While the late Néstor Kirchner and President Javier Milei are usually placed at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, their origins have much in common – both were fringe candidates with meagre percentages in the first round of voting (22.5 percent and 30 percent respectively). Yet judging from this week’s developments, how they have gone about overcoming these handicaps in the first year of their presidencies is a study in contrasts, apart from both achieving a fiscal surplus. Not only was Kirchner little-known nationwide at the start in 2003 but the more that was known about his crassly feudal reign in Santa Cruz, the worse for him. Without altering his corrupt provincial modus operandi, Kirchner set about giving it an institutional and idealistic gloss in at least two ways – he replaced Carlos Menem’s packed Supreme Court with an unimpeachably independent body and he raised the human rights banner which he had previously ignored. With such success that his 12 years running Santa Cruz were followed by his surname dominating Argentine politics for a dozen more years and beyond.
And how has Milei tackled similar challenges? On the Supreme Court front he is moving in the opposite direction to Kirchner by promoting the shadiest wheeler-dealer in the judiciary. And after a persistent rubbishing of human rights, we have recently seen his deputies visiting in prison such notorious figures of the military dictatorship as Alfredo Astiz without the slightest reprimand while stirring sensitivities even within libertarian ranks. On top of all that, the past week has seen a gratuitous political defeat with the frustration of his decree to give the intelligence services an extra 100-plus billion pesos when the cupboard is supposedly bare (“no hay plata”), further adding insult to injury by renaming the agency SIDE in a wholly unnecessary revival of its old image of illegal political snooping. Any argument that the revamp also includes the invaluable ingredient of cybersecurity would only make it worse for those already suspicious of espionage – all the more so because while the equivalent of US$100 million or so would not suffice for serious cybersecurity when major international banks are spending a billion or more, it offers plenty for hackers and trolls.
While “Big Brother” espionage would seem to contradict the libertarian creed in general, the nomination of the controversial federal judge Ariel Lijo for the Supreme Court flies in the face of Milei’s electoral crusade against a corrupt “caste” – how much credibility does that crusade have when elevating a judge whose selective indolence offers impunity to the powerful? While nothing has been pinned on Lijo (often charged with the sins of his brother), a Supreme Court justice must be like Caesar’s wife – not only virtuous but above any suspicion of being otherwise – and Lijo fails that test, rejected by such ruling party figures as Vice-President Victoria Villarruel and Formosa Senator Francisco Paoltroni. Between Lijo and SIDE, Milei risks forfeiting the ethical bonus which the Alberto Fernández scandals should be giving him.
While ethics and institutional values might seem abstract to an economist like Milei, as the head of government he should be more alive to the political implications (an area which he nevertheless prefers to delegate). The most striking aspect of the midweek Congress rejection of the intelligence decree DNU 256 is that while we have seen the moderate opposition join Kirchnerism more than once before, Wednesday’s voting saw no less than five PRO centre-right deputies rejecting the reserved funds booster. Even more significantly, ex-president Mauricio Macri was critical of both Lijo and SIDE – while still on speaking terms with Milei, he openly eyes both presidential chief-of-staff Karina Milei and star spin doctor Santiago Caputo askance. PRO has every reason of suspecting the latter pair of seeking to cannibalise their vote rather than enter into any coalition or alliance with a boosted intelligence services a means towards that end.
Perhaps the time is coming to stop calling Milei a “libertarian,” a conclusion which this space might have reached some months ago. His own preferred label is “anarcho-capitalist” and that cap fits him rather better – the latter half of that term reflects his pro-market economics while anarchy is the elimination of the state, institutions, politics and everything else. But that creates a vacuum and not only fools rush in where angels fear to tread – into a newly emptied bottle Milei is pouring some very old wine with his judicial and intelligence initiatives.
Comments