The appointment of the new Chief of the Cabinet of Ministers and former Minister of Defense of the government of Cristina Kirchner and Alberto Fernández, with extensive experience and negotiating capacity, highly trusted by the President, a self-proclaimed Kirchnerist and Peronist without contradictions, may seek to consolidate the dialogue Inside the Front of All.
We begin with the speech of President Alberto Fernández at the opening of the legislative year of Congress, what is your evaluation?
For me, it was a very good speech. I would almost say an excellent speech by the President, with three clearly identifiable parts. A first module where the President frames this speech in what we are going through, which is the fortieth anniversary of the recovery of Argentine democracy, installing the longest period in our entire history. He recognizes that having achieved democracy is a collective achievement of the whole of Argentine society, and within that he frames a serious event for Argentine democracy, which was the attempted assassination of the Vice President of the Nation. He asks for speed in the Justice, he asks for speed in the investigation and that those responsible be found, that those responsible be tried, that the masterminds of this fact be found, if any. A second part is what the Constitution asks of you, which is first…
The State of the Nation.
The general state of the Nation. And there sometimes it tends to be boring, because the most eloquent way to objectify management is through numbers. To say one, “I am going to inaugurate in the month of March the 100,000th house that I delivered during my administration, becoming a president who delivered 86 houses per day” and so on. Marking economic growth, the drop in unemployment, housing policy, the growth of investment in public works, investments in science and technology, in education. A fact that is not widely known is that most of the jurisdictions are adding one more hour of class, getting closer to that objective of the National Education Law sanctioned in 2006, which said that it was necessary to go towards double schooling or the extended day in education, and ends a whole part that has to do with the balance of management. A final part, which is the view of the President, which many of us share, on the malfunctioning of the judicial system in Argentina, and specifically of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Clearly, the ruling of the Justice regarding the dispute with the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires over the co-participation was also concluded there, and that will continue the obvious anger of the opposition deputies and senators. But it seems to me that the President was very precise, very accurate, in everything he said. As a novelty, it seemed to me an intelligent, creative way out, so that this section that is usually the most boring, in quotes, would be qualified by who were the specific recipients of the policies that were carried out, and that humanizes the story in some way.
Was it a farewell speech, of balance, the last year of a president in Congress, or was it the prologue of who is a candidate to be reelected and have another presidential term?
Looking at that speech with an electoral perspective that is going to be present throughout this year is not the most appropriate thing to do because, knowing the President, he is very respectful of the institutions and institutes of democracy. The beginning of the parliamentary year is an institute of democracy, and of the largest democracies in the world. The world is watching when the President of the United States delivers the General State of the Nation. So, it seems to me that one should not look at the discourse in any key of these characteristics. The President went to comply with what the National Constitution mandates, and outlined a speech in which he exhaustively complied with the management aspects, spoke of a situational issue that is the malfunctioning of the Judiciary, and framed everything that was happening, all his speech, in a fact that is also important for Argentines, which is the fortieth anniversary of Argentine democracy.
Giving such importance to the institutional nature of the opening of sessions, much more so on the fortieth anniversary of the recovery of democracy, is the absence of Máximo Kirchner an unequivocal sign of internal conflict in the different components of the Frente de Todos?
No, I would try to give a more global answer. The Argentine political system, from forty years ago until now, has mutated from that bipartisanship that it clearly uses between the PJ and the Unión Cívica Radical in 1983, to 2023, that today we have a bicoalitionism, if I am not mistaken how it is said. Coalitions are formed among those who think not the same but among those who think alike, and sometimes some who think not so similar participate. So, when you look today from outside political life, or more coldly, what happens in Argentine politics, the two majority coalitions have internal disputes, they have different views, they have different accents. We are in an election year, perhaps that will also increase this situation. So, it seems to me that each of the situations that are experienced may have a very high stake in that, the differences are expressed in different ways. I don’t want to talk much either because I don’t know, nor has Máximo explained, why he wasn’t there, but I understand that this is what happens to our coalition and what also happens to the opposition, which has differences between its members, and differences among their pre-candidates, or at least their most important pre-candidates. It will be necessary to see how each one of them is accommodating. As a balance, this system of coalitions, which sometimes seems not to be so good that much is discussed within each of the coalitions, is much better than existing coalitions than not existing. That it does not exist would mean a much more partitioned political system, with smaller parties or micro-parties, which later costs a lot to generate stability in the system. And I believe that, regardless of the differences, regardless of the rift, we have a system of two political blocs in Argentina, which give strong stability to the political system. You know who is pro-government and who is in the opposition, then you find nuances within each of the coalitions.
The two coalitions have two sectors with some principle of internal opposition that are more similar to each other, more different from the other. Then the left, which has been growing, is safe from coalitions, and there is the emergence of libertarians. Could one imagine a European-style system, with six forces and that coalitions are built electorally? Are there more similarities between the moderates of each of the coalitions than between those of each of the coalitions and their extremes?
It didn’t seem like it at first. It seems to me that the differences within coalitions are always smaller than between coalitions.
In a crude way: do Massa and Rodríguez Larreta end up looking more alike than Massa and Cristina Kirchner, or Larreta and Patricia Bullrich?
I say again, it doesn’t seem like it in terms of what political practice and political positioning means.
Listen to the full interview on Radio Perfil FM 101.9.
by Jorge Fontevecchia
image gallery
