The challenge of leaving the populism
When Peronism’s government, aims to own the word and the wishes of the entire country. It tends to regard the opposition as “illegitimate” while representing interests alien to the nation. From Juan Peron, to Carlos Menem and Kirchner, dialogue and respect for the separation of powers was not a dimension emphasized by the Peronism in government.
In opposition, the Peronists reverses the roles, it is the government that does not represent the true interests of the country. He thinks that the state has been appropriated by actors who do not deserve it despite being voted. Now, the challenge for Peronism be cut with a long tradition of political culture to be identified with the constant blocking opposition to any government policy, regardless of its merits or problems; is a tradition that moves to behave as the party of “No”, that says no to everything the government does.
This dilemma between government and opposition includes current kirchnerists that if the previous stories are repeated, may be called differently, if the leadership of Cristina Kirchner dissipates. It is clear to many inside and outside of Peronism that the reason for the defeat was not Scioli, but rather the shortcomings of the Kirchnerists administration. Some Kirchnerists continue a mythical narrative outside the government, trying to assert outside the state apparatus which were official policies of memory. In this context, some thinking that will represent the world battles of the 70s.
Cristina Kirchner’s refusal to cooperate with the next president Macri in the transition is a symptom of this binary and away from the complexities and contradictions of history look. After the election, the president presented his government as the main architect of the worldwide military trials without highlight that historical and legal level qualitative difference was in the 80’s The Trial of the Military were no products of kirchnerists. It is true that the continuity of a trial for these crimes of state was entrenched during Kirchner decade but so was the idea that Kirchner victims were heroes who died for the same reason by the president. Besides being impossibly anachronistic notion that belongs to myth, not history.
This view confuses the differences between past and present and promotes the idea that Cristina Kirchner transcends its political present. But as president, already it belongs to the past and not the myth. For her, the figures of Campora, or Peron in exile may be desirable. But situations are not analogous. Cristina Kirchner was defeated in the main democratic process. Through its candidate, his government lost the election. Argentina is not embedded in the opaque world of 70. At that time the division of Peronism included many actors center-right or center-left and others were presented as enemies of parliamentary democracy. Among the latter, the Montoneros and the neo-fascist organization Triple A, supported in fact by Juan Peron and Isabel Peron in their respective presidencies.
Democracy has been strengthened in recent years, and any options or Kirchnerists or Macrists were undemocratic as they were often the last option. In a democracy, the losses can not be apocalyptic. Returning to the realm of history, leaving myths hand, how Argentina will write a new chapter in the history of populism?
This is the main enigma that not only includes the Peronist opposition, but also to Macri and his allies. In terms of government: the dilemma is whether the president-elect explained from politics itself, and its ability to delegative leadership leading populists believe they know better than the people what they want; or conversely if carrying out policies consensus, respecting the division of powers, substantially renovating the area of intelligence. No abuse of presidential decrees, aside crony capitalism, and even allowing for investigation of notorious cases of corruption and the mysterious death of prosecutor Alberto Nisman. Finally, what Macri promote economic expansion policies to combat poverty and promised that was voted or choose to follow the path of his predecessors, vertical and personalistic? If the new president chooses this path will be located away from the world of the great majority of those who voted him as the candidate of change. Beyond the speech, soon we start to see their practical answers to these fundamental questions.