Today marks the first anniversary of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange entering the Ecuadorian embassy in London in a bid to be granted asylum by the Andean country. He was granted his application two months after he entered the building, and has remained there ever since.

Thanks to diplomatic protection afforded by the embassy, he has avoided extradition to Sweden, where he faces questioning for allegations of sexual misconduct. In an interview with Reuter’s he revealed that he would not leave the embassy even if Sweden dropped the charges against him for fear that the United States would bring charges of espionage against him, punishable by a life sentence, or even death.

Ecuador has offered the controversial figure political asylum in Quito, but Assange has thus far been unable leave the country as British authorities have denied him the safe passage required to leave the country without facing arrest.

Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa has invited the Swedes to interrogate him within the safety of the embassy, but they declined.

The official line from Ecuador has been that they are, “defending the right to life of a citizen”. For his part Assange has said the he is willing to remain in the embassy for the next five years.

A meeting this Monday between the two foreign secretaries, Ricardo Patiño and William Hague, yielded little fruit. They pledged however to create a legal commission to evaluate the case although they did not go into detail.

Round the clock metropolitan police are stationed outside the residence with orders to arrest Assange if he leaves, at a cost of six million pounds to the British taxpayer.

The stalemate looks set to continue.

Often, words and actions are opposed in a false dichotomy. In politics, saying that one is a “man (or woman) of action”, someone who “talks less and does more” is an old cliché. However, as any discourse analyst knows, the distinction between words and actions can be blurry. Language philosopher John Austin focused much of his research on what he called ‘speech acts’, describing the performative quality of words. This can be observed in simple, every-day situations -the classic example is that uttering words such as “I promise” is, at the same time, performing the act of promising something- and it can also be the base to understand more complex social processes in which words, images, and symbols play a great part.

In the last few years, it has become common place in the Argentine media, and in every day speech, to mention ‘el relato‘ -’the narrative’- put forward by the government in order to impose their view of reality. More often than not, the term is used in a pejorative way, almost as a synonym for lie, deception, a mise en scène that people naively buy into (or cleverly see through and pull apart).

Many seem to have only recently discovered the fact that governments -as well as other groups- promote certain ‘narratives’ in which they insert their actions and policies. This is in no way an innovation of Kirchnerism. Indeed, all governments and all systems need to construct their discourses in order to give legitimacy to their actions. Within modern, media-dominated democracies, the struggle for power is often played out in the field of cultural hegemony.

It is in this field in particular that words matter. What people, government, and the media talk and do not talk about plays a great part in shaping our understanding of the world.

Tomorrow marks a decade since the birth of Kirchnerism. If there is one thing that can be said about this decade, is that public debate has been well and truly alive. So what have Argentines been taking about?

Words Matter

Debate happens within the realm of civil society, and while the government has dominated the agenda for years, not all debate has been started or imposed by it. In fact, to a great extent it has been the regional context -and more specifically, its crises- that has brought to the surface many issues that had been silenced for years.

The international consensus that dominated the world after the fall of the Berlin wall and of Soviet socialism marked the glorious triumph of capitalism and liberal democracy. The ‘end of history’ as announced by US academic Francis Fukuyama, was the predominant theory that explained the state of the world, and dissident voices were drowned out amid the cheerful celebrations of the establishment.

That model, now under the spotlight everywhere, first started showing signs of collapse in the crises that struck Latin America in the first few years of the 21st century. The governments that were tasked with picking up the pieces in their respective countries started breaking -more or less quickly, more or less radically- with the certainties of the past and trying out new ways to move their countries forward.

A new discourse, new ‘narratives’ have developed throughout these years, on subjects such as the economy, the role of the state, the rights of minorities, and the nature of power. These debates have helped shape the society that we live in, and have in many cases been either the cause or the consequence of government policy.

At the same time as the state regained its role as the organiser of economic and social relations, the question arose as to whether real power relies on its control or elsewhere. The first Kirchnerist government started off weakly, after having come second in the 2003 election and in the middle of a massive political and institutional crisis. From its very first days, when it confronted the corrupt Supreme Court it had inherited from the previous decade, it presented itself as the government that had come to fight the corporations that secretly pulled the strings of political and economic life.

