Opinion Sur Joven

Strange things are happening in Argentina. However, this is nothing but the logical consequence of a process that started in 2001, when the middle-class demonstrations’ slogan was “que se vayan todos” (in English, something like “politicians go home”).

Here’s a brief description of the problem. When mature democracies choose the politicians that will represent the people in the congress or the government, they tend to choose political positions or ideas. For instance, in November 2008 the United States decided whether they wanted their country to maintain its neoconservative model, or go for a more liberal model. The Republican Party represented the first position, whereas Democrats the latter. The Democratic Party went through harsh primary elections between Hillary Clinton and the current president of the US, Barack Obama; therefore, it also chose between two models: a more moderate model, and a more progressive one. That is, citizens who were willing to vote for Democrats were able to choose how deep a change they wanted regarding George Bush’s neoconservative model.

It’d be naive to think the presidential elections in the US were only determined by ideological disputes. Innumerable additional factors influenced the fact that Barack Obama won the elections: that he’s black, that he’s a cool candidate, that he attracted young people’s votes because of his close relationship with technology, that many people disliked Hillary because of her “social climber” reputation, that McCain is old, the crisis, Obama’s smile, Obama’s chest, Obama’s Blackberry, that Obama is black but no so much... To sum up, the candidate’s personality helped his political project and gave him the additional votes he needed to be elected president, but had he been someone else, in no other way would the difference have been so wide. Maybe, instead of getting 52.9% of votes ―as Obama did―, he or she would have obtained 48.3%, as Kerry in 2004, and would have lost the election. But his or her percentage would have been high all the same. Therefore, less than five points stand between an excellent (and winning) Democrat candidate and a mediocre and losing candidate.

Political parties and projects are history in Argentina. There are candidates only. PRO is a center-right political front that managed to win the Government of Buenos Aires, Argentina’s capital city. It got 45% of the votes in the election for Mayor in 2007, and 60% on the second ballot. Its leader, Mauricio Macri, holds a positive image among the local citizens, and most of them support his government.

However, they aren’t willing to vote for his political front over the next elections in June. According to polls, they would only be willing to do it if the list is headed by his Deputy Mayor, Gabriela Michetti. If she resigned from her office ―which she holds since 2007― and ran for national Congress representative, 40% of Buenos Aires citizens would vote for that list. If she didn’t, her party could obtain less than 14%, just as it happened at the 2007 legislative elections. Michetti resigned from her position on April 20 to become a candidate.

Something similar happens with another opposition party in the city of Buenos Aires The front led by Elisa Carrió started off with 8% vote intention for a list headed by a prestigious ―though little-known― economist called Alfonso Prat Gay. Instead, if Elisa Carrió headed the list, the party would have started off with a 25% vote intention. So now they’ve added her to the list ―in the third position― to do better at the polls.

Again, something similar occurs in Buenos Aires province. The ruling party, Kirchnerist Peronism, only manages to succeed at polls if its list is headed by former Argentine president ―and current president Cristina Fernández’s husband― Néstor Kirchner, or by the province’s current governor, Daniel Scioli. The latter will never take office if elected, simply because he’s already a governor. Surveys indicate that people would be willing to vote for someone who will never take office. This phenomenon of running for a position and never exercising it has been called “candidatura testimonial” (testimonial candidacy).

Why does this happen in Argentina? It happens for several reasons. First, because the political parties system was destroyed eight years ago. Argentina’s main parties used to be the Justicialist Party (PJ) and Unión Cívica Radical (UCR), which maintained the system in order. And although both parties had internal issues, during elections they’d remain seemingly united before society. The election of a bad candidate could make the party gain or lose some points, but never take it from a 40% vote intention to 13%; oscillations were lower.

Argentina’s politicians look good in front of the cameras and that gives them the chance to become candidates. They don’t represent political positions and projects, but their own micro-entrepreneurships. Each politician arranges his or her own party and builds alliances for a sole election.

