Last October 27th, Nestor Kirchner passed away at the age of 60. In the following days, hundred of thousands of Argentineans gathered to collectively grieve their former president. They cried, brought flowers, and sang political chants to pay tribute to head of UNASUR (Union of South American Nations), ex-president (2003-2007) and husband of the actual president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. Economic and social reforms implemented during his government and continued under his wife’s made Argentineans either love or despise him. A story of political polarization and significant social change.
In the post-war period, Argentina built a relatively successful welfare-state, making it the most egalitarian country in South America. The 1976-1983 dictatorship, in addition to assassinating or “disappearing” 30 000 individuals, started destroying an economical model based on state intervention. After a difficult return to democracy in the 80s, the right wing Peronist Carlos Menem (president from 1989 to 1999) continued these changes by applying the IMF neoliberal recipe: privatization of public companies, deregulation of economic and financial activities. It resulted in a growing economy essentially based on wealth concentration, massive unemployment and an explosion of social distress (poverty, urban violence, drug abuse). The Argentinean upper class, and part of the middle class, lived the first world dream during the 90s, thanks to the liquidation of public assets and an inflating foreign debt. The whole model collapsed in 2001, with a gigantic financial and economic crisis. Many lost their life savings through the banking system decomposition; unemployment grew to 30%; food riots sprung up. From December 2001 to May 2003, Argentina lived through 5 presidents. In this disastrous context, appeared a relatively unknown governor from the Santa Cruz province. Kirchner obtained 22% of the vote in the 2003 first round election. His opponent, former president Menem, cowardly refused to run in the second round, consequently making Kirchner president.
Kirchner proposed to reactivate the “national-popular” matrix based on state intervention, industrialization (industries had been considerably weakened during the previous 3 decades), and assistance to lower classes. In a nutshell, his government reformed the highly ineffective Supreme Court, suspended payments on the foreign debt, rejected IMF recommendations, implemented economic measures to protect and stimulate industrial activities; increased taxes on exportats (mostly agricultural products); promoted actively human rights, notably by facilitating trials related abuses perpetuated during the dictatorship; increased the minimum salary, public pensions; amplified social programs in poor neighborhood. Politically, Kirchner revived the Peronist party (yes, the same as Menem, but another fraction), getting strong support from lower and working classes. He also built alliances with powerful unions, social movements and some economical actors.
Under his wife’s government, starting in 2007, he maintained a very active role. Initiatives such as the asignación universal (basically providing poor parents with an allocation per child – about 60 $ Canadian a month- while obligating them to attend school, take routine medical exams and have their vaccines in order), the nationalization of pensions funds, a media reform aiming at promoting major diversity, all reflect a clear continuity between Cristina’s and Nestor’s governments.
On the left, critics have accused Kirchner of paternalism and being too close to some economic interests (mining companies, some industrial actors). On the right, accusations of corruption and clientelism dominate their discourse, often associating social programs with buying vote and manipulate the population’s lower classes. Generally speaking, mainstream private media have been very hostile to both Nestor and Cristina.
Even though he died only a few weeks ago, Nestor Kirchner has already been transformed in an Argentinean myth, alongside Juan Peron, Evita, Maradonna, Che Guevara and Carlos Gardel.
From my humble perspective, Kirchner deserves this public recognition. His government concretely improved lives of millions of people, especially those who had been left behind and marginalized by the neoliberal models initiated during the dictatorship and concretized by Menem in the 90s. He was able to do so because he courageously confronted international organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank. Obviously, el kirchernismo is far from being perfect. It reflects both Argentinean political tradition – dominated by polarization and strong leaders- and Peron’s inheritance. Even though he successfully reformed the Supreme Court, he could not or did not want to reinforce and profoundly reform the state apparatus. Despite some success in implementing specific programs, for example the asignación universal, Argentinean bureaucracy enjoys very little independence and in many respects is inefficient. To give one simple example, the INDEC (the national organization equivalent to Statistics Canada) has started manipulating stats under Kirchner to systematically publish underestimate inflation figures – inflation is one of the main economic problem- and poverty rates, to the point that nobody takes these figures seriously. Furthermore, both Nestor and Cristina have based their discourse on a polarizing narrative, personalizing debates and limiting them to a with us/against us dichotomy.
After 7 years of kirchnerismo, Argentina is still a polarized society, both economically and politically. Nonetheless, Kirchner has contributed to put a stop to the neoliberal nonsense of the 90s. Imperfect, sometimes contradictory, reforms has made it possible for an important segment of the population to hope again in face of Argentina future. Urban poor, members of the lower middle class, many young people have seen that politics could make social change happening, for better or worse. At least, it is now clear that Argentina will not go back to a neoliberal model and can hope to being, once again, a society dominated by middle and working classes, even if there is still a very long way to go.