In a few years now, it has become increasingly common for actors in the political world to lightly reiterate the importance of “institutions working”, only to later ignore them – or worse yet, weaken them – for the sake of their own agendas, normally focused on tuning with the majority sentiment as interpreted by the polls, not in promoting good public policies.
An emblematic case has been the support in Congress for early withdrawals of pension savings from the AFPs. Different institutions -the State and civil society- have expressed their majority on the inconvenience of this policy for various reasons. In the Senate Constitution Committee, without going any further, the invited experts and authorities delivered a series of arguments to oppose the fourth withdrawal currently under discussion – from the damage to current and future pensions, to impacts on the financial market and at the level of macro-, despite which the initiative was approved and continued on its way to the Chamber.
Now the Financial Stability Council, which is made up of the heads of the Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank, the Superintendency of Pensions and the Commission for the Financial Market, has done the same, noting more pronounced financial effects than in previous withdrawals, which ” It would put at risk the recovery of the economy after the Covid-19 crisis and would increase the uncertainty regarding its future ”.
The reasons that were argued for previous withdrawals – in essence, justified in view of the collapse of income due to the pandemic – have been left behind thanks to the economic reactivation, as well as the reasons for providing state economic aid with universal criteria and not focused. In fact, specific opposition figures have explained their change of position towards the rejection of the fourth withdrawal with precisely that argument.
Parliamentarians who continue to support this initiative seem to want to ignore both expert opinion and empirical evidence. It is a poor way of doing politics.