As the government increased in popularity and power, the David and Goliath story lost some meaning. But, regardless of whether one considers that the government really fought the corporations or not, the necessary discussion about where power lies was firmly installed in the public debate.

The most positive outcome of this has been that the privileges of corporations have been put into question. Though in the media-dominated public sphere debates tend to become simplified to the extreme, issues such as the power, influence, and political interests of media conglomerates, the inscrutable nature of the privileged judicial caste, or the lobbying power of big business started to be analysed, or at least talked about, outside of the academic world.

The question of power opened up to debate the question of politics as a space for participation, and after the collapse of the party system in 2001, political activism slowly began to regain its place in society. While the ’90s had given rise to some important and interesting political manifestations, it will go down in history as a decade of apathy and despondency. The restoration of the belief that politics can actually change people’s lives and that it is something worth becoming involved in -in a country with a long history of political activism- has sparked a growing interest, especially with young people who seem to have become more active within political parties and social organisations.

However, the understanding that not everything is the same, and that there is more to politics than just corrupt politicians, seems to be increasingly at risk by the degradation of the public discourse encouraged by mass media. When the logic of reality TV takes over, and shock and scandals matter more than discussions about important issues, the public debate suffers as a result.

The value of the commitment to a cause and the struggle for one’s beliefs was exemplified by some of the voices that had screamed for years to be heard and that finally obtained the recognition they deserved, and important policies to go with it.

The debate about the importance of dealing with the pending issues from our past and of obtaining justice in order to move forward, promoted tirelessly by human rights organisations for over three decades, resulted in the end of impunity for many perpetrators of human rights violations. The recognition obtained by organisations like Madres and Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo and HIJOS was a historical restoration.

Finally, the discussion about equality which ended (or started) with the passing of laws such as those of marriage equality and gender identity allowed us to move ever further from the reactionary conservatism of institutions that still expect to have a final say on issues concerning society’s moral values.

Silenced Voices

Much has been said and much has been put into question in the last ten years. However, in such a vocal era, when everyone tries to scream a little bit louder than the rest, there are still many voices that cry out to be heard.

Despite the massive discussion taking place across the continent -and the world- over the power of media, and despite the regulatory law that was passed in Argentina in 2009, access to the media and the attention it commands remains a privilege reserved to a select few. As with the rest of the economy, the communications’ market is still highly concentrated. The political and economic interests that media owners try to protect shape the agenda, degrading the terms of the public debate and drowning out dissident voices.

Though each new tragedy manages to scratch the surface of the public agenda, the issue of land rights, especially that which involves aboriginal communities, is very rarely analysed with the seriousness it deserves. The expansion of the agricultural frontier and the social and environmental damage it causes is not a concern for the government or for the business elite -both benefit from the dollars obtained by grain exports. One of the most important political conflicts of the last few years, the campo crisis, revolved around the appropriation of those dollars. Not much air time was given to those who used the opportunity to question the agricultural model in place.

In a resource-rich continent like Latin America, the environmental discussion in general still lags behind. As economic growth and the re-distribution of wealth consolidate, inevitably the time will come when we will have to question our dependency on fossil fuels and non-renewable sources of energy, the appropriate implementation of environmental laws, and our outdated view on industrialisation.

While some minorities have managed to have their voices heard, there are still silent majorities that must keep fighting for their rights. Physical violence against women is a problem that will not go away as long as symbolic violence -which manifests itself in every day speech and in the constant degradation of women in the media- is still prevalent and accepted in society. While the advancement in the rights and participation of women in public life is undeniable, rights that in other countries are considered basic, such as access to a legal and safe abortion, are hardly being discussed on a mainstream level. In these matters, the conservative right still has the upper hand and manages to install a criminal silence.

***

Debate, discussions, exchange of ideas… they are vital to a democracy. While there are many issues that remain unspoken -or rather, unheard- the balance of the last decade is positive in terms of the many truths that have been questioned. Nothing should be sacred, and everything should be up for debate. Going forward, and as the voices seem to become louder and more aggressive, it is important to ensure that meaningful debate is not drowned out or dumbed down, and that the new truths do not in turn become unquestionable.

It is also important to not become too infatuated with the sound of our own voices. Everyone is talking, but we should also learn to listen.

