fall of the session due to the known “clean record” law was truly illustrative of the current moment. It ended up becoming those types of events that illuminate the entire scenario and expose the truth of each political actor, beyond their speeches.
Let’s briefly review: the “clean record” project was promoted by the PRO and other blocks of the self-perceived “republican” opposition, with the formal support of the ruling party. Objectively, the regulations had an undemocratic and proscriptive character because they left in the hands of a completely partial and partisan Judiciary the possibility or not of certain people being candidates if they have sentences against them that are not yet final. With that foundation of content (which today points against Cristina Kirchner, but tomorrow can be used against other political adversaries) the left-wing parliamentarians opposed it.
That’s it for the content, but the political fact of the day was that the absences that caused the session to fail were (along with members of other blocks) basically those of the deputies of La Libertad Avanza. To be clear: Government representatives in Congress were absent to reverse a session in which a law that politically and electorally affected Cristina Kirchner could be voted on.
Since we are all grown up, no one believes that this “favor” was free. And it is already an open secret that it is part of a negotiation that includes at least two “compensations”: the approval of the specifications of the judges with which the Government wants to complete an addicted Court (Lijo and García Mansilla) and the reform proscriptive policy that has as its banner the elimination of PASO. There is also the re-election of Martin Menem as president of the Chamber of Deputies, as a return from this negotiation.
Later I will return to the issue of the reform, but allow me to add one more element: an underlying reason (political, in the political sense of the term) that pushes the Government to favor Cristina Kirchner is that it is “convenient” for her to continue in the race. and that she “play” in next year’s legislative elections because she is a “tailor-made” opponent.
When we observe this device that Milei uses to try to consolidate itself, especially thinking about the elections, it seems that we are witnessing a kind of deja vu of what we saw several times in the last ten years. A period characterized by a general crisis (social, economic) that led to a resounding crisis of political representation.
What is that mechanism? Well, the application of a maneuver that allows your own political survival not based on “positive” proposals from your own space nor on the results of an economic program that allows you to expand your social base, but quite the opposite: it is about dividing on the other, managing the weakness of others (or believing that one is managing it), positioning adversaries or enemies “to measure” because it is considered that against them one can achieve one’s own triumph.
It is not new at all, although it has increased in recent times. If you allow me, I go a little back in the recent history of Argentina to the final stage of Raúl Alfonsín’s Government. It was going through a very important crisis (which later led to the hyperinflationary catastrophe); Those who competed in Peronism against radicalism towards the 1989 presidential elections were Antonio Cafiero and Carlos Menem, and Alfonsín promoted the growth of Menem (some say that even with funds that flowed generously to La Rioja governed by him) because he calculated that it was more easy to beat Menem before Cafiero. Well, we already know how that story ended.
What I want to highlight is that the aspiration was not to think about how I “fall in love” with my political proposal, but rather how I try to position, with maneuvers and tactical tricks, the one who is supposedly weaker on the other side.
In recent years we have witnessed several attempts at similar maneuvers that, in general, resulted in the opposite of the objective sought: first with Cristina Kirchner regarding Macri (in a drift that included the famous “create a party and win the elections” ); then to Macri with respect to Cristina (which culminated in the armed conflict that removed him from power). Then everyone, each in their own way, supported Milei: first the PRO flirted with him because he helped move the debate to the right (although they believed that the final beneficiaries would be them); then the Peronism that pushed Milei (Juan Grabois even denounced that Massa even helped him put together lists) because “it would divide the votes of the right.” It went so well that it beat everyone. Now we see Milei repeat the same mechanism. The government wants Cristina to “play” because they believe it is easier because she is a “tailor-made” opponent.
The most curious thing is that the Government promotes these maneuvers when it is supposedly strong, “at its best moment, increasing its potential.” If so, why does he get into the mud of the thread, gambling on nothing more and nothing less than Kirchnerism? The fact also illuminates a truth about the political consistency of the ruling party.
The question that arises and that will be revealed in the coming weeks is how far the “calculation” and the thread on the side of Peronism and Kirchnerism go: Until the approval of the judges of the Court, an issue on which they have already given very clear signals? positive? Even the political reform promoted by the Government and which is undemocratic in general and proscriptive, particularly with the left?
Let us remember that the Government not only wants to eliminate the PASO, but also deprive the parties of state financing and spaces in the media to disseminate their proposals, and also proposes to expand the limit of private financing for campaigns. That is, he does not want a democracy supervised by the owners of the country (as to a certain extent we have today), but rather a regime directly managed by corporations with the banning of minorities and especially of those who fight against corporations, that is, the left. .
In the coming days or weeks we will see how far this all goes. What we can affirm today is that, beyond their stories and in the context not of a “correlation of forces”, but of a “correlation of weaknesses” in a single day, the “caste” and the “anti-caste” met to wallow in the same mud.
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
