Supreme Court in Tribunales, Buenos Aires (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia)

Earlier today, constitutional lawyer Andrés Gil Domínguez lodged the first official complaint against the government’s package of judicial reforms.

The case, presented to judge Cecilia Gilardi Madariaga de Negre of the Administrative litigation tribunal number 8, was presented in the form of a class action, and was filed in the name of  “everyone in the nation who sees his or her right to judicial protection under threat”.

Specifically, it took aim at the intended modifications to protective injunctions and the creation of three new courts of appeal. Both measures were approved in the Chamber of Deputies during last week’s marathon debate that lasted more than 21 hours.

Gil Domínguez described the measures as establishing, “a regulatory regime… which directly affects fundamental and human rights, subjective and collective [rights], asset and non asset [rights], explicitly or non explicitly expressed in the Argentine Constitution”, whilst also advocating the reforms invalidity and supposed lack of constitutional basis.

According to the reforms, when an injunction is brought against the state, the judge will be required to hear both parties’ points of view before allowing it, except if presented by “vulnerable” groups of society. The length of injunctions against the state will also be limited to six months, extendable by a further six month in certain cases.

Debates on the remaining reforms will continue in Congress this week, with the government saying it hoped all measures will be voted on by 8th May.

President Felipe Calderón proposed a constitutional reform that would change the country’s name to Mexico abandoning the current official name of United Mexican States.

The Mexican Constritution of 1824 in which the country is first referred to as "The United Mexican States"

“It is time for us Mexicans to recover the beauty and simplicity of the name of our nation: Mexico. A name we chant, we sing, that fills us with joy, that identifies us, and that fills us with pride,” he said.

The name of United Mexican States was decided in 1824 in emulation of the United States of America, considered by some as a symbol of democracy and liberty. “Mexico does not need a name that emulates another country and that none of us Mexicans use on a daily basis,” said Calderón.

The Mexican president had already proposed a change in name almost a decade ago when he was leader of the federal deputies of the Partido Acción Nacional (PAN), his political party. The proposition, put forward in January 2003, was never voted.

Calderón is now just nine days away of handing power to President-elect Enrique Peña Nieto of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), who won the elections last June. On 1^st December 2012 Calderón’s six year tenure as President will come to an end as he hands power to Enrique Peña Nieto in an official ceremony. The President said that he would send his proposition for a constitutional decree to the Mexican Congress. As it is a constitutional reform it would then have to be approved by both instances of congress as well as a majority of the 31 Mexican states.

The president admitted that although “the proposal does not carry the urgency as other reforms” it remains “a very important subject because the name of a country expresses a symbolic relation with everything it designates: with its people, its origins, its culture, its customs, and above all, with its identity”.

HAITI- A new constitution, which came into effect on Tuesday, gives the four million citizens living abroad the right to own land and run for office.

The amendments to the constitution were approved last year; however, Haitian President Michel Martelly prevented them from taking effect because of unspecified errors.

Martelly made the announcement shortly before departing Haiti for Brazil where he will represent his country at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20).

“All Haitians are Haitians,” he said in a press conference yesterday on the grounds of the presidential palace at the announcement of the new constitution.

The international Haitian community is behind the new constitution, but many citizens who remain in Haiti have been resistant to it. Those against argue that the process in amending the constitution was flawed, and suggest there may be discrepancies between the constitution approved last year and that which came into effect yesterday.

Many have focused on the rights granted to citizens abroad overlooking the other, more technical, amendments. The new constitution includes the creation of the Permanent Electoral Council (CEP) to conduct future elections. Yet, experts suggest that the CEP is unworkable as there are currently not enough Senators to form the majority required by this amendment.

That said, the new constitution also paves the way for Senate elections that would give Martelly a chance to bolster his small bloc of supporters in the legislature. In December, the Haitian President fired the nine members of a provisional electoral council by decree

Nonetheless, the new constitution remains popular, at least with the Haitian community outside of the country.

Marleine Bastien is a leader of the Haitian community in the US. She was quoted by the AP news agency stating she was pleasantly surprised by the decision. “I think it was overdue,” said the founder of Haitian Women of Miami. “It shows that he understands the great positive impact that the diaspora can play in the future of Haiti.”

The leader of deputies of the Frente para la Victoria party, Augustin Rossi, stated today that the re-election of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is “not on the agenda” but that discussion on the issue would be “healthy.”

In the run up to the 20^th anniversary of the 1994 constitution, Rossi stated today that it is “reasonable that experts reflects on a new Constitution, after 20 years.”