Conflict is at the heart of politics. Theories that talked about ‘the end of history’, signalling the supposed demise of ideologies and a victory of consensus regarding the best political system, have been discredited long ago.

Many political philosophers have dealt with the issue of conflict, one of them being Carl Schmitt, whose theory of friends and enemies is currently in vogue with many political scientists (the fact that Schmitt was a Nazi does not diminish the value of his theory, or its application in the analysis of reality).

According to Schmitt, the friend-enemy distinction is what defines politics. He does not attach any moral or personal meaning to these categories: the enemy is ‘the other’, he who objectively antagonises us, and by doing so helps us define ourselves. Friends and enemies are also contingent and circumstantial; they can vary.

From this it is easy to infer that, despite the combative nature of the friend-enemy relationship, the ultimate aim is not eliminate the other. There is a creative tension between antagonistic groups that keeps the political wheel spinning. There is a degree of confrontation that is politically healthy, and any attempt to suppress it – be it through violence or by an idealistic ‘universal consensus’ – goes against the very notion of politics.

In times of a highly polarised political landscape like the one we live in Latin America in general, and in Argentina in particular, many see conflict in a negative light, as a inhibitor to any kind of constructive political activity. However, conflict can also mean that there is a genuine debate taking place in society, with a plurality of points of view and alternative political projects. The question is, at what point does the confrontation become unhealthy?

One obvious answer to this question is: when it becomes violent. Schmitt thought that the greater the antagonism – the more it challenged a group’s very existence – the more ‘political’ it was, with the greatest antagonism of all being war. There was a time in Argentina when violence was seriously considered by many as a legitimate political option. That is not the case anymore and the threat of violent uprisings nowadays is, fortunately, negligible.

However, verbal violence can also be worrying, as it’s often seen a preamble to physical violence. Hence the concern over some of the signs seen in recent cacerolazos (mainly the one in September, not so much the one in November) calling for the death of the president. Or the posters that appeared afterwards showing a gruesome photomontage of Domestic Trade Secretary Guillermo Moreno lying in a coffin with a bullet wound in his forehead. It’s highly unlikely that the authors of these signs and posters would ever act on their wishes of seeing politicians dead, but that level of verbal (and visual) violence adds little to the public debate. The desire to eliminate the enemy (even if symbolically) is anti-political, it shows an unhealthy disregard for the political system.

Our democratic political system is the best way to channel and manage conflict that we have come up with so far. And it’s based (ideally) on public debate and the free exchange of ideas. Insults and threats annul that debate, making it about people rather than ideas.

Another symptom of an unhealthy confrontation, one that is much more relevant to us right now than the threat of violence, is fanaticism. When politics becomes a dogma, debate becomes impossible. Unfortunately, this is one symptom we are seeing too much of at the moment in Argentina, and it seems to be here to stay.

There is a difference between passion in the defence of one’s ideas, and the kind of fanaticism that turns life into a football match. When that kind of irrationality takes over, meaningful discussion goes out the window, and, at the individual level, people risk becoming pawns in the power struggles of others. A moral discourse is often introduced into the debate, which becomes a confrontation between good and evil – both concepts alien to the political categories of friend and enemy as described before.

Once again, the much talked-about issue of political representation could be key to bringing the public debate back on track. Well thought out and articulated political programmes on ‘both sides’ of the spectrum (government and opposition) are a necessary base to ensure the discussion is centred on ideas and not on people or irrational loyalties. They would help define friends and enemies, strengthen ideological positions, and channel the conflict that true democracy stands on.

The Ministry of Defence claims responsibility for the Frigate Libertad conflict in Ghana as sailors return to Argentina.

National Minister of Defence Arturo Puricelli referred to the clash on Radio 10 for the first time saying, “The president has defined the responsibilities and I assume those that correspond to me.”

Hours after the crew returned from Argentina last night, Puricelli stressed that the ship’s travel was in fact decided by the ministry although the original plan did not include the Ghanian port of Tema as a destination.

“The trip was planned by the Ministry of Defence after a proposal by the navy. We strategically decided to approach the African continent, as a proposal for political rapprochement,” Puricelli said. “So we decided to do the whole circuit, to go to Portugal, down the port of Cádiz and continue down the coast of Africa.”

Puricelli defended the evacuation of the port saying it gives the countries more time to negotiate.

