Long before Persian Emile talk about staying in power for twenty years, the idea had already occurred to the general Juan Carlos Onganía. In 1970, when the Montoneros they had just made their presentation in partnership with the kidnapping and murder of General Pedro Eugenio AramburuOnganía bleached the necessary requirement to finish executing its “three times” revolutionary, the economic, the social and the political: twenty years. He had four. The Military Junta considered it a delusion and dismissed him on the spot.
A fervent anti-communist, a Catholic nationalist devoted to the National Security Doctrine, Onganía was the dictator who incubated the years of lead. He dissolved the political parties, closed Congress, sent the best Argentine scientists into exile, implemented censorship and at the same time compromised with a part of the Peronist trade unionism, to which he offered the “law” that universalized social works and made available of single unions the health coverage of workers today in force. Historical detail that many people forgot but millionaire unionists remember well.
After the Cordobazo, a multi-faceted popular insurrection not alien to the freezing of wages, Onganía’s sacred leitmotif, “order”, vanished. But to proclaim presidential longevity he still wielded financial credentials: in all of 1969 inflation was 7.6 percent and GDP grew 6.9 percent. Poverty did not exceed 3 percent.
The next ruler who complained that his time in power frustrated his contributions was José Alfredo Martínez de Hoz. And that the military had him five years as a super minister who did and undone (much more was what he undid) at will. Single Domingo Horse I was going to exceed it in duration (five and a half years with Menem).
After 1981, every time Martínez de Hoz was asked if he had not made a self-criticism for what his policies caused to the national industry and in general to the country, he answered that self-criticism is a Marxist word, that the real problem that he had it was that he lacked time. And that from Lorenzo Sigaut (his successor, with Viola) the model, unfortunately, was not continued.
Of course, before Pérsico, Martínez de Hoz and Onganía had associated their respective transformative ambitions with the need for extended terms and abhorred, each in their own way, alternation, staying in power for decades and annihilating any pendulum setback it was already made up. Monarchical legitimacy founded on the hereditary succession of the crown, without going any further, was considered for life, not for others to interrupt. In the Roman republic at first the position of dictator could be held for six months, but in 45 BC to Julius Caesar it occurred to him to save the handover ceremonies by adding an adjective: dictator perpetuus. A few centuries later there were cases of Napoleon bonaparte, first consul for life even before he was crowned emperor, the generalissimo Francisco Franco, Alfredo Stroessner and so many others.
Persian may want to tell us that he is not inspired by those stinking and soulless right-wingers (including Julius Caesar, perhaps), the anti-people, but the conceptual depths of the progressive guys from Open Letter. Eleven years ago, the then ideological provider of Kirchnerism said: “no setback is acceptable” because “the people will find in the memory of their past struggles the strength to resist any attempt at conservative restoration.” Then, whip in hand, the so-called intellectuals warned: “There is no going back that can be tolerable, there is no interruption that we consider viable.” Visiting that 2010, Hugo Chavez he took the microphone as he left the Bicentennial dinner on the esplanade of the Casa Rosada and endorsed: “the new times have been unleashed in Argentina, there is no going back.”
This terminology of revolutionary resonances, the idea of an enlightened imposition based on ´I am the people´ and it will not be admitted that others come and make us back down, is at first glance incompatible with plurality. It kicks with democracy, in which, indeed, some are more conservative, others more progressive, there are also more serious, less serious, in addition to other infinite nuances, litigation that is settled through the vote that plants in the government, for one or two shifts, to the most voted until there are elections again and the possibility of changing is refreshed.
But the booming revolutionary terminology does not have a Castroist, Chavista sound or anything like that: it is very Peronist. It can be left or right depending on the time. Expropriation or privatization. Raising causes that anger the Church or asking God for help (that depends on the Chief of Staff who is on duty). Angry anti-imperialist or in season of carnal relations.
