By EMILIO CAFASSI*
The hypocrisy of a discourse that proclaims itself to be demolishing and anti-corruption, but which in fact amplifies the worst practices of “old” politics
The dystopian pact that permeates much of the globe hovers like a whirlwind over neoliberal gradualism, harassing it, pressuring it and boasting of being its consequential version, a faithful and courageous descendant, devoid of hesitation. In a recent television report on the only channel where he gives interviews, owned by the most obsolete newspaper in the country, “La Nación”, President Javier Milei sincerely exposed his self-perception of being “the most relevant politician on planet Earth along with former US President Donald Trump”.
The latter, in his recent dispute with Kamala Harris, once again demonstrated his combative style, although restrained compared to the venom he distilled in previous confrontations, such as with Hillary Clinton. Although Trump's claws did not reach personal scratches, his charged rhetoric focused on disqualifying Kamala Harris's competence and questioning her leadership skills. His sarcasm was directed more at the policies of Joe Biden's administration, with his venom only touching Kamala Harris.
Javier Milei, for his part, far from holding back, continues his incendiary crusade, shoulder to shoulder with the titans of global capital to dismiss as “inconsequential” vernacular politicians, whom he describes as “invisible rats who can never aspire to this (…) What vision can a rat have – one wonders – in relation to a giant?” With rhetoric that recalls the climax of the fable of the scorpion and the frog, Javier Milei poisons his own political environment, attacking not only his adversaries, but the very fabric that sustains the public sphere, the media and information.
As Eduardo Fidanza writes in the newspaper Profile, from an indignant liberal perspective, Javier Milei's delirium is not just a delirium, it is the unbridled onslaught of a suicide pact, in which the scorpion cannot stop stinging the frog, even when it is his only opportunity to cross to the other side.
Politicians, whom he disparagingly refers to as “the caste”, are not singled out without reason as parasites who cling to privileged access to public resources for private gain. Figures who take advantage of their representative ties to put their personal interests first, through various mechanisms of trafficking in goods and influence.
Javier Milei accuses journalists who monitor this dark game, or who extol and covet it, of being “enveloped”, that is, corrupted by power. However, beyond the fact that he presumably prefers to dispense with any division of powers and plural representation, exercising a kind of decretal monarchy, he depends on his own caste to approve laws and policies or, at least, to be allowed to decree at will, as he has in fact done. To this end, he has built a peculiar political space, in which each candidate had to self-finance his campaign, in a grotesque demonstration of supposed austerity. low-cost, which immediately led to a kind of political franchise regime, with several accusations of selling candidacies.
Accusations coming from unsuspected figures not aligned with the right, such as Carlos Maslatón or Juan Carlos Blumberg. Although the legal proceedings were shelved, this happened after they came to power, leaving a trail of suspicion and political debts.
The case of Senator Abdala, the provisional vice president of the Senate and third in line to succeed him, is a clear example of how Milei’s anti-caste rhetoric falls apart in the face of real-life practices within his political sphere. In a condescending interview, Abdala bluntly admitted that he had 15 advisors paid by Congress working in his home province of San Luis to lay the groundwork for his future gubernatorial candidacy. However, subsequent investigations and an open lawsuit revealed that in reality there were 20 hired, all financed with public funds.
This “sincericide” only served to highlight the hypocrisy of a discourse that claims to be demolishing and anti-corruption, but which in reality amplifies the worst practices of “old” politics. Many of them belong to the circle of Adolfo Rodríguez Saa, former governor of San Luis (along with his brother) for life, former short-lived president during the successions that followed the 2001 crisis and even a former senator. Abdala, who came to the Senate as Rodríguez Saa’s replacement, did not let any advantage slip for his own benefit, including the affiliation of deceased citizens to the Libertarian Party, a fact that came to light in the context of the judicial process.
A prominent member of the caste he denounces, Abdala is the living image of political contradiction: a man who uses the same instruments he condemns for his own benefit and to the detriment of public trust.
The case of Senator Vilma Bedia is the perfect example of how, under the guise of a merciful evangelical pastor, a family fiefdom was built in the bowels of the Legislative Branch. Apparently guided by Christian morality, incapable of multiplying loaves and fishes, she chose to multiply jobs in the Senate, incorporating three children, a brother, a niece and a sister-in-law. Blessed nepotism.
Political scientist Andrés Malamud, with his usual conservative approach within a liberal perspective, called the members of Milei’s coalition, “Freedom Advances,” an “aspirational caste.” Based on his experience as a television columnist, he says they are a group of improvisers who yearn to join the supposedly maligned caste.
In a process that is not necessarily conceived as irreversible, alluding to the possibility of overcoming it through knowledge and experience, his criticism, however, points to the fact that the government team behaves like a “course against the flow”, launching vile acts at every step. Personally, I think that, although there are indispensable (a)moral aspects at an individual level to sustain such practices, since they help to avoid ethical repulsion and to exercise resistance to their use, the explanation is material and systemic, not subjective. These aberrations are possible because the political device allows and encourages them.
According to data from May of this year, the Senate has 1.314 advisors distributed among the 72 senators, which gives an average of 18,25 per legislator. However, some of them are notably far from the average. There are senators who, having started their term in December 2023, already have more than 30 advisors. The system works through “modules”, with each senator having 7.338 modules to distribute to their “agents” in temporary positions. In monetary terms, this number almost doubles the scandalous fees they receive.
They can therefore combine these modules to assign salaries ranging from the lowest (category A14) to the highest (A1), depending on how they want to favor each advisor. This flexibility creates inequalities: some prefer to have more advisors with modest salaries, while others choose to have fewer advisors, but highly favored, with large variations in between. In addition to these advisors, each senator can “inherit” staff with permanent positions, for which they do not use the number of modules they receive.
In the Chamber of Deputies, although the proportions and some details change, the system is relatively similar. In what direction does the reader think this army of consultants will act? At the very least, to perpetuate themselves as such, including their benefactors.
The uncritical attitude towards these institutional mechanisms or devices, which are nothing more than clientelist machines serving their own interests or factions, was equally evident in both the left and progressives. These systems were not designed to defend public ethics, but to subdue them. In Argentina, the self-proclaimed revolutionary left not only remained silent in the face of these institutionalized privileges, but in many cases resorted to them to reward its militants.
Is it any wonder that, since adolescence, student associations have been fighting over the student center’s photocopier as a way to finance their organization? This acquiescent silence largely explains why the far right manages to present itself as an anti-systemic, critical and repulsive alternative that drives “change.” At least until time – always irritatingly uncertain – reveals this same far right as the new beneficiary and, even worse, as an exponential predator of public morality and practical support for the corrupt mechanisms it claims to condemn.
As I conclude these lines, the Chamber of Deputies will begin its session to debate Javier Milei's veto of the new law on pension mobility. Will the advisors tip the scales, advising that the original position of approval be maintained, or, on the contrary, preventing the original majority of more than two-thirds from being recreated to maintain the law and thus revoke the veto? The very nature of the relationship between the advisor and his appointor leads us to rule out influence in this case. There are other interests at stake, more substantial, even if no less spurious.
In the dream of ethics, the nightmares of defamation develop. The worst fate is to wake up without remembering it.
*Emilio Cafassi is senior professor of sociology at the University of Buenos Aires.
Translation: Fernando Lima das Neves.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