Paraguay – Following last week’s violence in the rural Northeast of the country, leftist President Fernando Lugo was removed from office on Friday.

“Paraguay’s history has been profoundly wounded,” he said just before opposition Federico Franco, was sworn in to complete the last year of his presidency.

The speed of the impeachment trial has drawn criticism from other Latin American governments. The leftist presidents of Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador announced they would not recognise Franco’s government.

Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, spoke out against the impeachment: “We believe that they [Unasur - Union of South American Nations] should apply the sanctions of what the democratic charter establishes, not to recognise an illegitimate government, even go as far as closing the border.”

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, spoke in similar sentiment: “We, the Venezuelan government, the Venezuelan state, do not recognise this illegitimate and illegal government that has been installed.”

The US and Spain have been slightly more cautious in their public judgments regarding the impeachment of Lugo.

According to the AFP news agency, a statement from the Spanish foreign ministry said: “Spain defends full respect for democratic institutions and the state of law and trusts that Paraguay, in respect for its constitution and international commitments, will manage to handle this political crisis and safeguard the peaceful coexistence of the Paraguayan people.”

US State Department spokeswoman Darla Jordan was quoted as saying: “We urge all Paraguayans to act peacefully, with calm and responsibility, in the spirit of Paraguay’s democratic principles.”

Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner said her country would not “validate the coup” in Paraguay. She also said she was working with Brazil and Uruguay – partners in the Mercosur trade bloc, along with Paraguay – to respond jointly.

Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff was one of the first to speak out against the impeachment. Rousseff has suggested that Paraguay could be expelled from Mercosur and Unasur since the two organisations have clauses in support of democratic rules and governance

The last time a Paraguayan leader was impeached was in 1999 when Raul Cubas was accused of failing to fulfill his duties following the murder of the vice president and the killing of seven protesters. However, Cubas resigned before a verdict was reached.

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.”

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez might have cancer, but he has not yet lost his proverbial sense of humor.

Speaking on national television yesterday, he fired another joke to the opposition, saying that it will come back to govern the country the day the famous fictional character Tarzan appears in Caracas main square along with his ape mate.

“The real one. No one shall dress up,” he added.

In recent days, Chávez has made his voice heard more often than during his convalescence days in Cuba. He had various telephone conversations with state television programs. As soon as rumors about his severe health conditions mounted, he surprised everyone once again by appearing on state television.

Chávez added that the country is lacking a “serious opposition.”

“They’re comedians. They are trying to disguise themselves, but they will not be able to do it,” said the president. “They’ll never get back, write it down,” he insisted.

The Venezuelan leader was operated on for the first time in June 2011. A few days later, he publicly announced his illness on national television, from Cuba.

However, since then, very little is known about its true condition. No-one else except the Bolivarian leader is authorised to give away details about his illness, despite a few leaks that have people fearing for the worst.

Despite his health conditions, the president announced that he would run in the next elections scheduled for 7^th October.

He said his political project is “people-oriented, not oriented towards capitalism nor transnational capitalism.”

Buenos Aires Mayor Mauricio Macri has often been criticised by the opposition for taking too many holidays. However, January seems to have been a busy month for the Mayor, who used up much of his time undoing what the legislature did before the closing of the 2011 parliamentary sessions.

Macri’s vetoes have been the talk of the town in the last month, when he rejected 16 laws that had been passed by the legislature between November and December. Over the past four years, Macri has vetoed – totally and partially – more than 100 bills (approximately 7% of all bills passed). As a comparison, in the same period of time President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner vetoed two bills in full (one of which was passed again two years later) and 16 partially.

Vetoes: a constitutional tool

Vetoes are a legitimate tool for governments in presidential systems. Their aim is to give the executive some flexibility and to provide a counterbalance to the legislative power. They are especially useful when the governing party does not have a parliamentary majority. The Constitution of the City of Buenos Aires allows the mayor to veto bills in full or partially (i.e. only certain articles). In both cases, the bill must return to the legislature and the veto can only be lifted with a two-third majority. Overturning a veto can be, then, very difficult.

