ANDn the already classic video of the year 2008, which can be seen here
Néstor Kirchner, of whom today we remember the 12 years that have elapsed since his death, establishes a doctrine regarding the type of historical unity that the Kirchnerist phase of Peronism requires, condensed in this vision: Unity yes, to lower flags, no. The type of unit deployed to win the 2019 elections is notorious, it has already concluded its historical stage.
It is not new. In 2009, after the mid-term electoral defeat, the type of historical unit -social and political- proposed by Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández was in crisis and mutating.
It usually happens: “They are not all that they are, nor are they all that they are”. Political processes lead to that. Everything that is consolidated in a historical moment and is built as a social and political unit changes, mutates, adds, removes over time. And like everything solid, it eventually vanishes into thin air. Life.
After that Buenos Aires election in 2009 with the victory of Francisco de Narváez, the type of unit focused on “transversality” flew through the air, a unit designed in 2007.
Let us remember that Vice President Cleto Cobos put aside his position as a member of the Executive Power and went into the opposition with presidential airs, the chief of staff Alberto Ángel Fernández resigned and Sergio Tomás Massa, who was even a member of the Buenos Aires testimonial list in 2009, also He left the government and began to design the Renovating Front, a political-electoral device with which he would comfortably win the elections for the Province of Buenos Aires in 2013.
It always happened in Peronism: The type of unity that Juan Perón proposed at the beginning of the last century was not the same as that of the 1970s, and that type of 1970s unity exploded in 1974 to levels unimaginable today. A revival was attempted with the Luder Bittel formula in 1983 and it did not work, electorally it was a disaster and politically impossible.
This type of unity was no longer the same as that which materialized with Carlos Menem in the first stage 1989-1995, and was transformed even more as of 1995, incorporating the UCDE into the Peronist coalition in the Menem phase, a neoliberal formation that had come of a national election of 7 points with the Alsogaray-Natale formula, filled stadiums and recited all the catilinaria of heavy neoliberalism that would make Javier Milei himself pale today.
This mutation disrupted the type of political and social unity of the year 1989, making Peronism in its Menemist phase, the dominant neoliberal adjustment party in the country.
We had to wait for the arrival of Néstor Kirchner who put an end to 25 years of neoliberal hegemony – inaugurated, let us remember, by blood and fire in 1976 by Videla and his henchmen – and after the crisis of 2001, he reconciled Peronism with its tradition popular-democratic.
For this purpose, it initially built a new type of historical unit in 2003 through the so-called “transversality”, which exploded in the air in 2009 after the crisis of the 125, it was then opted for a retreat on the PJ and that type of unity, with minor changes, is the one that dominates our days.
When we speak of historical unity, we refer to the type of social and political unity that accompanies a political process, gives it support, anchors it.
In this perspective, it is very likely that the type of coalition social and political unit that Cristina Kirchner proposed for the period between the years 2019-2023 will begin to mutate and change in another perspective, after this stage of ruling party called the Front of All, which has given mediocre results with respect to the electoral contract signed in 2019. Persisting in it, which is possible, will be heading towards historical sterility.
Nothing dramatic, that’s how things are in the populist armed group.
Basically, the discussion that persists and is now gigantic in the opposition media, is whether Peronism is something more than Kirchnerism.
There would be, for some politicians and theoreticians, a property that Peronism has over Kirchnerism, and that is a discussion that should take place, because it has very important political consequences.
If it is considered that Kirchnerism is a limited stage of Peronism, which is ultimately a major historical, political and social deployment and that it goes beyond it, a certain conjunctural and strategic policy is taken that always begins by limiting, suspending, encapsulating the leadership of Christina.
If it is observed that Kirchnerism fully expresses what Perón and Evita inaugurated, that Kirchnerism is until today at least, the concrete historical modality assumed by Peronism, another strategic and conjunctural determination arises that always begins by recognizing Cristina’s leadership Kirchner without limitations.
On the other hand, in electoral matters, the idea that there is an electorally powerful plus of non-Kirchnerist Peronism outside of “hard” Kirchnerism could never be sustained.
On the contrary, in the last mid-term elections, where due to the income crisis, more than four million votes were lost that accompanied the ruling party in the 2019 elections, as the Kirchnerist intellectuals point out in their document Unidad del campo popular : moderation or people “the “Unity” of the Frente de Todos was broken in November 2021 when more than four million voters who accompanied it in 2019, no longer did so in the mid-term elections. Rebuilding it is the goal.”
In 2021, the majority of the “hard” Kirchnerist votes remained supporting the ruling party and it was shown that the hypothesis of the electoral power of non-Kirchnerist Peronism is false and strictly speaking, when – already in the years 2015 and 2017 – “Peronism” stripped of Kirchnerism appeared on the electoral scene, it was a fiasco. There were two conceptual errors that marked this stage:
1- With Cristina it is not enough, without Cristina it is not possible.
2- Back better
Both visions supposed an evident demerit to the 12 years of inaugural Kirchnerism and a concession to the dominant sectors with respect to the period that, affecting interests, propitiated the best years in terms of improvements in the material conditions of existence for an extended population group recorded in the memory of many, to which the electoral power of the year 2019 was due. This stage of social ascent cannot be assimilated to what happened from the year 2029 until today.
Finally, assuming the inexorable transformations in the type of historical, political and social unity that was built for the period between the years 2019-2023 without losing the vocation of majorities, is the great challenge of the current stage for Kirchnerist Peronism, a task complex, no doubt, but inevitable and historically recurring.
The demands for this new type of unit will not be at all unaware of the complex situation we are going through. In this regard, BB Cooke was anticipatory when in Notes for militancy in 1964 he warned:
“They are being asked to lead us to power, not to lead to disintegration, not to lead to historical sterility. Logically, as I make these criticisms, I understand that others can make them, but always from the struggle.
The first condition to criticize combat is to be in combat. We are in a balance: the regime that does not have the strength to institutionalize itself but does have the strength to maintain itself while Peronism and the popular mass and other forces have enough power not to allow themselves to be institutionalized, but not to change it. Who has to break that balance? Us; lasting is enough for the bourgeoisie.”
Who can lead us to break this balance and successfully confront the neoliberal coalition? Without a doubt, Cristina Kirchner, the type of historical leadership that she embodies allows us to answer that question without difficulty.
Candidacies? Little lawsuit.
It will only be necessary to be faithful to what was stated in 2008 by Néstor Carlos Kirchner, today is doctrine in Peronist Kirchenism: “Unity yes, to lower flags, no”