Argentine Agustina Giraudy is Professor of Political Science at the American University in Washington D.C. Exclusively for LPO, she analyzes the arrival of Javier Milei to the Argentine government and warns about the long-term impact of the new right-wing leaderships.

Latin America and Europe are settings of a resurgence of right-wing forces. For what is this?

In Europe, the resurgence of right-wing forces is mainly linked to concerns about immigration, with the rejection of the arrival of more people, whether from Africa or Latin America. This feeling is also reflected in the United States, where some see demographic changes, driven by the growing Latino population, altering the social composition of the country. In Latin America, however, immigration does not seem to be the main unifying factor. Although there are cases, such as the migration of Haitians to Chile or the problems related to Venezuelans in Colombia, I do not see that immigration is the central element that unites these right-wing movements.

"Vemos con preocupación el auge del populismo que se basa en figuras mesiánicas"

In the Latin American context, the resurgence of the right seems more an ideological reaction to the wave of leftist governments in the 2000s. Governments such as those of Kirchner, Lula, Tabaré Vázquez and Bachelet in Chile performed well initially during the commodity boom, but faced difficulties when the economy weakened. The emergence of right-wing governments seems to be a counter reaction to the shortcomings of left-wing governments. I do not see a dominant anti-immigration component, but rather a conservative cultural change, with anti-abortion and anti-minority rights positions present in figures such as Bolsonaro in Brazil, Cast in Chile and more subtly in Milei in Argentina. Currently, Milei's priority is economic recovery, and if he focuses on that agenda and is successful, he is likely to maintain support. However, Implementing a more conservative cultural agenda could open fronts and generate divisions, since the majority of its followers seem to be more interested in economic improvements than in cultural and social issues.

LPOJulián Ortiz

What impact do these leaderships have in their countries?

What is interesting is that the impact of these leaders is not limited to their time in office, but endures. Trump, for example, made his mark by reforming the courts, influencing long-term policy. This strategy of undermining democratic institutions from inside does not necessarily translate into coups, but its effects are subtle and long-lasting. Trump's influence extends even to the state level, forming coalitions with conservative states and perpetuating practices that limit of the vote. I am investigating these dynamics, highlighting how democratic erosion, driven by leaders like Trump, has significant impacts at both the national and subnational levels.

For example in my country, Argentina, after so many years of living abroad, I noticed that at first people tended to minimize Milei, possibly because they had not yet directly experienced the consequences of his proposals.

The idea that political leaders say a lot during the campaign but deliver little seems to persist, as happened with Trump and Bolsonaro, who, according to some people, were transparent in their intentions and kept their promises.

In Latin America, the emergence of right-wing governments seems to be a counter reaction to the deficiencies of left-wing governments. I do not see a dominant anti-immigration component as in Europe or the United States, but rather a conservative cultural change.

In the case of Argentina, can a president without a political structure have a long-term impact?

There is a crucial difference between Trump and Milei: the latter lacks a party of his own and is associated with the PRO, instead of having the party structure that Trump had with the Republicans. Unlike Trump, Milei does not have authoritarian governors or the support of evangelicals, which makes him less limited in some ways. Furthermore, he does not have a religious backing in his coalition, it's an important difference.

"Trump representa el fin de la democracia, como puede pasar en la Argentina con Milei"

Compared to Bolsonaro, another similar leader, Bolsonaro has strong evangelical and military support, he gave significant power to the military in his government. They both share the characteristic of being unfiltered characters and externalize what people usually think in private.

Furthermore, Bolsonaro and Milei primarily appeal to young and male voters, a crucial generational shift that impacts their perception of issues such as dictatorship. These voters, who grew up in democracy, are the ones who will shape the future political landscape. The key difference for Milei is that he must tackle the task of rebuilding a country in crisis, and any mistake could affect his support. On the other hand, in Brazil and in the United States, they did not face the immediate need to solve economic problems, making it easier to maintain support with more polarized discourses.

LPOJulián Ortiz

Is economy enough to define the success (or not) of a president?

Not in the United States. If you ask me about Argentina, yes, because economy permeates all aspects of life. For example, if you say that Milei improved the economy, I think the majority of those who didn't vote for him could still elect him.