The Constitution does not set a limit to the number of bills that can be vetoed, however it is usually understood that the power of veto is to be used exceptionally, so as to not encroach in the constitutional division of powers that makes up the base of the political system. Judging whether Macri has used this prerogative responsibly or whether he has abused it can become a very subjective exercise. Political scientist and researcher Facundo Galván believes that the situation in the City of Buenos Aires does not differ greatly from other cases of tension between legislative and executive powers, and that rather than the number of vetoes, it is the justification given in each case that should be considered. On the other hand, Hernán Charosky, the Executive Director of the NGO Poder Ciudadano -where Galván also works -, has recently shown concerns not only about the amount of vetoes carried out by Macri, but also about the mostly social content of the laws that have been rejected by the City government.

Indeed, a report by former legislator Gonzalo Ruanova (Nuevo Encuentro), shows that the most vetoed categories are public space and urban planning, health, labour, human rights and social communication, whilst other sensitive areas like housing, education and culture have also received a significant share of the vetoes. The handling of these areas by the government during its first term has often been controversial, so despite Vice-mayor María Eugenia Vidal’s claim that the laws have been vetoed purely on technical grounds, questions remain as to whether the reasons are really ideological.

Legislature vs. government?

Whether the amount of vetoed laws is excessive or not is debatable. It may not be surprising that the government rejects laws that are ideologically inconsistent with their programme, although it does raise concerns about the encroachment of the executive on the equally legitimate legislative power. But there is one issue that has been brought to attention by the media and the opposition that seems much more difficult for the government to justify: many of the laws vetoed by Macri had been passed with broad majorities and had been voted in by his own party.

According to Ruanova’s report, over 90% of the laws that Macri vetoed over the last four years had been voted by PRO legislators. Furthermore, some of them had been informed by ministerial reports or had been agreed upon with members of the executive -such as the recently vetoed call for an education congress, which was the result of an agreement between Minister Esteban Bullrich and Coalición Cívica legislator Sergio Abrevaya.

Whilst Ruanova acknowledges the legality and legitimacy of the veto as a tool which allows the executive to counter the weight of the legislative power, he considers the current veto frenzy to be yet another show of contempt by Macri towards democratic coexistence. He does not believe that the laws were vetoed because of technical defects, as most of the bills were extensively debated and agreed upon before being voted. “Macri has a contemptuous attitude towards the work of Parliament and the legitimacy of the legislators, whichever party they may be from” he says, adding that “[Macri] looks at the coexistence with other political actors as an annoyance”.

Other members of the opposition, such as Nuevo Encuentro legislator Gabriela Cerruti, have expressed their concerns about what they see as foul play by PRO members who enter political agreements in the legislature only to have them revoked by the executive’s vetoes. Such behaviour could breed mistrust amongst legislators, hindering future negotiations and effectively interfering with the law-making process.

PRO legislators have mostly kept silent about this issue. Most of the public comments on the matter have come from members of the executive, such as Vidal or Chief of Cabinet Horacio Rodríguez Larreta, who have insisted on the technical nature of the vetoes.

In an interview with The Argentina Independent, the head of PRO’s parliamentary group, Fernando de Andreis, minimised the importance of the issue by highlighting the cooperation between government and legislature in their everyday activities. He did not believe the number of vetoes carried out by Macri was a matter of concern and attributed the high percentage of vetoes to laws that had been backed by the PRO bloc as an expression of democracy within the party. Dismissing the notion of party discipline, De Andreis emphasised the freedom awarded to his party’s legislators to hold different views to those of the executive. However, this idea is somewhat weakened by the fact that only three vetoes -out of more than 100- were overturned by the legislature, thus showing that, in practical terms, the government has the final say.

Lead image courtesy of Mauricio Macri on Flickr

Hey there, my politically-challenged friends!

It’s that time of the year again!

No, I’m not talking about Creamfields, I’m talking about the presidential elections that are taking place this Sunday!

I know, I know, you don’t give a shit because you don’t vote. But still, don’t you think it’s at least interesting to know who you would be voting for if you could vote.

Still no?

You know what? Sometimes I don’t know why I even bother with you. Are you happy being this way? I mean, are you happy being this ignorant? Do you think life in Argentina is all about lunches in San Telmo, asados at you friend’s house in Las Cañitas and partying and hitting on gorgeous people until sunrise at some cool bar in Palermo Soho?

Well, yes it is, but how about knowing a little bit more, huh?