The leader did not, however, mention a rumoured change in the Argentine constitution specifically, which would allow President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to run for a third consecutive term.

Elsewhere, Kirchnerite deputy Diana Conti reiterated yesterday that she would be in favour of seeing a reform in the Constitution, and that the president “made the decision” to run again for presidency.

Although supported by some, the proposal for a change in the Constitution has not been accepted by all Kirchner deputies, and remains a controversial issue.

Malvinas propaganda on the streets of Buenos Aires (Photo: Beatrice Murch)

Thirty years after the Falklands/Malvinas war, its memory lives on in the echoes of the veterans’ protests and in thousands of posters plastered on almost every Buenos Aires’ wall. Claims for the ownership of the islands and foul-mouthed graffiti directed towards the English and sprayed across walls in Buenos Aires -in a language that seems right out of a football pitch- make the national discourse clear.

The debate about the islands’ sovereignty is not only a political one, but also a discussion about Argentina’s own identity, of which the lost islands have become a potent metaphor throughout the years.

“Malvinas […] is a way to ask ourselves what kind of country wants to be the one that would eventually retrieve the islands and welcome its inhabitants,” once wrote Federico Lorenz, historian and author of the book ‘Las Guerras Por Malvinas, 1982-2012′.

Much has been written about the diplomatic controversy between Argentina and the UK. On the 30^th anniversary of the invasion, it is interesting to look instead at the paradox raised by Lorenz: how is it possible that the crowd gathered in Plaza de Mayo to cheer for Leopoldo Galtieri announcing the invasion was the same that had taken to the streets only three days before in protest against the dictatorship?

The reasons lie in what the ‘Malvinas cause’ is to Argentines. As Lorenz argues, “it is perfect for the banal patriotic discourse to work: it is the right cause [to fight for].”

But what exactly is the ‘Malvinas cause’? Argentine political scientist and member of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), Vicente Palermo, defines it as a discursive aspect of Argentine nationalism that includes “a narrative of the past, an interpretation of the present and a mandate for the future”, and which has helped to shape national identity.

Two factors have been crucial in developing and keeping the ‘Malvinas cause’ alive: the constitutional mandate and the education system (of which the Constitution is both cause and consequence).

The ‘Malvinas Cause’ at School

'Sal en las heridas' by Vicente Palermo

In his 2007 book ‘Sal en las heridas’, Vicente Palermo recalls that his first memory related to the Malvinas dates back to when he was 12, and he was wearing his first pair of long trousers.

Asked to write a wish to his aunt travelling to Europe, an embarrassed young Palermo all of a sudden wrote “Las Malvinas son argentinas“, without even thinking about what he was writing.

Similarly, historian Federico Lorenz said: “I learned that the Malvinas are Argentine at school. We used to write letters to soldiers in class, confident about what we were doing, and the teachers would help us with the envelopes. Somewhere we learned that this or that is homeland, and that someone stole a part of it away from us.”

Behind the obsessive mantra “Las Malvinas son argentinas“, lies a whole set of patriotic messages children come in contact with from a very young age, at school.

With the aim of tracing the origins of the widespread malvinero nationalism back to school, Carlos Escudé, a renowned political scientist and leading figure at the CONICET, analysed the way geography was taught in Argentina from 1879 to 1986.

The results of his study, conducted in 2000 by examining 77 geography textbooks used in primary and secondary schools, were stunning.

What Escudé calls “the indoctrination about territorial nationalism” is a process that consolidated around 1945, more than a century after the islands were taken over by the British.

“Geography textbooks printed before the 1940s attributed to Argentina a territory of 2.800.000 km², while later textbooks attributed it lands for approximately 4.000.000 km²,” he wrote in his essay.

“In previous years, talking about the so-called disputed territories,” – such as Malvinas and other southern islands, Beagle Channel, Cape Horn Archipelago and Argentine Antarctic Sector – “was a task for diplomats only, not for teachers.”

According to Escudé, the use of these “indoctrination” methods was not specific to the Peronist era, but it also extended to the last decades of the 20th century.

“These images promoted by writing exercises, readings and essays at school stay engraved in children’s memories. [...] I have the impression that [continuously looking at and sketching maps] has a strong psychological impact.”

In a controversial article titled ‘Are the Malvinas really ours?’ published on La Nacion on the 14th February, Argentine historian Luis Alberto Romero wrote that: “We have outlined [the frontiers of the Argentine territory] so many times at school that we ended up believing this was the reality.”

