 |
VERSIÓN ESPAÑOL
¿Todos para uno/una?
La primera pregunta que se hace siempre respecto de cualquier elección es quién ganará, pero en el caso de las elecciones presidenciales del mes que viene, que dan toda la impresión de previsibilidad, no sólo resulta más interesante e importante preguntarse si la triunfadora probable, la primera dama Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, representa la continuidad o el cambio: en varios sentidos, la respuesta a esta pregunta influye en el resultado, planteando las principales dudas sobre quién ganará. La señora de Kirchner lleva las de ganar porque, independientemente del peso abrumador de un gobierno en funciones, puede representar la continuidad y prometer el cambio al mismo tiempo, pero allí radican también los principales problemas posibles.
Lea más
|
|
|
The first question invariably asked about any election is who will win but in the case of next month’s presidential elections, which have every appearance of a foregone conclusion, not only is it more interesting and important to ask whether the probable winner, first lady Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, represents continuity or change — in many ways the answer to this question influences the outcome, presenting the main doubts as to who will win. Mrs. Kirchner stands to win because, quite apart from the overwhelming clout of an incumbent government, she can represent continuity and promise change at the same time but therein also lie the main potential problems. Any doubts about the sustainability of the model can be dispelled by hints at change but Mrs. Kirchner can only change policies by changing her team and those threatened with displacement can be considerably more dangerous than the formal opposition — there is every reason to think that the rash of scandals in the last three months has originated from those circles rather than the nominal opposition, media investigation or simple coincidence. The inclusive politics of co-opting opposition is difficult to defeat from outside but can self-destruct from within because it also creates its own opposition.
October’s vote should not be a foregone conclusion because the last mid-term elections in 2005 (when the Néstor Kirchner presidency was at the height of its success with none of the problems now on the horizon) saw 58 percent of the electorate voting for the alternatives. But perhaps the opposition’s main problem is that none of its many candidates have seen fit to consult that 58 percent but have simply nominated themselves for the presidency with the same institutional disregard as the Kirchners — the only opposition primary of any importance was held by the Radicals in this city and these lack their own presidential candidate.
Fighting an entrenched government at the same level seems a lost cause — instead of concentrating all their efforts on pitting various solo presidential candidacies against a machine, the opposition should go back to 2005 and seek victory at the legislative level by retaining their 58 percent vote. After all, while the government stronghold of Buenos Aires province represents 38 percent of the electorate (comfortably outweighing the cities of this metropolis, Córdoba and Rosario where Kirchner has fared worst in local voting), it will only fill 35 of the 127 Congress seats at stake. In the process the opposition will rebuild parties, which have been completely atomized by the competing narcissisms of presidential candidacies. Any claim to improve institutional quality only becomes credible when the means are institutional.
|
