Sports Card Blogs

Why did the left lose in the Argentine elections?

Mauricio Macri´s sworn in. Flickr/Magalí Iglesias. Some rights reserved.

Many explanations have been offered on the surprising
defeat of the ruling Frente Para la
Victoria (FpV, a left-of-center coalition founded by Néstor and Cristina
Kirchner, with roots in the political movement founded by Juan Perón) in the
second-round of the Argentine 2015 Presidential elections to the Cambiemos coalition (a right-wing
coalition headed by the former major of the City of Buenos Aires Mauricio
Macri, heir of the Macri fortune). I consider all those explanations insufficient
and argue that the reason why FpV lost
the elections is because it failed to understand that the Argentine society was
tired of the harsh and confrontational tone that characterized FpV’s Governments, and demanded a change
in the tone and style of its Executive.

Cambiemos
unexpected electoral promise of maintaining the key social and economic
policies of the last decade demonstrates that the people were generally
satisfied with the transformations introduced by Néstor and Cristina Kirchner’s
administrations. Consequently, in spite having won the election, Cambiemos has not won a mandate for
backtracking the fundamental economic and social reforms of the Kirchners’
years, much criticized and opposed by Macri in the last ten years.

There are eight main explanations of why FpV lost or why Cambiemos won. First is that people got tired of Cristina Kirchner
herself. Second, that people voted against the suspected corruption cases that
affect the FpV. Third, that the
responsible of the defeat of the FpV
was the economy. Fourth, that it was a victory of the anti-FpV media conglomerates.  Fifth,
that the primaries left the FpV
internally divided. Sixth, that FpV’s
candidate Daniel Scioli, did not truly represent the essence of FpV’s project. Seventh, that Cambiemos was the natural change the
people wanted. And eighth that, simply, voters were not in favour of the
central policies of the Kirchners’ government and wanted a change.

However, all those arguments have fundamental limitations.
First, Cristina Fernandez leaves power with more than 50% of positive image,
being in comparative terms the most popular outgoing President, only behind her
late husband Néstor Kirchner. Second, corruption allegations affected Cambiemos and FpV in equal measure, having resigned Cambiemos head candidate to the federal lower house for the
Province of Buenos Aires in the middle of the campaign because of a corruption
scandal. Third, 65% of Argentines consider their personal economic expectations
as positive, and unemployment and poverty are in historical lows. Fourth, the
unchallenged leadership of Cristina Kirchner inside FpV did not allow for confrontation inside the organization that runs
fully united at the federal level –unlike Cambiemos,
that had competitive primaries. Fifth, in front of the private media
conglomerate, FpV counted with the
support of its own allied media and journalists, including the public channels
and the monopoly of the TV broadcasting of the hugely popular national football
league –resources that the other progressive governments of the region can only
dream of. Sixth, Daniel Scioli, vice-president of Néstor Kirchner and twice
Governor of the Province of Buenos Aires under the Presidency of Cristina
Kirchner, is among the few politicians of national visibility that have been
with the FpV’s project since Néstor
Kirchner moved from being Governor of Santa Cruz, both the biggest province and
the least populated, to being President of the nation in 2003. Seventh, Mauricio
Macri’s PRO, the central party in the
Cambiemos coalition, barely held in the
2015 second round local elections its fort in the Government of the City of
Buenos Aires, and before 2015 Macri’s political influence had never managed to
expand outside Argentina’s capital and richest city. Finally, Mauricio Macri
himself made a kirchnerista u-turn after the presidential primaries, promising
to maintain the central social and economic policies in case of being elected
to the highest national office, and even inaugurating the first monument to
Juan Perón en City of Buenos Aires (traditionally an anti-peronista feud).

The main reason why the progressive FpV loses the 2015 elections for less than
700.000 votes is for not being able or willing to offer a change in the tone
and style in public discourse that Argentine society demanded. Curiously and
fatally, Scioli is unable to translate to FpV’s
campaign his biggest political capital: his across-the-board acknowledged
capacity of dialogue and cooperation. Thus, despite the fact Scioli remained as
the least confrontational figure inside the FpV,
his trademarked tone and style were suffocated by a multitude of FpV’s leadership voices that maintained
the hard confrontational tone and style that has characterized FpV’s Governments. Those tone and
styles, that proved to be a winning recipe in the last three Presidential
elections, were not what most Argentines wanted to hear in 2015, feeling far
away from the economic, social and political crisis that affected Argentina in
2001. The harsh and confrontational tone and style of Néstor and Cristina
Kirchner was useful for accomplishing the difficult reforms that turned
Argentina around since 2001, but became a liability once Argentines forgot that,
not so long ago, they were on the hedge of a cliff.

After almost losing its bulwark in the City of Buenos
Aires against one of the former Finance Ministers of Cristina Kirchner turned
into an independent candidate now appointed Ambassador to the United States,
Martín Losteau, Cambiemos started
embracing the fundamental pillars of the FpV’s
social and economic model, promising to maintain the welfare plans popular in
the lower and lower-middle classes and to keep in public-hands the nationalized
companies (such as the national airline or the national oil company).
Skilfully, Macri removed from the public spotlight those politicians and
advisors of Cambiemos that could
evidence the various contradictions of that rhetorical turn. Finally, Macri
started a campaign promising a Government dialogue and mutual understanding
among Argentines that would end the confrontational style of the outgoing
administration. It is worth noting that the cabinet announced by Macri since
being elected President, full of those silenced speakers, demonstrates that the
electoral promises of Cambiemos
regarding the economic and social model will remain that: electoral and
promises. For example, for the first time in more than a decade, the new
Finance Minister proudly announced that the United States Treasury has been
informed about the President’s economic plan before the Argentine Congress.

The electoral offers of FpV and Cambiemos show
that most voters wanted the continuity of the fundamental social and economic
policies of the FpV’s governments.
This coincidence in the electoral platforms is why FpV stumbled in the electoral campaign. FpV did not fully understand the implications of the kirchernista
turn of Cambiemos and opted for
maintaining a discussion on a front were there was no longer a rhetorical
opposition, the one of the economic and social model.

As a consequence, the second mistake of the FpV
was not appreciating the implications of the new tone offered by Cambiemos in the campaign. Macri, whom
until a couple of years ago had only 13% of positive image at the national
level and who had in 2010, publicly joked about the necessity of throwing
former President Kirchner out of a train window in order to win the 2011
elections, proposed that what was at stake in the 2015 Presidential elections
was the tone and style Argentine’s wanted for their Government and not the
social and economic gains of the last decade that Argentines want to preserve.
Macri proposed dialogue, mutual understanding and an end to confrontation.
Ironically, among the possible FpV
candidates, Scioli was the one who better represented dialogue and
understanding, and the less confrontational. But he was incapable, or
unwilling, to convey his tone and style to FpV’s
campaign.

Because of lack of leadership, strategic decisions, or
error, Scioli never managed to impose his tone and style to FpV’s campaign. The traditional speakers
of Cristina Kirchner’s Government never stopped maintaining a harsh and
confrontational style that proved too unseasonable in this election. That is
why FpV lost the Presidential
election.

Two conclusions follow. First, that maintaining the
harsh and conflictive tone will only help FpV
to retain its most mobilized base but keep the moderates away. Second, that
Macri won a mandate promising not to challenge the policies which, for ten
years, he argued had to be changed, and that his legitimacy for further reforms
is, thus, limited.