The Origins of Territorial Nationalism

The words of Vicente Palermo help give a framework to Escudé’s studies. Palermo explains that Argentine education policies root back to the massive plan of immigration from Europe ordered by the liberal elites at the end of 19th century to provide the country with a larger workforce.

“From 1880, timid education policies were turned into a powerful apparatus of free, compulsory, public education,” Palermo elucidates. “Given the large quantity of foreigners in the country, education is quite nationalistic, featuring a strong element of identification with national symbols and the official history. It is visible in this galloping love for flags; marches and anthems sung everyday while raising the flag.”

Likewise, historian Luis Alberto Romero wrote that Argentine politics are imbued of a nationalistic syndrome. “At the beginning of the 20th century, the obsessive quest for a national identity started […] developed by strong institutions like the army, the [catholic] church and the two biggest democratic movements, Yrigoyenist radicalism and Peronism”

According to the experts, the lost Malvinas islands are at the core of a nationalism constantly looking for itself.

“This is a fundamental part of the dogma. We are a righteous country and our pacifism has turned us into victims. We lost big territories […] but we are morally superior,” Carlos Escudé wrote.

Today: the Righteous State Mission

Speaking before the 41st Assembly of the Federal Education Council on the 28th March, Minister of Education Alberto Sileoni said: “the Malvinas belong to the ministry too,” asking for an increasing prominence of the issue “in all the classrooms of the country.”

“This is because the National Education Act establishes that, and also because the Malvinas were, are, and always will be Argentine,” he added.

'Soberania es recuperar lo nuestro' (Sovereignty is recovering what is ours) posters along Avenida de Mayo. (Photo: Beatrice Murch)

The minister was indeed speaking the truth. National Education Law No. 26,206, in its third article, states that one of the aims of the education system is “to reaffirm the sovereignty and national identity.”

In particular, article 92 of the same law establishes that the common basic curricula should provide resources for the building of a national identity from a regional Latin American perspective (Mercosur) and the inclusion of the “recovery of the Malvinas islands.”

Similarly, the Senate of the Province of Buenos Aires passed law 14.222 (made effective in 2010) to promote the teaching of the sovereignty rights over the Antarctic Sector, the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur.

“They have to stop with this ‘malvinismo educativo’ (‘educational malvinism’),” comments Vicente Palermo. “Government should promote a sober education: this instilling children with clichés about the ‘Malvinas cause’ seems toxic to me. And it is still in school nowadays.”

In a paper published in 2010 within the booklet Pensar Malvinas, academics Iván Falcón, Evangelina Aceval, Nicolás Cardozo, Eduardo Gómez and Patricia Bernasconi showed how young generations perform a clear dissociation between the Malvinas and the last military dictatorship.

In their study, they interviewed adolescents between 17 and 18 years old in four schools of Corrientes. What they found was that approximately 90% of the interviewees, when asked to tell what was the first thing they could think upon hearing the word ‘Malvinas’, answered: 1. they are Argentine; 2. the bad conditions of the soldiers during the war; 3. their geographical location.

Thus, as they reflect, “the memory is formed and forged in a systematic way, without a deep reflection about the ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘why’”.

On the opposite side of the dispute, the war of 1982 – known in Argentina as the ‘righteous cause in the hands of bastards’ – was not taught in Falklands’ schools up until 1999.

The ‘Malvinas Cause’ in the Constitution

In 1994, former Senator Eduardo Menem pushed for the introduction of the so-called ‘first provisional clause’ in the National Constitution. The clause requires the government to peacefully “seek to retrieve full sovereignty over the [contended] territories and maritime spaces.”

“[In doing so,] it imposes to respect the life and the customs of the islanders, which above all means to respect their interests,” Eduardo Menem recently answered to Luis Alberto Romero, who had questioned the islands’ sovereignty from the same La Nación columns. In his comment, Menem also added that it was in the islanders’ own interest to become Argentine.

“If we stick to the Constitution, there is no way Argentina and the UK can negotiate a middle-ground position. The constitution imposes to seek the full sovereignty,” Vicente Palermo explains. “However, this can’t be done whilst respecting their lives: it is a contradiction in terms since the kelpers have a clear political will and do not want to be Argentine.”

Vicente Palermo has raised the same point with 16 other intellectuals in an open letter published in February. In their manifesto, ‘Malvinas: an alternative vision’ they criticised “a climate of nationalist agitation”, pointed out that the issue bears little relation to the country’s main problems, and called on Argentina to accept the rights of the islanders to self-determination.