The world is in revolt* out there, there are protests around the planet, dictatorships are falling and democracies are being born and you still choose to ignore it because “you’re not really into that stuff.”

Well you, my friend, are an idiot.

*(It used to say “falling apart” instead of “in revolt”, but some smartass reader pointed out that I wasn’t making much sense, so I, humiliated, decided to change it. You win for now, smartass reader, but we’ll meet again).

NOW SHUT UP AND READ THE FUCKING LIST I MADE BECAUSE I SAID SO.

Don’t worry; you’ll thank me in the next ten years when you all of a sudden start caring about politics and say “that Adrian dude was right!”

So, without any further ado, I give you this election’s presidential candidates, dumbed down for your reading pleasure.

Presidential Candidate #1 – President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

 

Occupation: Didn’t you read? She’s the President.

Age: 58, but I’m sure she doesn’t want you to know that.

Party: Frente para la Victoria (Peronist)

Ideology: Progressive, center-left. You thought she was from the left? Haha. You have no idea.

Running Mate: The coolest of them all, current Economy Minister Amado Boudou, known for making out with red heads in nightclubs and playing guitar on stage. Yeah, we get it Boudou, you’re “one of us.” Shut up already.

Pros: She’s probably the best president Argentina has had since the return of democracy in 1983.

Cons: She’s a narcissistic psycho bitch.

Superpowers: None.

Catchphrase: “A woman would have found a way out of this already.”

Nemesis: Vice-President Julio Cobos and fake, Chinese-made Louis Vuitton bags.

If she were a fictional character, she’d be: Miranda Priestly, from “The Devil Wears Prada.”

Chances of being elected: Let’s just say she’s already won.

So, in my honest opinion, this is all you need to know since she is expected to be reelected by a landslide (polls suggest she may even reach a 60 percent of the popular vote). Still I’m contractually obligated by the Argentina Independent to finish this piece, no matter how useless the rest of the information. So let’s just pretend that we don’t know who’s gonna win, shall we?

By the way, great to know you made it to bullet point 2. I promise it’s all gonna be over soon.

Presidential Candidate #2 – Hermes Binner

 

Occupation: Governor of Santa Fe

Age: 68

Party: Socialist (if you’re a right-wing American, you should be having a heart attack by now).

Ideology: Progressive, center-left.

Running Mate: Norma Morandini

Pros: Under his administration, the Santa Fe province registered a historical growth.

Cons: His speeches are unbelievably boring.

Superpowers: None

Catchphrase: None

Nemesis: Well, let’s just say right-wing America would want him dead.

If he were a fictional character, he’d be: The 2015 version of George Mc. Fly in Back to the Future Part II.

Chances of being elected: Not many. However, after garnering such strong support in the last few months, if he doesn’t win he will certainly become a very strong contender and opposition leader in 2015.

Presidential Candidate #3 – Ricardo Alfonsín

 

Occupation: Lawmaker

Age: 59

Party: Radical Civic Union (UCR). And no, you idiots. “Radical” doesn’t have the connotation that you think it does. Plus, the party was founded in the 1800′s, and back then people killed each other a lot more.

Ideology: Progressive, center.

Running Mate: Javier González Fraga

Pros: He has good intentions. He is the son of the late Raúl Alfonsín, the first Argentine president after the dictatorship, who many people still remember fondly.

Cons: His campaign ads were probably the worst in political history (specially this one, in which he tells the President “you will probably win this election…”).

Superpowers: His yelling will drive you insane.

Catchphrase: None.

Nemesis: His campaign strategist.

If he were a fictional character, he’d be: He’s like a parody of himself. So… you know. Himself.

Chances of being elected: On a scale of 1 to 10? None.

Presidential Candidate #4 – Eduardo Duhalde

 

Occupation: Unemployed, drug trafficker

Age: 70

Party: Union Popular (Peronist)

Ideology: Conservative, center-right.

Running Mate: Mario Das Neves

Pros: He was the one who bravely stepped forward and took office when no one wanted to be president of Argentina in 2001, and he somehow miraculously survived.

Cons: Pretty much the entire country believes he is the one who controls the drug flow entering the Buenos Aires province. It’s never been proven though.

Superpowers: None

Catchphrase: “You guys wanna see a dead body?” Haha. No, I’m kidding.

Nemesis: The DEA.

