It lasted a few seconds, but it was enough. The woman who took the stage and rebuked the Buenos Aires governor in the middle of an event in Brandsen last Thursday helped make several things clear. On the one hand, the story.
To the cry of "Don't lie anymore, the hospital has no doctors", "The children do not learn anything in school", Fernanda, -"an ordinary citizen", as she defined herself- struck at the heart of the recently initiated campaign of Axel Kicillof for his re-election. Just days ago the Province had released the results of the Learn tests that, according to disseminated, showed that primary school children had recovered the level of knowledge prior to the pandemic, with truly amazing figures. Experts, however, strongly questioned the method used and the striking improvements recorded. Guillermina Tiramonti, for example, told Clarín: "In a context of many problems of absenteeism of students and electoral emergencies, these results do nothing more than pay our traditional distrust of the data produced by the Government."
Following to the letter the manual of the perfect kirchnerista, Kicillof took advantage of the irruption of the neighbor on stage to overact and victimize himself, in his style, more gross than subtle or reasoned: "After what happened in our country, I will say something: I know that if I suffer an attack I can happen to Cristina, that is not even going to be investigated. Knowing that a part of the Justice, which is a judicial party, that when things happen to Peronism they are not investigated", to add, in a very unhappy formulation: "And now they also get involved in the date of the provincial elections, in the distribution of resources ... That's my concern, not the people..."
In turn, Sergio Uñac, the governor of San Juan who intended to go for a new term in his province, was also victimized, an attempt to re-re that stopped the Supreme Court, appealing to the unconstitutionality of the claim, considering that it is contrary to the "republican pattern of government" and that, as happened in previous cases, the Court acted "in fulfillment of the role granted to it by the National Constitution in order to reconcile the rules of federalism with the republican system."
In case there were any doubts, the judges recalled that "the political history of Argentina is tragically rich in institutional experiments that – with greater scope and success – tried to force – in some cases to make them disappear – the republican principles established by our Constitution."
Uñac, ignoring all the considerations established by law and doctrine, made his own interpretation, as it could not be otherwise and spoke of "an end that we could all foresee: the Court subjugating any feature of federalism and violating the autonomy of San Juan." In the same sense, the president, and professor of Law, Alberto Fernández, opined: "Once again, he said, the Supreme Court interferes in the democratic and autonomous process of the provinces," and accused the Court of "weakening democracy."
In the same partisan path as Uñac but not so much, the former governor and current vice president of the Chamber of Deputies, José Luis Gioja, had blamed the current governor by putting in black and white that "he knew he could not be a candidate, we told him in all languages, we told him that it could not be, to simplify things, that has a little bit of greatness." That is.
Fatness is not bloat, says the lore, and greatness is not megalomania. If everything depends on the glass with which you look, as the saying goes, it is very curious the magnifying glass used by the government and the conspicuous representatives of the ruling party to try to defend the indefensible and to see a conspiracy at every step. In full exercise of power, however, they are always presented as victims of dark dealings and interests. No matter how much reality insists on proving otherwise, as is the case with Congress, and especially the Senate, dedicated almost exclusively, for three and a half years, to attend to the judicial agenda of the vice president.
Specialist in political discourse and crisis management, the Mexican Luis Antonio Espino published some time ago an interesting analysis in the magazine Letras Libres. He points out there that much of the success of populist discourse lies in its ability to convince millions "that their leaders are 'oppressed' who espouse ideals and not oppressors who seek to amass more power," and marks the use of the resource of "them" and "us."
"Whether it's Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (...) or Donald Trump (...) - he writes - the objective is the same: to generate in his own a feeling of permanent humiliation: 'they' despise us, and that is why they insult us, attack us, hinder us, want to see us fail". He continues: "Those who follow these leaders feel vindicated because they believe that someone like them finally came to power to right injustices. But they also feel fear when they hear the leader alert them all the time about the actions of ill-intentioned adversaries who seek to prevent the "people" from reaching the promised land. This makes it possible to keep alive the desire to remove obstacles to the demand of the 'people'."
As Jean-Jacques Rousseau puts it in the mouth of a "famous informer", "however gross a lie may be, gentlemen, do not fear, do not cease to slander. Even after the defendant has denied it, the sore will have already been done, and even if it heals, the scar will always remain."
Concern for the internal K, and the new fight that strains the opposition