By Jorge Daniel Brahim


– In the chapter “The word or the perversion of the story” of ¡República Urgente! It refers to the fact that we are facing two devaluation of politics: one, it is the one carried out by populism; and another, which does not stop drawing attention because of your origin, is that of the pro’s technocratic arrogance.

– Independence of thought is not incompatible with solidarity or adherence to a particular political trend. Yes, on the other hand, it is at odds with submission to it or with giving in, because of that, to maintain that freedom of judgment, that freedom of interpretation. I believe that the Cambiemos government has made many errors in the communication plane, in the economic planning plane and, above all, in carrying out a policy that was subject to the technocratic professionalism of the executive cadres of the Pro. Execution was key to losing contact with reality to the detriment of greater social sensitivity.

– To neutralize the populist narrative, both Guyot and you propose that a republican counter narrative be installed. Wouldn’t it be the same verbal game only in an opposite sense?

– At this time, both Héctor and I are convinced that the opposition must not only echo the disagreement of a vast majority of the people with respect to the conduct and management of the ruling party, but must also have a speech programmatic. Therefore, we call the alternative programmatic discourse that the opposition must begin to express as soon as possible, not only to echo the social disagreement of those who are suffering the effects of the government’s ineptitude in management, but also so that it is known which one. it is the horizon of possibilities and hopes that a management coming from the current opposition would open. It is necessary that what we call counter-narrative be understood as a work program that addresses the possibility of managing future projects effectively within the field of ethics. This has nothing to do with the fictional political narrative that the populist story proposes.

– A long time ago, a cliché was installed in society that alludes to the fact that it is divided into two halves by the so-called “crack”. Who or who would be responsible for generating it?

– I have no doubt that the primary responsibility for the crack lies with the ruling party because it wanted and wants to get rid of the political system that we agreed upon. I would not say that what I am going to mention is the founding act of the crack, but it is, without a doubt, the most important symbolic fact from the point of view of the republican institutions. I am referring to the refusal of the former president to hand over the attributes of the command to the one who legitimately defeated her in the elections of the year 15. This refusal already splits the political system because it proves that the criteria and guidelines that allow to organize republicanly within a democracy do not they are accepted by that competitor who, having lost, feels that the system no longer represents him; then, he does not privilege the system, he privileges his defeat or his victory and therefore reduces the system to his person. The crack begins with a pathological personalism, with a conception of the adversary as an enemy, with the idea that the true word is the exclusive patrimony of a single faction; and, fundamentally, with contempt for politics, understood as a system of coexistence and dissent within the framework of the law.

– In the media, the word “poorness” is used more and more. What is the meaning that you give it?

– Poverty is the presumption that where the dependence of the applicant is verified, the role of a donor reigns. In other words, poorness is the promotion of the dependence of the indigent citizen sown by the patronage state, or by a conception of political power that finds poverty more political profitability as it can exchange votes for subsistence resources. So, there is poverty, fundamentally, where the civic condition is reduced to the demand for subsistence resources by the voter and an exchange or barter between resources to last and votes to govern. Promoting this system fatally turns democracy into a stagnant system because there is no possibility of evolution of what we would call “a mortgaged citizenship”. All this supposes a macrocephalism of the State, which the great Mexican poet Octavio Paz called “the philanthropic ogre.” The poor thus conceived are withdrawn from history understood as a space for personal and collective development.

– The prestigious Argentine political scientist, based in Portugal, Andrés Malamud, unsuspected of ascribing to republicanism, has a striking vision of the current ruling party, I would say even complacent. It doesn’t stop attracting attention, right?

– I think there is a certain formalism in Malamud’s thinking on this issue. And it is to believe that if the institutions subsist, if we are within a regime where there is freedom of expression and the possibility of the three powers working, then we are within a system that cannot be considered extinct. In a sense, he is not mistaken, because the hour of absolute distress has not yet come. But there is no doubt that this ruling party, which is still maintained from an apparent point of view within the institutional framework, is carrying out a form of neo-golpism that corrodes not only the existence, but also the independence and interdependence of the three powers, trying to to reduce to the demands of the executive the ways of functioning of the judiciary and the legislature. Apparently we continue to live within a democratic system, but the truth is that the government’s onslaught against private property, its adherence to the authoritarian and bloody regimes of Latin America hurt it. In short, as we see that the attachment to the authoritarian word dismisses the significance of the presidential inauguration and turns the person who exercises it into a lamentable echo of the vice president’s word, we have at least to learn to discern, in terms of what happens, a dire future for republican democracy. Malamud considers that this is not so serious.

– When I was averaging the reading of Urgent Republic! I had the feeling that the book had a third author. I felt that it was also written by Raúl Alfonsín, the Alfonsín who delivered the historic Parque Norte speech on December 1, 1985. (I read several passages from that speech aloud below.)

– We just wanted to be faithful to those words. That December 1, 1985 is a day, a month, and a year to come.

– The last chapter deals with the challenge of establishing a Republican Center, with capital letters, at the request of the book The Political Center of Andrés Fescina. Could you develop the concept?

– We call the Republican Center to that patrimonial space of a society organized in terms of the nation in which the shared assets enunciated in the National Constitution are represented; In other words, the Republican Center is the repertoire of values ​​and criteria, both legal and social, in which those who will have to dispute power within the political system of republican democracy must coincide. Where there is a Republican Center there can be a left and a right equally republican, because the left and the right, when they are with respect to a center, are center-left and center-right. What they have in common does not detract from what they have differently. If the ideal of the center is lost, that is, of the common good as represented by the democratically conceived republic, the left becomes the extreme left and the right the extreme right. And they no longer share a value system but the same need, which is the extermination of the adversary.

– In the event that the opposition triumphs in 2023, what to do with the other portion of Argentines who commune with populism? I am talking about that kind of Manichaean binaryism that, in general, causes the antagonist to be excluded.

– I believe that the good news that we can give to this sector is that if the republican democratic thought were to triumph again in the presidential elections of the year 23, they will be included within the system as an opposition force. Whereas if populism wins in the year 23, we will have no future.

– A final reflection. In which republic do you and Guyot aspire to live?

– I can tell you with conviction, both in the name of Héctor Guyot and in my own name, that we aspire to live in a political system that guarantees us our civic, social and economic development; with equity in the order of justice and efficient in the benefits of the State that is the mediator of the sectoral interests. Our desire is to live in a country where personal life can unfold freely, without fear of repression, without fear of not being able to carry out individual projects. We essentially aspire to full freedom, because political authoritarianism demands submission where we demand that freedom.



Disclaimer: If you need to update/edit/remove this news or article then please contact our support team Learn more


The News 24 is the place where you get news about the World. we cover almost every topic so that you don’t need to find other sites.