If he were a fictional character, he’d be: Any portrayed by Joe Pesci.

Chances of being elected: Forgetaboutit.

Presidential Candidate #5 – Alberto Rodríguez Sáa

 

Occupation: Governor of San Luis

Age: 62

Party: Frente Compromiso Federal (Peronist)

Ideology: I’m not really sure. Left-wing? Right-wing? Eh, whatever.

Running Mate: Apparently, this guy.

Pros: He says if he wins, he will provide free wi-fi for everyone in the country (not a joke).

Cons: His political ads are cringing and seem to be taken from a Family Guy episode. Here, let me show you: there’s this one with the Wachiturros, there’s this one in which he looks like a cult leader trying to talk you into joining him in mass suicide, and then there’s this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and 15 more like those that will make you want to violently and repeatedly stab your ears and eyes with a rusty screwdriver.

**UPDATE** OH MY GOD THIS ONE.

Seriously, this guy HAS to be president. Can you imagine? I wouldn’t have enough time to write about him!

Superpowers: None.

Catchphrase: “Pongale su voto al Alberto, Rodriguez Saa!,” the most horrible jingle in the history of horrible jingles.

Nemesis: Good taste, DSL internet.

If he were a fictional character, he’d be: Lord Voldemort. But not the scary, cool looking Voldermort from the latter Harry Potter movies. I’m talking about the one from the first one, that hid on the back of some dude’s head and was made in some really cheap special effects. Yeah, that one.

Chances of being elected: Haha. Well, I can’t blame you for asking.

Presidential Candidate #6 – Elisa Carrió

 

Occupation: Lawmaker, clairvoyance expert

Age: 54

Party: Coalición Cívica (Civic Coalition)

Ideology: Social democracy, center-left. Sort of.

Running Mate: Adrián Pérez

Pros: No matter how many times she’s loses, she keeps trying. So I guess she’s persistent.

Cons: She’s batshit crazy. She keeps making ambiguous, undecipherable prophecies that allegedly come to her through God.

Superpowers: She can see the future. No, really, she says that. In fact, back in 2008, she said it would be “divine” if President Fernández de Kirchner became a widow. Two years later, BAM!

Catchphrase: None

Nemesis: Well, obviously Satan. Also facts. 

If she were a fictional character, she’d be: A very blonde Annie Wilkes from Misery.*

Chances of being elected: She has basically stopped trying. Guess what she saw in her future wasn’t so good.

 *Yes, I know I said that of another candidate a couple of months ago. Don’t try to get smart with me.

 

Presidential Candidate #7 – Jorge Altamira

 

Occupation: Currently unemployed.

Age: 69

Party: Partido Obrero (Worker’s Party)

Ideology: Left-wing socialist. HORROR!

Running Mate: Christian Castillo

Pros: He’s an incredibly smart man with big dreams.

Cons: He chose the wrong country to run. He’s got this sort of cosmopolitan proletariat glow around him that makes me sort of uncomfortable.

Superpowers: None.

Catchphrase: “Nosotros, la izquierda” (We, the left).

Nemesis: Other parties who claim to be the left (like the President’s party) but that they are not really the left, like his party is.

If he were a fictional character, he’d be: Any character portrayed my Malcolm McDowell.

Chances of being elected: Let’s just say he made it through the primaries because he was part of an internet meme. So “none,” I guess.

 

And that’s pretty much it!

See? That wasn’t so hard.

So this Saturday when you’re forced to stay home watching some movie or – God forbid – reading a book instead of going out (and we all know in your little world “going out” equals “potential sex”), now you know who to blame.

Enjoy your lame, sexless Saturday night everyone!

Send Adrian your comments, thoughts or tips at adrianbono@hotmail.com or follow him on Twitter at @AdrianBono

At 9pm on Sunday the results of Argentina’s first ever primary election were announced, in which 29 million voters took part. Despite having been named the favourite from the moment she announced her candidacy, incumbent Cristina Fernández de Kirchner shocked many by landing an overwhelming majority of 50%. She took to a podium before crowds of supporters chanting “we are Argentines! we are Argentines!” and tearfully applauded the new system for enhancing democracy and minimising corruption. The primary election system was set up as a way to whittle down the number of candidates that run in the final October election – so that the people could choose their candidates for presidency and vice presidency. Many have argued, however, that since candidates made themselves known months ago, this simply turned into more of a nationwide survey. 