Here is a famous phrase: "Wall Street versus the real street." Although stocks continued to rise during the Trump administration, benefiting the richest, ordinary people did not experience wonderful years; they weren't terrible, but they weren't spectacular either. In addition, Trump had to deal with the pandemic, which turned out to be quite disastrous. Although the economy improved, it did not improve as much as during Obama's second presidency when he faced the famous economic crisis of 2008 and managed to stabilize it, leaving a good economy for Trump.

Trump made his mark by reforming the courts, influencing long-term politics. This strategy of undermining democratic institutions from inside does not necessarily translate into coups d'état, but its effects are subtle and long-lasting..

What do you think is the role of the United States for a Latin American president?

One of the significant transformations in Latin American relationships is that China surpassed the United States in importance. Currently, investments and loans come largely from China, completely displacing American influence in the region. Although the United States retains some relevance through funds and continues to be an important ally in the negotiations, the Latin American region lost its priority in the attention of the United States, except for cases such as Venezuela, Colombia, due to drug issues, and Mexico.

Despite the common perception that the United States remains a central figure in Latin America, the reality is different. American attention is focused on other regions, such as Israel, Ukraine, China and Russia, while Latin America, including Brazil, lacks a prominent position on its radar. The only influence that the United States could exert is as a reference country, especially for Central America, where people still seek to study or work. Although cultural exchanges are important, the United States faces no competition in that regard, as a mix of admiration and resentment persists in the region, which is not seen in the relationship with China.

LPOJulián Ortiz

As a university professor, do you perceive interest in your students about Latin America?

Students are interested, but at the same time they are shocked by the relationship between the United States and Latin America. This perception is because, in the past, American influence in the region, especially during the 1960s and 1970s, was negative, marked by coups d'état and damaging political intervention, particularly supporting military regimes. The US intervention in the 1990s through financial institutions also left a negative impression on those on the other side of the equation.

"Tenemos la obligación, en defensa de nuestros intereses, de parar el desmantelamiento de la democracia"

Students show a dual perspective: they would like the United States to have more interference, but not in the negative way it had in the past. They struggle to imagine how the United States could intervene in a positive way, perhaps conveying democratic values. However, during the Trump administration, the global perception of the United States as a moral reference for democracy was affected, leading students to rethink this aspect.

Although the students are respectful, the majority of those who attend my university are liberal and prefer a non-interference stance. If there has to be intervention, let it be in a positive way, in contrast to past interventions that left a negative mark on the region.

Bolsonaro and Milei attract mainly young and male voters, a crucial generational change that impacts their perception of the dictatorship. The key difference for Milei is that he must tackle the task of rebuilding a country in crisis, and any mistake could affect his support.

And in this context, does Trump have a chance of winning?

Many people maintain that the judicial time will not be enough to activate the cases and that they will interfere with the electoral process. Within the Republican Party, the former president remains the most popular. Especially in less democratic states, the party failed to create another candidate with Trump's weight. He managed to consolidate the judicial structure in his favor before leaving office, placing a record of judges in the lower courts, a feat that went relatively unnoticed but has a significant impact, since these courts determine many important aspects.

If Trump wins again, the prospect is worrying as it could be interpreted as validation of his belligerent and disruptive approach. His political style is confrontational, and if he returns to power, he is likely to intensify his actions. This scenario could reinforce Trump's image as an unstoppable leader, despite facing impeachment trials and maintaining strong support from his followers, even after his controversial and proven participation in the attack to the Capitol.

LPOJulián Ortiz

What can we learn from this transformation to preserve and strengthen democracy in the future?

Democracy is not having a good time, the situation is quite complicated. I always tell my students that I attended university in the 90s, a time that represented the apogee of substantial changes and positive transitions. It was a period in which Latin America and Africa experienced transformations after the difficulties of the 1980s. The fall of the Berlin Wall symbolized a democratic radiance throughout the world, and I remember feeling like a young adult witness to what was happening.

In my classes I come across data that shows an increase in the trend towards authoritarianism instead of democracy in several countries. This contrasts with the time when, being the same age as my current students, I was optimistic and believed that the world was moving towards the consolidation of democracy.

It is surprising to have to convey a perspective opposite to what I experienced in my youth. I warn them not to take democratic gains for granted, as the current situation suggests that democratic rights may abruptly fade away. The key lesson I try to teach is the need to acquire the awareness that rights are not acquired permanently and that their preservation is not guaranteed: we can lose them in the blink of an eye.

Translator: Bibiana Ruiz.