While the radicals have come to the conclusion that it would be to their advantage to remain part of Together for Change, For many, the enemy to beat is no longer Kirchnerism, which they believe is dying, but the PRO of Mauricio Macri. It is understood; they all like to underline what they have in common with the European social democrats of decades ago, when they still enjoyed popular support, while the most ardent want to continue fighting against “savage capitalism”, if not against plain capitalism, which their judgment are trying to promote their partners. According to these radicals, the economic, that is, the private sector, must remain firmly subservient to the political; It is an attitude that, in the opinion of many, has made a great contribution to the ruin of the country by depriving it of a powerful productive engine.
If Argentina resembled certain developed European countries, two centrist parties, one left-leaning, the other more right-wing, like the UCR and the Pro, they would alternate in power, but here the natural rivals feel compelled to make common cause in defense of republican democracy. It is not only because, as Macri often says somewhat sarcastically, “all priests want to be pope”, that the radicals are trying to reduce the influence of the PRO which, despite having fewer members than the UCR, ideologically dominates the coalition that formed from the party convention that was held in Gualeguaychú in March 2015.
At that time, the priority was to deal with the totalizing project headed by Cristina Kirchner. The radicals chose to support the candidacy of the mayor of Buenos Aires, believing him to be the best placed to succeed in the presidential elections, but much has changed since then. Encouraged by the failure of Macri’s management and because it seems that Kirchnerism has decided to commit harakiri, they trust that the time has come to put things in their place.
Is the head of the radical convention right Gaston Manes when he says that “the UCR has the best presidential candidates”, thus alluding to his brother, the neurologist Facundo Manes? If what the polls say is taken seriously, there is still not much reason to believe it, but given the ability of radicals to mobilize in support of co-religionists in the primaries, it would not be too surprising if, when the darkrooms finally open up , one of their own will represent Together for Change.
For the UCR, which had become accustomed to presenting candidates merely testimonials that with luck would obtain a handful of votes, it would be an almost miraculous resurrection. Still, a hypothetical radical candidate would have to overcome a handicap that could be significant. While radicals have earned a reputation for being relatively honest and harmless, they are seen by many as congenitally ineffective. Although a history of more than a century makes them proud, in the eyes of others it makes them seem old-fashioned, not to say gray, which would not help them in a country where so many understand that a lot would have to change so that the future was at least a little better than the present.
Perhaps it would be unfair to accuse the radicals of not having learned anything from their own experience or having forgotten anything, as he said of the Charles Maurice Bourbons Talleyrand, but it happens that the failures recorded by the most recent radical governments were due precisely to the fact that they underestimated the malevolence of those who do not respect them and, in one way or another, made life impossible for the local “captains of industry”. Have they updated their thinking enough to be in a position to undertake the major reconstruction work that the country needs, or do they still dream of returning to a past when problems were more manageable?
The situation in which the country finds itself is so serious that those who are convinced that it will be their turn to be part of the next government have to ask themselves if they will be up to the difficult circumstances that will await them. They will have to prevent the country from suffering a catastrophic implosion. As unpleasant as it may be for the self-righteous, everything suggests that there will be no alternative but to apply a “shock policy” that is much stronger than that of Domingo Cavallo and Carlos Menem. If it occurred to them to refuse to try for what they would describe as ethical reasons, the market would do so with its usual brutality, as it did in the final days of 2001 and the first months of 2002 when convertibility fell and, in a climate of Insane jubilation, the political elite celebrated the default.
Radicals are moderate in principle. If the phase of the endless crisis through which the country is going through were less alarming, the caution that characterizes them would be commendable, but in the current context it would only serve to guarantee the failure of an eventual economic management in a country that will not be in conditions to endure more debacles. It is therefore legitimate to ask whether moderation is compatible with a genuine effort to put the economy in order before it is too late. Doubt it, but judging by what they say, radicals like Facundo and Gaston Manesthe governor by Jujuy Gerardo Morales and other prominent men of the party are reluctant to recognize that, until further notice, attitudes similar to those claimed by Peronists who do not share explicit Kirchnerism will have to be shelved.
The same as Horacio Rodríguez Larreta, the Maness want to expand Together for Change incorporating Peronist sectors with “common values” that, they suppose, would allow them to obtain the support of seventy percent or more of the electorate and therefore have the critical mass of formal support that they would need to carry out any reform program. In theory, the proposal sounds good, but what they are effectively asking for is that those responsible for the catastrophic disaster that has devastated the country, that is, the members of the national political class, join forces to undo what they have done.
Would what they are proposing work? Or is it that an enlarged coalition would turn out to be a copy of Cristina’s improvised scheme to win an election by offering the electorate a combination of presumed centrists with militants of a very different mentality? Despite those who want to put together a new front of almost everyone headed on this occasion by a radical, it would most likely be that among the newcomers from Peronism there would be some who would dedicate themselves to frustrating the initiatives of those determined to cure the country. of easy populist that has caused so much damage.
Javier Milei’s preaching against the “political caste” has benefited him to such an extent that there are those who see him as one more presidential candidate because many believe him guilty of what has happened to the country. Although it should not be an all-or-nothing question, it is difficult for the electorate to distinguish between those politicians who would like to defend the populist “model” and those who are aware that it has irretrievably expired and it is urgent to replace it with an order more appropriate for the times. they run. There are so many opportunists who occupy places on the lists of electoral candidates that not even the most experienced are in a position to foresee what they will do if they manage to get into significant positions.
Everywhere, the political class tends to act like a closed corporation whose members put the interests of the group to which they belong before those of the rest of society. To prevent it from becoming completely independent, in different democratic countries rules have been introduced that in theory should serve to reduce the distance between ordinary mortals and the political elites, but in many places, they have managed to stay away from popular pressure because, they insist, there are problems which are so complicated that it would be absurd to suppose that the ordinary citizenry is capable of understanding them. A good example of this phenomenon has been provided by the European Union where the notorious “democratic deficit” contributed to the departure of the British.
Argentine politicians have more reasons than their European or North American counterparts for wanting not only to preserve but also to make even more valuable the privileges that they have been able to accumulate over the years, because in what they call “el llano” there are fewer opportunities to ambitious characters who are determined to stand out. Today, what remains of the private sector is so weak that it would be difficult for those reluctant to become experts in regulated markets to secure a decent income and the social prestige they think they deserve. The same can be said of many other activities, which has contributed to making politics an option for individuals who aspire to make their way without being attracted to any particular vocation. Needless to say, such characters feel satisfied with an order that has allowed them to enjoy income and privileges, such as charters, which protect them against the ungrateful vicissitudes that are making life so hard for most of their compatriots.