Florencia Aguilar, 18, student

They were very strange. I knew Cristina had a lot of support and was probably going to win but to get 50%… There’s not very much anyone can do now, although people say the opposition should unite, it’s pretty obvious she’s going to win. I voted for Rodriguez Sáa. I like what he did with San Juan, but, you know, there were so many candidates and he was just the best of the bunch. If you ask me think four more years of Cristina is an outrage – I don’t know what half the country is doing voting for her. Initially I thought the primaries could be good by working against Cristina – for example, if she didn’t win – but in the end it just had the opposite effect. 

Alejandra Rodriguez Coelho, 27, student

I wasn’t happy with the result – I don’t think it’s a good thing. I don’t like the current government. But I know that the majority do, and by the looks of things no one will be able to beat her in October. I don’t like that they target the unemployed and give them incentives to vote. The homeless get lots of benefits and subsidies, and it’s all coming out of our pensions. It kind of annoys me that I don’t know how much money I’ll actually get when I retire because of all these subsidies that they hand out. Basically I think that economically we’re in a bad position right now. I think the next four years will just keep us stuck in this situation. I want to know what it will be like when she’s gone, when things aren’t done the way she does things. I think things are just going to get more expensive since inflation is definitely much higher than what the government says it is. I voted for Rodriguez Sáa. I listened to what each candidate had to say and out of all of them his policies worked best for me. I got married recently and now I want my own place, but here, like for the majority of Argentines, it’s impossible. I have somewhere now but it is a problem that for young people it’s not easy to land a place to live. That’s one of the things Rodriguez Sáa proposed: for young people to more easily attain their own home. I also liked how he was running San Luis. I like the things he’s been doing basically. 

Thomas Kenny, 69, taxi driver

It was just a poll really, wasn’t it? Just a survey. We’re not really doing anything by voting because all the candidates are going to change their approach now – as voters we’re not affecting anything. It was just a survey that cost a heap of money. So, no, I don’t think the primaries did anything for anyone. It was just to make the winners happy and the losers sad. I was so surprised by the result. I never thought Cristina could get 50%. Maybe forty maximum, but fifty! I think we’ve got four horrible years ahead of us. It’s terrible. The government is made up of thugs. It’s going to be awful. Terrible. No one will be able to beat her in October. None of the politicians in this country are any good. There are so many people but… I voted for Carrió but only because there wasn’t really any other option, and no one voted for her because she’s not that great to look at! 

Felicialo Torres, 38, editor and publisher

Well there’s nothing to say really – 50% of the country are backing Cristina so whatever anyone else thinks, you have to respect that that’s an overwhelming majority. For those of us that don’t agree, we’re just going to have to accept our differences and get on with it. We’ll see what happens. These are only primaries and in October there’ll probably be a similar outcome but we’ll see over the next four years whether it was a good or bad thing. That’s the only thing I can do really, see what happens. No one could beat Cristina now, not with just two months until the election. Could someone do a better job? They could do. Not with 50% of the country supporting Cristina though. Personally, I voted for someone else even though I knew they wouldn’t be elected President, but I have to be respectful of the fact that 50% of people in this country – a country I don’t currently live in – support her, so she is the one to lead the country. 

Marta Graciela, trader

I think the result was fair, and the best thing for this country, a country that suffered a terrible economic crisis – there are so many reasons. I voted for Cristina mainly because she has chosen to give pensions to those who need it most, for supporting and protecting mothers and children. A few years ago people were losing their jobs and there was never food on the table. Now we have a very productive country and it’s fantastic. I’m very happy with the way things are. I’m so glad she won and she’s going to keep things going the way they are. There are so many other important reasons why Cristina won: I voted for her because we have a very successful and productive country, everyone works, everyone eats, all of the industries are doing very well. I’m so happy with how much better things are. I always knew she’d win. That’s why I voted for her. She’s very intelligent and she’s done what has to be done no matter what anyone says. I had a factory in Menem’s time with 120 workers and I had to shut it down because the industry was doing so badly – for a dozen glasses companies abroad would charge $2 but I had to charge $5. I’m so happy now; I never want things to change from how they are now.