OpiniĂłn
The intervention
By Ignacio Fidanza
The electoral fail installed in the Peronist coalition the debate on how and when to intervene in the government of Alberto.

The President took on the cost of defeat by handing over his re-election. In any other situation, it would be a greater sacrifice, but he fell short. It is a fact of reality that exposes the specific nature of Argentina's government situation. The Frente de Todos is a Peronist coalition made up of majority partners - Cristina, the governors, the Mayors of the Conurbano suburban belt, and Massa - who have their own political and territorial base that the President lacks.

"We are the ones who will lose. Alberto loses nothing, and when he leaves, his bust will be displayed at the Casa Rosada," said a Kirchnerist leader. An example of the paradox that the ruling party is experiencing is that the President is so weak politically speaking that when mentioning that "he has nothing to lose," he is placed in an unscrupulous state of someone who has already won everything he had to win and needs no more.

Then the idea of intervention arises, which in the midst of a major confusion is being planned in two phases: An immediate step with the resignation of Santiago Cafiero as Chief of Staff, and the departure of Martín Guzmán from the Economy Cabinet following the IMF agreement.

The following translates the reasons attributed to the defeat of the government: The photo of Olivos, plus the economic crisis. Cafiero was the campaign manager and is the head of an administration seen by the government's coalition as dispersed and ineffective. His departure is, therefore, requested.

The issue with the economy is evident. There is lack of clear direction and absence of a plan for stability, which could put a brake on the population's continuous loss of purchasing power. In other words, a brake on poverty is needed.

The crisis adds to the confusion in the Government. Cafiero has denied his departure and a major cabinet change, supposedly urged by Alberto, which leads us to wonder why the President, with the limited characteristics of his real power, would seek to exacerbate an internal confrontation amid a moment of great weakness. That was an issue detected by Cristina, following his re-election launch amid the Olivos photo scandal.

Is it likely that fully investing in initiatives such as the expropriation of VicentĂ­n or the halt of meat exports will give back the vote of the middle class to the Frente de Todos? Could it be the other way around? Could it be that they ended up losing due to those measures, be them in theory or in practice? Is Alberto's moderation an issue or the real issue is that the moderation line was blurred?

However, the confusion is not a monopoly of the Casa Rosada because, when the possible correction is investigated, the idea of radicalization arises as a solution to strengthen the Government and recover votes, in a late remix of the strategy that Nestor Kirchner outlined after his defeat to De Narváez.

Nevertheless, that idea should circumvent a number of questions. Is it likely that fully investing in initiatives such as the expropriation of VicentĂ­n or the halt of meat exports will give back the vote of the middle class to the Frente de Todos? Could it be the other way around? Could it be that they ended up losing with those measures, be them in theory or in practice? Is Alberto's moderation an issue or the issue is that the moderation line was blurred

The great election of Schiaretti, the emergence of Milei, as well as the emergence of Manes and the triumph of Frigerio suggest that Argentina values the possibility of a capitalist and pro-market country with an agricultural base: the idea of growing from the field, not against it.

But in terms of politics, the criticism related to Alberto's tepidity may perhaps make sense. "No one votes using photocopies" is the simplification that sums up the fundamental challenges faced by the Peronist coalition.

The implicit promise of 2019 was the creation of a political instrument that was superior, a centrist one that would leave behind the antagonism that was encouraged by Kirchnerism, but with an experience in the management of power and social sensitivity that belonged to Macrism. Perhaps a part of society understood this Sunday that this strong promise did not materialize. And the government was left in a bad place, in a gray area, in which that dissatisfaction was added to the disillusionment of its own supporters for its "tepidity".

A simple solution by the sector led by Cristina would be to regain the enthusiasm of one's own supporters. We have already experienced that. Now, this could imply a return to the logic of the minority, a comfortable place of certainties, away from the construction of majorities, which require different levels of effort.

This fundamental political contradictions bring us back to the mechanism of Government intervention. Sergio Massa is currently the name that comes up as a solution. Despite the inconvenience of Massa's "thank you, but no" stance, whoever takes over the leadership will have one special challenge: to implement a successful stabilization plan. However, the measures that might be required for the path ahead could perhaps sharpen the contradictions of the current power system even further.  

Post a comment
To submit your comment, you must confirm that you have read and accepted the terms regulation and LPO conditions
Comments
The comments published are the sole responsibility of their authors and the consequences derived from them may be subject to the corresponding legal sanctions. Any user who includes any comment in violation of the terms and conditions regulation in their messages will be eliminated and disabled to comment again.