A fragment of the interview that Cristina Kirchner gave Rodis Recalt to The podcast cycle “generation 94” which is also reproduced in its book “Generation 94” (EUDEBA)
Rodis Recalt: What would add to the Constitution (in case of a new reform)?
Cristina Kirchner: (…) Modify the election period. There cannot be every two years, there must be every four years. Accommodate mandates to last four years. We also have to modify the Magistracy Council. The judicial system, actually. Because you set that the presidential system was not attenuated, nor does the Judiciary act in its specific function, the excesses of the Executive Power. Look at what is happening in Argentina with Decree 70, the DNU 70. There is no decree of necessity and urgency that repealed seventy or eighty laws in the history of Argentina and that modifies three hundred. Because there can be no need and urgency to make such a modification of the Constitution. What did justice say? Absolutely nothing. I remember when we sanction the democratization of justice, mostly in both deputies and in the Senate, in less than thirty or forty days, the Court focused and declared it unconstitutional. I think that the issue of what can be declared constitutional or unconstitutional must also be introduced. For example, the last reform that is being made in Mexico. Limit the court. The choice of judges by popular voteand in addition, they eliminated the monarchical rod. Is it possible, is it really something modern and contemporary that someone who can decide on your life, your freedom and your heritage, once it is named, lasts a lifetime? The only power that does that is the judiciary. In other places, for example, the attorney general in the United States is elected by the president and leaves with the president. Here, with current legislation, last for life. That is, we have a monarchical river in one of the powers of the State that, in addition, is the power that has to balance and morigize the excesses that the other two powers can commit, legislative and executive, and we have it with a monarchical river. (…)
Recalt: What was life in Santa Fe? Did he move the three months or were they going?
Cristina Kirchner: No, we were and came. He knew, we were going on Monday nights or Sunday night and returned to the province on Thursdays. (…)
Recalt: In the first episode of the cycle, Carlos Pagni, who was a chronicler of the Convention (remember): “In that conqueror hotel they stopped Nestor and Cristina, and Chacho Jaroslavsky. And as Néstor and Cristina were transnochemers, I finished working at eleven at night and many times we ate all three together. I discovered Nestor and Cristina Kirchner, who were a person with two heads. They were the same. The only discussions that I saw among them were in favor of the same goal. Never with different objectives. ”
Cristina Kirchner: How good that, yes, we were like that. Why nightly? Because in Santa Cruz politics is done at night. At least at the time of us. First, for most of the time in Santa Cruz it darkens at ten o’clock at night. Then, in the morning, the boys to school. And the meetings in the basic units, in the premises, were always at night, because during the day I worked, the kids went to school, you were with the family. At night, when we finished dinner, we went to the premises, to the basic units, and then we went to a bowling alley to have coffee. With which it was very common to be until one or two in the morning and the next day you got up a little later because in Santa Cruz, in winter, before eight or nine in the morning, nobody. It’s seven, eight, nine, ten at night and people are spinning.
Recalt: Were discussions alida?
Cristina Kircher: Yes, we were two very strong personalities. But observation is good. We did not have two different goals. We had different modes or actions, but not objectives. The goal was the same. We disagreed or deferred how to achieve it. A good definition that Pagni gave.
By rn
Image gallery
