During the intense and colorful election campaign that ended in Argentina with the indisputable victory of Javier Milei, some claim that many of his “ultras” ingredients would end up in the attic because of the pragmatism to be imposed. Could be.
The first obvious fact is that the new ruler should undoubtedly take into account that many of the votes obtained in the provinces – where Milei was “swept away” – are rather an expression of fatigue in the face of the uncontrollable and persistent economic and inflation crisis and in the face of the perception of Corruption in power. And not so much because of identification with climate change denial or opposition to the social functions of the state. Rather, it appears that this dissatisfaction and frustration negatively influenced many to vote for who they viewed as a more outspoken opponent of the status quo.
The second aspect to consider is the importance and impact of some of Milei’s offers during the campaign. Many of these are unviable for constitutional reasons or because they interfere with Argentina’s international obligations. One possible path is that the new government, when installed on December 10, would abandon this tree-like tangle of campaign offerings that point to immediate goals and concrete results and impacts on the budget and society. Starting, for example, with fiscal adjustment and privatizations in a context where the international financial system (e.g. the New York Stock Exchange) appears to have responded positively to Milei’s triumph.
In this context, it is argued, one would immediately start doing things that are different from what was proposed and repeated during the election campaign. Could be. And it wouldn’t be the first time that a candidate actually deleted election proposals. But in any case there would be something left of them. Are they viable?
The analysis and impression of many, myself included, is that most of the suggestions and approaches supported by Milei are not feasible due to an elementary dose of realism. Not only because of its extremism and its unpredictable social consequences, but more concretely and pragmatically because of its confrontation with the constitutional order and its collision with the international system of which Argentina is a part.
Let’s start with the Argentine constitution.
This has been highlighted by prominent Argentine constitutional lawyers such as Raúl Gustavo Ferreyra. The new government would require (Article 30 of the Constitution) the consent of two-thirds of Congress (which Milei does not have) and that this must be done in a convention specifically convened for this purpose.
The text of the Constitution is comprehensive and detailed and amending it is not easy. And it is about issues and topics such as the following: dollarization of the economy, abolition of the central bank, free carrying of arms, sale of human organs, privatization of public spaces and the “destruction or pulverization” of social justice, to name just a few examples. And even shocking is Milei’s astonishing proposal to cut trade relations with Brazil and China because of its impact on foreign relations.
So we go beyond the constitutional barrier into the crucial space of the international.
Regardless of whether they are absurd or not, in any case several of the proposals presented – or diagnoses – would be unfeasible given the international commitments and commitments to which Argentina is a party. I refer here only to some of the most striking, as they contradict clear obligations under international law and core aspects of Argentina’s foreign relations (such as the severance of trade relations with Brazil and China).
For example, what are the implications of something as extreme and untenable as Milei’s denial of global warming? Well, in addition to the unsustainable approach given the abundant scientific evidence on global warming. The constitution establishes clear rights and obligations regarding environmental protection: With the constitutional reform of 1994, Argentina explicitly enshrines environmental protection as an obligation. In fact, the Constitution (Article 41) states that “residents have the right to a healthy, balanced environment suitable for human development” and that authorities “… have the duty to preserve it. The authorities will ensure the protection of this environment.” Right to rational use of natural resources, to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage and biological diversity, and to environmental information and education.” Likewise, the constitutional right (Article 43) to take protective measures against impact on the environment and atmosphere.
Added to this are Argentina’s international obligations, which have been formally and ceremoniously agreed upon. This not only contradicts warming denial, but is also essential to protecting the environment and cannot be constitutionally ignored by the executive branch.
Among the international treaties that have issues such as global warming as a background and that establish inevitable obligations for Argentina, there are numerous instruments such as the following, duly approved by the national Congress: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol, United Nations Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Mercosur Framework Agreement on the Environment, United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Basel Convention, Convention on Biological Diversity , Protocol to the Antarctic Environmental Protection Treaty, Convention on Wetlands of International Importance and Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, among many other international environmental treaties to which Argentina is a party.
Therefore, uncertain times lie ahead as Milei announced just last Monday that a budget adjustment is imminent. As Hugo Otero pointed out in a note in the newspaper La República de Lima this week, the vote of the millions that gave Milei victory has to do with the widespread perception – especially in the inland provinces – of social needs related to very specific issues like food or getting a job.
It could be the content of the landslide vote. And not on vague, confusing and unrealistic topics like some of the loudest in the election campaign. That is, by responding, especially where it received the most votes (in the provinces), as Hugo Otero says, “to the specific emergencies in the areas of health, education, work and the despair that this generates”. This is undoubtedly the crux of the matter.
/p>
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_