Argentina embraces a future of radical changes

Helder Ferreira do Vale
The author is a visiting professor in the Graduate Program of International Relations at the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA), Brazil.

On Nov. 19, the ultraright candidate Javier Milei was elected president of Argentina with 55.7 percent of the votes. Promising drastic political and economic changes, he defeated on the second round of the elections the current Finance Minister, the center-left candidate Sergio Massa, who won 44.2 percent of the vote.

During the electoral campaign Argentines had to choose between two opposing futures: the maintenance of a path that has proven harmful to the country or a drastic and unpredictable shift of this path. With Milei’s victory, voters favored the second option above the first.

Reflecting the high political polarization trend that is seen worldwide, Milei from the coalition Liberty Advances (LA) based his campaign on attacks against the policies of the current government. His opponent Massa, supported by a large coalition called Union for the Fatherland (UF), advocated for measures that favored macroeconomic heterodoxy and state interventionism.

Argentina has long been resistant to ultra-right ideologies, despite its severe issues, which include deindustrialization, declining living standards, and the absence of workable answers to the country’s macroeconomic instability. However, two persistent problems contributed to Milei’s rise to prominence as a candidate: the country’s chronic economic crisis and widespread corruption.

After winning the first round of election on Oct. 22, Massa has been promising voters the enlargement of welfare benefits to win over more votes. His campaign promises would likely worsen an already ailing economy —which has an annual inflation of 140 percent. Massa’s promises have drawn to Milei voters who were in favor of a minimalist state. In fact, a sizable portion of Argentines voted for Milei because of his pledge to eliminate the government from public life.

Uncertainty marked the last weeks of the election campaign. According to the majority of polls before the election day, the difference in votes between the two contenders was very small. With a large vote gap of nearly 12 percent difference in number of votes cast, Milei’s comfortable victory was unexpected.

Voters who did not select Milei or Massa in the first round, approximately 9.5 million voters, were expected to determine the outcome of the election. Of those voters, approximately 6 million chose Patricia Bullrich, a candidate from the center-right group Together for Change (TC), who finished third in the first round with 23.8 percent of the total votes cast. Bullrich declared her support for Milei and an opinion poll indicated that 47 percent of Bullrich’s voters migrated to Milei, and only 9 percent to Massa.

Milei has been characterized as an unruly political outsider with impractical beliefs. His most notorious promises include the dollarization of the economy and the elimination of the central back. Apart from the infeasible promises, he will face a strong opposition, which will compromise his ability to govern.

Strong opposition to Milei will come from the National Congress. In October, votes were cast to renovate the National Congress. Approximately 50 percent of the lower house seats (127 of the 257 total seats) and 33 percent of the senate seats (24 out of the 72 total seats) were filled with representatives from eight provinces.

As a result of the congressional elections, Milei’s ultraright coalition made significant gains in terms of congressional seats, positioning them as a relevant force in both congressional chambers. Milei’s opposition, the UF, despite losing seats, remains the coalition with the highest number of seats in the lower house, 108 deputies, and in the senate, 33 senators. Milei’s LA coalition together with his electoral ally TC will have in total 132 deputies and 28 senators.

The main opposition to Massa, is an aggrupation of different parties that belong to Peronism, which has a long tradition of governing Argentina. Peronism as a populist movement led by Juan Perón in the 1940s and 50s governed and shaped the destiny of Argentina for many years. Since its foundation Peronism morphed into an umbrella organization of many parties. One of the main branches of this catch-all political movement has been the Justicialist Party which elected several presidents including Néstor Kirchner (2003-2007) and Cristina Kirchner (2007-2015). The Kirchners are known for their aggressive redistributive policies and for nationalizing businesses. They are also linked to controversies involving corruption and unconventional economic practices.

Massa’s electoral defeat represents a rejection of Peronism and the Kirchner family’s legacy. Their primary bad legacy: the macroeconomic mismanagement that led to a three-digit inflation rate and an increase in poverty. Currently, 40 percent of the Argentinians live below the poverty line.

Until Milei’s meteoric rise to power, contemporary Argentine politics have been defined by the effort to bring the country back to a path of sustainable economic growth and to preserve a basic welfare system, which is substantial by regional standards. In the process of achieving these objectives, Argentina during the previous 20 years — especially following the peso’s depreciation in 2001, which resulted in a foreign debt default payment — turned into a country prone to crises.

While most Argentine voters believe that Milei can transform the country, it is still unclear what concrete steps and laws he will take to make the required improvements. Undoubtedly there will be changes in Argentina, but it’s yet unclear how big of a change they will be and how quickly they will come.

Argentina’s democratic decline is happening gradually but steadily. The 2023 elections already mark a watershed in Argentina’s political history.