Last Thursday night, the fervour of a section of Argentine society could be felt and heard in every corner of the country. Thousands of light blue and white flags fluttered in the skies of the main cities, creating the impression of a civic holiday, though it was the claim of more than a million indignant citizens.
The streets, crowded with people chanting against ten years of rule by president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and her late husband and former president Néstor Kirchner, were swamped with demands and allegations that resonated in the handmade banners and loud sounds of pot banging.
“I’m tired of corruption. I’m tired of not being able to to go outside without being afraid. I’m tired of public officials getting richer at the expense of our people. I’m here to defend democracy”, said a 65-year-old housewife.
Their grievances included alleged corruption, violent crime, inflation, and poverty -concerns which have seen the president’s approval rating plummet almost two years after she easily won her bid for re-election (according to several consulting agencies, in the last half of 2012 her positive image had already fallen by 45%). After all, it was Argentina’s largest anti-government demonstration in years and the third mass protest against the president in seven months.
One of the demonstrators’ main concerns was about a new judicial reform which, among other things, states that all members of the Magistrates’ Council, a body that oversees the selection and running of the judiciary, ought to be elected by the citizens. While supporters say the law will lead to a democratisation of the justice system, critics say it will dangerously politicise the judiciary ensuring impunity to members of the ruling party.
It is hard for a group of people to come together behind a single banner. The claims were numerous and diverse, and some of them resonate with the government’s electoral base. Most of the participants of this protest were not voters of Kirchnerism, however some of their grievances, such as inflation and insecurity, are also claims made by voters of the current government.
Scenes like these are bound to raise concerns for the president and her supporters, and the reason is the transversal nature of the complaints.
Last Thursday there were neighbours from affluent suburbs, rural workers from the countryside, leaders and members of the Independent Movement of Pensioners and Unemployed (MIJD), the Socialist Workers’ Movement (MST), young people in school uniforms, retirees in wheelchairs and walking sticks, and diverse groups of people from all around the country, united by their rejection of the government. These were the indignant social players of the so-called ’18A’, strongly proud of not being part of the 54% who voted for president Fernández in 2011, demanding to be heard.
No one can fail to admit the impact of the ‘cacerolazo‘, especially in districts historically controlled by president Fernández’s party, such as the Greater Buenos Aires, Mendoza, Salta, Tucuman, and Neuquén. In previous demonstrations, on 13th September and 8th November 2012, government supporters had dismissed the protest by pointing out that protesters belonged to the middle-upper classes and that the demonstrations were orchestrated by wealthy elites. There was also speculation that some media groups were responsible for stoking fears and encouraging the protest. As the judicial reform has been a hot topic in the news agenda, some media groups aligned with the opposition directly linked this issue with the 18A protest, which gave the event massive coverage and placed it on the spotlight.
This time, the main government officials refrained from comment. They feel this message is not addressed to them.
The feature that differentiated the third cacerolazo against the government from the previous ones was the visible presence of opposition political leaders. On 13th September, when the pots were heard against the government for the first time, opposition politicians were conspicuous by their absence. Two months later, on 8th November, only some were audacious enough to attend. Last Thursday, however, the key figures of the opposition took to the streets and heard the people’s demands. After all, many of them admitted to having articulated the protests.
“The right of the majorities is not absolute nor can it be fulfilled at any cost. The president must govern for all citizens. We also want justice, we also want security, we also want a better quality of life,” explained Mauro, a 33-year-old engineer.
A crucial test of the government’s popularity will come later this year in the mid-term legislative elections, in which the government will try to keep its majority in both chambers. For the time being, the government pushes ahead with major bills.
The Responsibility of the Opposition
In the two previous cacerolazos, it came to light that certain opposition groups had provided support to the organisation of the protests, though with a low profile and no party identification.
Marked by the predominant influx of people not aligned with any political party, the novelty of ’18A’ was the strong and explicit role of political leaders of most of the opposition parties.
The demands of unity between the opposition candidates for an alternative option ahead of the elections were also part of the people’s claims at the demonstration. One of the organisers argued that the opposition parties should unite to form at least two electoral fronts, a right-leaning and a left-leaning one, to avoid fragmentation and confront the ruling party in the legislative elections next 27th October.
Some opposition sectors are beginning to come together to replicate the model of the opposition in Venezuela, based on an alliance of all left and right-wing parties to confront the ruling party in the polls. The aim of this alliance, the Mesa de Unidad Democrática (MUD), is to carry out primary elections, run together, and support the candidate who obtains the highest number of votes. But here in Argentina, not all believe in unity. Some socialist groups differ with right-wing parties in the way they analyse a possible new victory of Kirchnerism -they just do no think the risk is that high.
The wide gap between the various opposition forces has been very difficult to bridge so far and it might take too long before an alliance like the MUD in Venezuela can arise and develop a cohesive discourse.
It becomes evident that from now on the calls to these anti-government manifestations will be more orchestrated by these groups, and less ‘non-partisan’. This may affect future gatherings, given the explicitly ‘non-partisan’ stance of the protesters.
“No political party represents me so far, I don’t identify with any of the existing political platforms. I hope the opposition can come up with something new for the next elections. I still wanted to come and express my disappointment with this government,” said Susana, a 37-year-old shop-keeper.
On the ruins of the bipartisan system that ruled Argentina between 1983 and 2001, the government developed a hegemony that is based more on the lack of an alternative than on the trust of the popular vote. In recent years we have seen how opposition parties have been weakening because of their inaction against the power of Kirchnerism. The street protest reflects the other side of their supremacy in the arena of partisan politics. It expresses an ongoing discomfort at an opposition without organisation or discourse, and a ruling party that does not recognise the needs and predicaments of great part of society.
The political dispersion of the minority was evidenced in the 2011 election and resonates today in the form of a widespread dissatisfaction with the current political actors. Responsibility for this dissatisfaction falls on the intellectuals and politicians who are not articulating people’s demands into concrete, democratic, and autonomous actions.
The open cacerolazos are an enigma in terms of their ultimate implications in the polls. The challenge for the opposition is to be able to translate the slogans seen in these protests into a parliamentary victory and later on, an electoral victory. Whether they achieve this will depend on the strength of their unity and their ability to evolve into a new political project able to represent this part of Argentine society.
A lot has been said about democracy over the past few days. The protesters denounce president Fernández for exceeding the limits of democracy towards a greater accumulation of power, while her allies state that the ’18A’ is the glaring realisation that there is full democracy in Argentina.
It is important to bear in mind that democracy in Argentina, as well as in most Latin American countries, is often expressed through strong personal leaderships. The strong presidential system in Argentina does nothing to alleviate the problem of a lack of representation in Congress. Without a strong opposition to ensure a fair political game, the government’s concentration of power will continue growing, to the point of jeopardising democratic consolidation.

































