In 1806 Napoleon Bonaparte, after a strategic military triumph, passed Hegel’s house in Germany. But the philosopher, who observed the moment from his window, had a particular interpretation of what had happened. He said that the one who had crossed in front of his home was not a victorious general by any means, but that he “had seen the spirit of the world go by sitting on a horse.” It was a reflection on the unique encounter that sometimes occurs between some powerful individuals and history, where the latter appears “using” those characters: Bonaparte did not make history, but history made Bonaparte.
It is impossible to imagine what Hegel would have thought if on Thursday May 25 they had taken him to the center of the Plaza, surrounded by tens of thousands of Argentines, flags, drums and all the liturgy of Peronist acts. But an idea can be ventured: surely, this time, the philosopher would not have seen “the spirit of the world” in the center of the stage. Cristina Kirchner, with the weight of a poorly performing government on her back, is fading out of Argentine politics, leaving behind her retirement a movement without a compass or powerful candidates. The “boss” -and with her all of Peronism- is looking for successors.
That woman. Peronism – and personalist movements in general, such as Lula in Brazil, Evo Morales in Bolivia or Chávez in Venezuela – have never been good at the logistics of transfers of command. Perón was the leader of the space until his last breath, the same as Néstor, while Menem failed to make a generational transfer. At this point, it could be said that CFK is not in a position to do so either.
“The act in the Plaza was that. For the first time, she put her grandchildren and her family behind her to say: this is my future, that’s it”, says a leader who knows her well. The Kirchnerist ecosystem has already accepted that the boss will not present herself nor will she succeed in enthroning a candidate at the same level as her, which leaves open a long series of questions.
The first is about the future of that space itself, with the alternative of Eduardo “Wado” De Pedro -or, failing that, Axel Kicillof- emerging as a possible candidate to succeed Alberto Fernández. Is Kirchnerism, with candidates who could not pull a single vote beyond those that Cristina herself can bring, preparing to win an election? Or to lose but playing with yours?
If CFK’s 2019 thesis of putting Fernández to expand the space was correct, doing the opposite would indicate that what is sought would be closer to the second question. Kirchnerism, which led the country in four different governments, is now preparing to become a resistance minority, which will not even have a national reach. In the Neuquén and Salta elections, to give two examples, the candidates that La Cámpora cast came in a very distant third place. The only focus of power that it would seem to be able to retain would be the province of Buenos Aires, which explains Máximo Kirchner’s insistence on sending Kicillof to compete in the national election to put Martín Insaurralde in his place, with whom he is the closest friend.
In other words, Kirchnerism is formalizing a reality that has been looming for some time: that they will become a hard core based in the suburbs, which explains why national deputies, senators, and ministers are imagining their future as mayors or councilors. provincial elections, a return to the territory that demonstrates by itself the fragility of the situation and that was also noted in how the governors showed themselves to be ignorant of the national election. It is a moment of historical weakness that Daniel Scioli also personifies: his mere presence in the Frente de Todos internal indicates that CFK’s “finger”, which worked in 2019 and had no objections, no longer has the weight of before.
Swap. A phrase that is heard a lot in the space is that “only Cristina can order” this mess, that she, with some unthinkable masterful move, could devise a way to transfer her votes to someone, manage to make the space grow and, in a miracle , get to make a good choice. But how real is that idea?
It is that there is a line that has been making its way within the movement -and that Matías Kulfas led to a book that has just come out, “A Peronism for the 21st century”-, which maintains that the problem is not only of the protagonist and of the inability to create a successor, but it is much deeper: that the discursive, ideological and space measurement arsenal itself became outdated, old, and that what happened in this government was only the demonstration of this reality. In other words: that the world has changed but that Peronism – which was born 75 years ago, before the internet, the cell phone, the massification of informal and outsourced work, in a context of the rise of trade unionism and in the midst of the Cold War – has not only it did not change with him, but sometimes it seems that he would prefer to deny the passage of time.
Kirchnerism, which had its peak in the early years of this century, does not seem to have delved into this phenomenon sufficiently. A clear example: Máximo, the leader of his largest and most important group, does not have social networks and recently, with his trip to China, he left the country for the first time since he was an adult. It is at this point that the structural problem of Peronism intersects with the leader herself, a point that, on the other hand, has some logic within an ultra-verticalist movement. It is that the one who also had problems reading the times, and who today is fighting for second place in the elections with Javier Milei -the best example of the new spirit of the times that, as all the polls show, won him the young vote-, it was CFK. “In a sense opposed to Perón of 1952, who faced the crisis with initiatives that had an initial negative impact on the workers, but in a frontal manner and explaining the future course of action, CFK chose to comment on the situation with surprising distance and adversity, with no other proposal than to refer to what was done during his own government, under completely different local and international circumstances and omitting the numerous shortcomings that his own government action had generated”, says former minister Kulfas in his book.
So, if this is the case -something that would seem to confirm the lack of originality of CFK’s proposals and ideas in the Plaza de Mayo act and also in all public interventions in the last year-, the vice president not only does not appear for the supposed judicial proscription or, as Jaime Durán Barba maintains, simply because they do not give him the numbers. Perhaps it is something deeper: that she no longer has anything new to offer the Argentina of 2023. This is what the Peronist Guillermo Moreno maintains, for example. “If she could have the solution for Argentina, if she knew what to do with the country, Massa would not be the Minister of Economy. This woman is asking to be left alone, that’s it,” he says, and adds another long-term reflection: “It is the first time that the Peronists are faced with the possibility of destroying the project, it is the first time that the humble and The workers turn their backs on us, and without the workers and the humble, why do you want Peronism?
Here is the crux of the matter. If Kirchnerism did not manage to generate cadres with electoral competence -not only at the national level but also at the provincial and district level- and the movement did not manage to update itself to the climate of the time, what will happen after 2024? Will it survive as a museum piece, as a nostalgic memory of those who comb gray hair? Is it nothing more than a discursive tool used by some mayors of the Conurbano to secure their throne? Or will he be able, already on the plain, to readapt and see the emergence of new leaderships in tune with the times, as Menem and Néstor Kirchner were at the time? “The reality is that political cycles are over and the question is whether Peronism is going to survive Kirchnerism,” says Julio Bárbaro. Can this almost century-old movement adapt? Successors are sought.