On the other hand, the phenomenon grows with the population’s generalized apathy, who doesn’t even know what the upcoming elections are for. A legislative election will be held on June, in order to choose half the members of the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate’s. All provinces and the capital city will vote for Congress representatives; instead, only a few will vote for senators. Besides, local legislatures will be renewed. In the case of the House of Representatives, the fact of who heads the list ―especially in large districts― is irrelevant, since the election system is proportional. For instance, the City of Buenos Aires elects 13 representatives: a legislator is obtained every 7% of votes, therefore the main members of the list are guaranteed their seats. [1] Therefore, depending on the voting percentage, the election decides how many of the last candidates (the ones holding the lowest positions on the list) will enter the Congress. Those who believe they are voting for Carrió, Michetti or Ibarra aren’t actually voting for them, but for the political front they represent. They will become representatives anyway; the citizens are actually voting for the candidates at the bottom of the list. As long as the population doesn’t understand this, it’s impossible for Argentina to rebuild a solid, reliable party system to eliminate personalism and create a Nation project that’s sustainable in time.

Matías is deeply against Kirchnerism. He disagrees with most of the actions of the current Argentine government. Although he acknowledges some important measures, such as judging and punishing former dictators of the latest dictatorship, he can’t stand the political use the government makes of that measure.

On the other hand, he is a bit fond of the former Mayor of Buenos Aires, Aníbal Ibarra. He always thought his administration was good, and he really disliked the way he was dismissed from the government: according to Matías, he was impeached for a tragedy he was not responsible for. Ibarra is today running for national representative, leading his own progressive front.

While talking about the elections, Matías asked me if I thought his voting for Ibarra was right. I told him I don’t think so. Ibarra can’t be his own candidate. That is: I have nothing against that candidate or his political project, and I recommended many other people to vote for him. But not Matías. Ibarra (or the political front he represents) isn’t the right candidate for him.

Ibarra may have been a good Mayor for the city, or at least he was in Matías’s opinion. However, that politician was ―until a couple months ago― in favor of the ruling national party (Kirchnerism). His sister Vilma, his main political ally, almost always voted in favor of the national government’s projects in the Congress, even the most unpopular measures. Therefore, the representatives in Ibarra’s list are potential allies of the ruling national government. And that’s not what Matías wants.

For Matías, Ibarra would be an excellent candidate if he ran for Mayor of the capital city, but this year’s elections are national, so national problems must be focused on. Because, ultimately, those who win will have to adopt a position in the Congress regarding the national government’s measures.

This is a good example to describe some criteria when it comes to voting. If citizens are in favor of the Argentine government’s measures, they must vote for the government’s list whether they like the faces, gestures and ideas of the candidates heading the list or not. If, on the contrary, the citizens dislike the national government’s measures, they must look for a political front that matches their ideas; once they find that front, they must vote for it, whether they like the faces of those heading the list or not.

The problem is that politicians pay more attention to their own images than to generating collective fronts or projects. In Argentina we’re used to talking about Peronism, Menemism, Kirchnerism, Macrism… Very few politicians aim at creating a project that transcends them.

It is their responsibility to end these confusions. It is not possible or serious that, in a modern democracy, winning an election requires resorting to the same candidates over and over. It is not serious that in Argentina we all know beforehand that the elected candidates will not exercise the positions they’ll be elected for; it is not serious that a vicepresident or a deputy governor leaves his or her current position and runs for another one…

And although it’s not serious either that most citizens don’t quite understand what they are voting for, the biggest responsibility for this relies on politicians. They are the ones in charge of creating solid political parties to provide a clearer scenario for the electorate. They are the ones in charge of creating political fronts transcending the men and the names.

It’s time to rebuild the political parties. Only then will we have a more solid and lasting democracy where we can really debate proposals, where the candidates’ faces and charisma are just accessories and not the main subject of the debate.