“They were saying that perhaps we should investigate a bit deeper what Malvinas really mean to Argentines,” commented former BBC correspondent for the Americas Daniel Schweimler.

“As far as I can see, they were greeted by a barrage of insults and death threats. It would help their cause if they could open the debate a bit more, although we have books being written and people are starting to discuss the issue a bit more.”

In fact, as Palermo confirms, a second manifesto is being prepared: “Things are starting to change in Argentina. It seems to me that there are many more different voices in the opposition now. The country seems less homogeneous about it. It is a good thing.”

On the other side of the Atlantic, Schweimler states that for the British, the Falklands are still a distant worry.

“There is this often repeated story about the 1982 invasion. When it started, most of the Brits thought the invasion was off the coast of Scotland, so of course they said that ‘we should fight back’. When they realised where the Falklands were, it simply stopped being an issue. Most British people had no idea where the islands where, and now 30 years later most of the young people wouldn’t probably know where they are,” said Schweimler.

“But here, all of the Argentines have an opinion on it. Some are stronger than others, but they reflect various level of consciousness about the issue.”

To find out what Argentines think about the effect of the education system on their opinions about Malvinas, click here.

After a week of speculation, the General Secretariat of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has confirmed that Vice-President and Head of Senate Julio Cobos will swear in Fernández for her second presidential term in Saturday’s inauguration ceremony.

The decision was made according to Article 93 of the Constitution, which says that it is the Head of Senate’s duty to swear in the president and vice-president elect.

Uncertainty about who would perform the duty stemmed from the 2008 conflict that arose between Fernández and Cobos over a controversial grain exports tax. Cobos made the tie-breaking vote against the tax, thus alienating himself from the Peronist Party.  Since then, tensions have been high between Fernández supporters and Cobos.

It had been suggested last week that Tucumán senator and incoming Upper House Provisional President Beatriz Rojkes de Alperovich would preside over the ceremony.

Vice-President elect Amada Boudou, who is not in favor of Cobos acting in the official role, went so far as to say, “I don’t want anything to do with him, nor even have him around”.

A spokesperson for Cobos, Julio Paz, said the vice president “is ready to do the swearing in as is stipulated in the constitution”.

President Cristina Kirchner spearheaded an act of officialization for teh creation of The National University of Avellaneda (UNDAV) and said: “When one hears that there are declarations about a project before the project even begins, it calls your attention.” She further said: “I’d like to ask, as President of Argentina, that we are permitted to govern for all the Argentine people, with the instruments the Constitution has afforded us.”

She also stressed that the most important thing to advance the country culturally and prove to the world “we can do something different.” She strengthened Argentina’s ability to change by reminding the audience that “the model and economy we are in now was launched in May 2003, when we decided to change a story that had been crystallized in the global media, and everyone thought would be impossible to overcome.”

During the same ceremony, the President gave away 1500 notebook computers to secondary public school students, to mark the start of the “Connect as One” plan.  Later that afternoon, she announced maintenance plans for the waterways of the River Paraná.

The Supreme Court of Nicaragua yesterday confirmed it was lifting constitutional barriers preventing President Daniel Ortega from once again running for office. The decision means that Ortega will now be able to seek a second term as head of state, when his current mandate ends in 2011.

The move comes after the court declared “inapplicable” restrictions on Ortega’s re-election. If unsuccessful the president would have had to seek to change the constitution through the National Assembly and popular referendum in order to run again. Now however no such measures need be taken, as the Court’s judgement is binding.

President Ortega first took power in 1979, when left-wing Sandinista rebels overthrew the dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza. After 10 years of violent struggle with CIA-sponsored “Contra” militias, he was defeated in elections held in 1990. Numerous failed electoral campaigns followed, until he returned to the presidency in 2006 still leading the Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional (FSLN, Sandinista National Liberation Front).

Since regaining power, Ortega has realigned Nicaragua with the growing number of left-leaning, populist governments on the continent, while at the same time following a more moderated line than previously. Some measures imposed on the country, however, have been decidedly conservative; notably the law supported by Ortega and the Catholic Church which recently outlawed abortion even in cases of medical emergency, a move strongly criticised by NGO’s and medical professionals

Events in Nicaragua have unfurled in a manner markedly different to those in neighbouring Honduras. There, President Zelaya was forced into exile by the courts and military for merely seeking a public consultation on extending presidential terms, resulting in five months of dispute and political confusion in the Central American state. The extension of presidential terms is a contentious subject across Latin America; states such as Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela and Bolivia have also sought recently to remove some of the limits on the number of terms presidents and officials can serve.