Peron he used to go in and out of democracy as much as he threatened to be the leader of a revolution. “The Peronist revolution has ended,” he announced on July 15, 1955, a month after the Plaza de Mayo bombing; Now a new stage is beginning that is of a constitutional nature, without revolutions, because the permanent state of a country cannot be the revolution ”. He then marked the moment for it to be well understood: “I stopped being the head of a revolution to become the president of all Argentines, friends or adversaries.” He did not serve much as the president of all Argentines because two months later he was overthrown.
So that Persico, who serves as secretary of Social Economy in the Fernández government, did not skid last week when he said that the Peronist-Kirchnerist government needs twenty years, a concept he said he took from Nestor Kirchner. It simply reminded us that Peronism, including its Kirchnerist appendage, is not only chameleonic with a broad spectrum in all that is principles but also in terms of a political system of preference.. And for some reason now, right now, he thought it appropriate to reveal all its defects to democracy together, starting with the temporary limit that it imposes on those who govern and the unnecessary generosity with those who are not the people and take power just by winning. elections.
It does not seem to form a revolution worthy of perpetuating the fight against the entry of capitalism’s vaccines, the closure of schools, the festival of subsidies, the supposed fight with the IMF while Macri provides in Miami or the distribution of soft loans, refrigerators, graduate trips, whatever. Persico’s rationale for asking for twenty more years (now there are barely two) is that those who interrupt undo what they do (interrupting is not ironic, it was in the Open Letter documents: no “interruption” will be accepted they wrote).
“Argentina goes from tumble to tumble, we build a hospital and the other one comes and does not supply the supplies,” explained Pérsico, a government official who closed the airport in Dovecote, dismantled the electronic file that allowed detecting acts of corruption and eliminated the simplified corporations, among other laudable measures that came from the previous government, not to mention the finished houses that Alberto Fernandez reopened.
It does not seem to form a revolution worthy of perpetuating the fight against the entry of capitalism’s vaccines, the closure of schools, the subsidy festival, the supposed fight with the IMF while Macri provides in Miami or the distribution of soft loans, refrigerators, graduate trips, whatever.
What perhaps we should pay special attention to is the moment in which Persian renews the proposal of staying twenty years. What is undemocratic consists in subordinating popular sovereignty to a higher cause and doing so on the threshold of a highly probable electoral defeat. Speaking today from the government in the presence of the president and the son of his vice-presidential tutor that the ruling party should govern uninterruptedly until 2041 means from now on winning the presidential elections of 2023, 2027, 2031, 2035 and 2039. Or perhaps supplant them by an automatic, hereditary reelection mechanism or by means of a new Constitution that provides that Argentina can only be governed by Peronism-Kirchnerism, because it is the only one that represents the people.
The former political scientist “6, 7, 8” Edgardo Mocca he propped up Persian. He wrote in El Uncover that “the alternation turned into a neoliberal totem, far from sustaining democracy, endangers it by hiding the conflict inherent to every human community.”
To confuse I was already Juan Grabois, who in defense of this new transcendent nonsense of Persico (the previous one consisted of calling a march on July 9 in defense of the government of Alberto Fernández, because he was being attacked by the government of Cristina Fernandez) compared the case with that of Angela Merkel, the most prestigious leader in the world. Merkel was elected Chancellor of Germany since 2005 in successive elections in accordance with the rules of that parliamentary republic (which, although they come from 1949, do not resemble the Peronist Constitution), forming dynamic coalitions.
But we are not in 2005 or 2007 in Germany facing an electoral defeat for Merkel saying that she must last two decades for Germany to be happy. Planning a perpetuation and having governed for 16 years in a fluid democratic regime is not the same.
Besides, he already explained it Anibal Fernandez, Germany has poorer than Argentina. We cannot compare ourselves to countries of that ilk.
Now we only need to know if Persico’s idea goes hand in hand with a victory in November, with a defeat, with another political catastrophe, as Cristina Kirchner said, or if it goes with everything.