The libertarian leader Diego Valenzuela was sworn in last week as a Buenos Aires senator after leaving his position as mayor of Tres de Febrero, but in a matter of hours he asked for a leave of absence from his bench, in a decision that was suggested by the Casa Rosada and that revives the debate on the so-called “testimonial candidacies.”
Valenzuela, a historical ally of Patricia Bullrich and close to President Javier Milei, assumed his seat in La Plata on Monday and before taking effective office he requested the license that allows him to temporarily renounce his legislative functions. The move occurs at a time when his name is being heard as a possible appointee to head the new National Migration Agency, an organization that recently became dependent on the Ministry of Security.
According to legislative sources, Valenzuela had the option of requesting a license now or at the beginning of the ordinary sessions, in March, but the Government’s call accelerated the decision. In a few hours, the former communal chief went from being sworn in as a senator to formally presenting himself outside the body, leaving the door open to occupy an executive position in the national government.
Valenzuela’s move once again brings to the fore the debate that the libertarian space itself promoted during the campaign: criticism of testimonial candidacies. Milei and other leaders of La Libertad Avanza maintained that they would not support politicians who only sought to “testify” without exercising the position for which they were elected. However, this episode joins other recent cases—such as those of Diego Santilli and Manuel Adorni—in which political figures chose to become eligible but gave up on actually occupying their seats, while planning to play other roles within the administration or their parties.
In the case of Santilli, after his election as a national deputy in 2023, he ended up resigning from his seat shortly after taking office, which generated criticism from different sectors for considering the maneuver as an instrumental use of the vote. Adorni, for his part, defended his own testimonial candidacy in the City of Buenos Aires, ensuring that it was not a “fraud” despite not assuming the position for which he was elected.
The movements of these leaders highlight a discrepancy between the discourse of rejection of testimonial candidacies and the practice of using them as a platform to access other spaces of power, whether within Congress or in the executive administration. In this context, Valenzuela’s experience not only reactivates this controversy, but also opens questions about how the unwritten rules of Argentine politics are interpreted today in the face of personal ambitions and party strategies.
