Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has perfected in recent months its role as custodian of the heritage of the golden years of the Kirchnerism. In his vision, the three presidencies of the period 2003-2015 constitute the obligatory reference to govern the present. In the past lies the eternal key to organizing political action. Any deviation reflects the inability to understand the ABCs of statecraft in key “nac&pop&progressive”.
CFK has taken over the local franchise of the “End of History” brand made famous by Francis Fukuyama globally. He carries out his task by exercising the right to veto over the elections and decisions of Alberto Fernandez. The president, who at the beginning of the pandemic enjoyed an 80% positive image and was presented by his fans on social networks as “Captain Beto”, cannot now ignore the existence of a higher rank than his. Not in the formality, but yes in the facts. The latest proof of this is observed on the weekend of the resignation of Martín Guzmán.
After Guzmán’s departure from the Ministry of Economy, surgically presented during the tribute to CFK to Juan Domingo Perón in Ensenada36 hours of frantic versions were unleashed that concluded in the name of Silvina Batakis to occupy the fifth floor of the Palacio de Hacienda. The choice of the official was evaluated according to the taste of the palate of the President of the Senate. But she will be able to argue, in this and other cases, that the choice was made by the president. It is her way of trying to protect herself from an eventual spiraling of the crisis and maintain ambiguity regarding the government of which, curiously, she is a part and distances herself from it.
The members of the front of all they operate by the principles of anticipatory influence: they proceed according to what they think she wants. It will be finally, by virtue of the results that “the Boss” will dictate her verdict in this regard. Although most of the “officials who don’t work” have already resigned, Cristina is far from satisfied. Perhaps because she is the first to be clearly aware that, beyond proper names, the crisis in Argentina requires substantive changes that, if applied, would prove that history never ends and that the future archives experiences and biographies.