These limits are invariably constitutionally imposed; a legacy of long histories of dictatorship and one-party rule on the continent, borne of the wish to avoid one personality consolidating power for themselves. Criticism of the extensions however has often been alleged to be politically-motivated, especially in Europe and the U.S. Head of the Nicaraguan Supreme Court Francisco Rosales asked why it was contentious for Ortega, a former communist with close links to Chavez, and not heads of US friendly states to do this: “If Uribe (of Colombia) does it, it’s ok. If Arías (Costa Rica) does it, it’s ok. But if we do it, then it’s bad.”

President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner signed a bill this afternoon to bring forward national elections. If the proposition is approved, Argentines will go to the polls on 28th June 2009.

The elections in question are for positions in Congress for the period 2009-2013 and in the Senate from 2009-2015.

The president agreed the content of the bill to be sent to Congress with Minister for the Interior Florencio Randazzo and Legal and Technical Secretary Carlos Zanini. Included in the bill is a statement recognising that to change the date of elections is an “exceptional” measure. The proposed action is justified with reference to the “profound and extensive” problem of the global economic crisis.

Another aim of the bill is to reduce the “inconvenient and substantial” costs incurred by political campaigns throughout the run-up to elections. All those who appeared on the electoral register before February of this year will be eligible to vote.

Congress will analyse the plan tomorrow afternoon. If it receives majority approval there, the ruling party hope that it will be passed on to Congress for discussion in “special session” next Wednesday. This bill is being fast-tracked in order to be ready for 28th March, exactly 90 days before the election, in line with the national constitution.

Eduardo Fellner, president of Congress, today asserted that the president would have majority support on this issue. Congressman Agustín Rossi affirmed that “the numbers are there” for the bill to be passed.

The Bolivian autonomy minister, Carlos Romero, has announced that the Gran Chaco province in the Tarija department has agreed to join the National Autonomy Council (CNA). The CNA was created to implement the plans for autonomy for the country’s municipalities, as outlined in the new constitution.

Opposition prefects in charge of the Tarija, Santa Cruz and Chuquisaca departments, which are all in the east, have refused to join the council. This may be because the proposed referendum on autonomy for the Gran Chaco, together with the Cordillera municipality (in Santa Cruz) and the Hernando Siles and Luis Calvo municipalities (in Chuquisaca) would result in the loss of control of gas fields in these areas.

The gas fields are precious resources as they keep land-locked Bolivia’s economy afloat.

The prefects that represent the eastern departments continue boycotting talks with the government despite the ratification of President Evo Morales’ mandate last year and, strangely, after having campaigned for autonomy for so long.

The representative of the Gran Chaco province, Wilman Cardozo, confirmed that “The Chaco has taken the decision to contribute positively… to go for regional autonomy.” He criticised prefect Mario Cossío as “no longer representing the integrity of Tarija, today he has a divided department, plagued by corruption.” He added that the municipalities and civic organisations of Gran Chaco decided to “distance themselves from prefect Cossío’s double discourse that proclaims autonomy and doesn’t support it.”

Romero stated that work on establishing the autonomies would go ahead without the co-operation of the opposition prefects because “they are a national agenda that is above people and political calculations. The implementation of the autonomies transcends the prefects (in the east), there are other actors and other prefects in this country.”

Guido Nayar, the first vice president of the pro Santa Cruz Committee, responded that the government is not looking for a nation-wide agreement because “without the confict they lose the possibility of making politics in the regions.” He also claimed that Romero “is an illegal minister”.

According to the deputy governor of Santa Cruz, Roly Aguilera, the opposition prefects also refuse to take part in the process because “hundreds and thousands of indigenous people and small farmers circled the parliament and forced the parliamentarians to ratify the constitution”. He also claimed that “every aspect of the draft constitution is legally flawed”, which gives “certain citizens rights over others.” This is a reference to a provision for quotas to increase the number of indigenous members of parliament.

Ironically, despite the Gran Chaco triumph, the government still faces problems from indigenous groups who are upset that they have been allocated only 14 indigenous seats under the autonomy plans. They had originally asked for 29 but reduced their demand to 18. For this reason groups led by the Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of the Bolivian East refused to attend autonomy talks on 10^th March.