There is an idea in Rio da Prata that dulce de leche improves any dessert. So ice cream, good; ice cream with dulce de leche, better. Flan, good; with dulce de leche, better. Cake, good; with dulce de leche, better.
The same thing happens with democracy: the most opaque concept, if the adjective “democratic” is placed beside it, acquires a celestial light. Justice, good; democratic justice the better. Coexistence, good; democratic coexistence the better. Commitment, good; democratic compromise, the better.
The week of August 22 wasn’t exactly sweet for Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Prosecutors in the Vialidad case asked for 12 years in prison and a lifetime suspension from holding public office.
As was to be expected, the cataract of reactions was immediately set in motion.
Dangerous reactions, of course, because they are more ideological and visceral than serene and rational. Dangerous because they imply accusing the Argentine Justice. All the more dangerous because the first to defame the judiciary was the vice president herself, who would be expected to have some degree of respect for the country’s institutions.
One tweet made his position very clear: “The Argentine Judiciary stinks“.
Finally, dangerous at the highest level because they added fuel to the fire of polarization, of the verbal fury that has raged in Argentina over the last 15 years. This explains why the sequel ended with the Vice President’s assassination attempt on September 1.
In relation to this case, investigations have just begun, and the information that appears prevents conclusions from being drawn. On the contrary, it forces you to be cautious.
But what is relevant here is not the judgment of the event, but a much more obvious fact: the sociopolitical atmosphere in Argentina is so charged that physical violence is not entirely uncommon.
The progressive growth of verbal aggression to the point of extending to other means (such as physical violence) deserves categorical condemnation, but it would be naive and cynical to say that such an evolution was not expected.
Returning to the judicial front, these lines are not intended to enter the evaluation game on whether the vice president’s trial is fair, if Cristina is guilty, if the Argentine justice stinks or smells of jasmine.
Not even in the even more dramatic game about the meaning and consequences of the summary judgment of the Judiciary being carried out by the Executive Branch of the country itself.
This is about something else: the arguments that were used. And especially one: democracy.
From Spain, the leader of Podemos, Ione Belarra, tweeted: “The judicial and media war against progressive governments is a constant that we will always denounce. Because it is not against us, it endangers democracy itself. In Spain, Argentina or any democratic country. Our support from @PODEMOS to @ CFKKArgentina”.
From the Casa Rosada itself, three rooms of it. One official announcement of the Presidency stated: “The government reiterates its support for the full functioning of the democratic functioning of Justice”.
There are two substantial problems with the statements by Belarra and Fernández. First, they confuse democracy with the rule of law. Second, they try to see – and make seen – democracy where there is a mixed regime.
Democracy and Rule of Law
Stand for election promising to strengthen the rule of law. You will have one vote or none. Run by promising to strengthen democracy. His voters will miraculously multiply, like loaves and fish. Such is the demagogic canon of our time.
Democracy is the dulce de leche of all political desserts. That’s why Alberto Fernández ended his inaugural speech affirming that “with democracy you heal, educate and eat”.
One might suspect that he doesn’t quite know what the democracy he was talking about is. However, we had to wait two and a half years to prove it clearly.
One of the two: either Belarra and Fernández don’t know the difference between democracy and the rule of law, or they actively ignore it. In other words: is your ignorance or your demagogy greater?
Democracy refers exclusively to how many hands exercise public power. It’s not a new definition. On the contrary: it comes to us from ancient Greece. Public power in one hand: monarchy. In a few hands: aristocracy. In the hands of the majority: democracy.
What Fernández, Belarra and, of course, Cristina herself denounce is that the Argentine justice system is not independent; which is controlled by certain powers.
What does this have to do with democracy, that is, with public power being in the hands of the majority?
Democracy is an attribute of the political system. Explains the distribution of power within society. Justice is a branch of the State, but it is not a political space. Quite the opposite: the politicization of justice is one of the most serious threats to it.
What is at stake in the independence of the judiciary – or not – is the rule of law, not democracy.
“Democratic functioning of the Judiciary”, states the presidency’s statement. It is something like the Protestant cavalry that Borges spoke of. With an aggravating factor: it comes from a president who, according to the statement itself, “grew up in the family of a judge, was educated in the world of law and has taught criminal law for more than three decades.” Perhaps he should know the difference between democracy and the rule of law.
If justice is democratic, does that mean that citizens would vote on the verdicts? Or that they would vote for the judges?
In fact, does Fernández know why citizens don’t vote for judges in any country? Not even in those whom Peronism admires.
For example, Venezuela, where you vote for the Executive and the Legislative, but not for the Judiciary. Or Bolivia. Or Iran, Russia and China, where they vote… We better not continue.
Democracy and mixed regime
Some of those Greeks –and Romans– who classified the forms of government left us with a thesis: the ideal form is neither monarchy, nor aristocracy, nor democracy, but a combination of the three.
Thus, in republican Rome there was a mixed regime, in which the consuls were the monarchic element, the Senate was the aristocratic, and the plebeian courts represented the democratic.
Two thousand years later, the independent Latin American republics were born and took this model: the president would be the monarchical element, the Senate would constitute the aristocratic element and the Chamber of Deputies would represent the democratic element.
Stand for election promising to strengthen the mixed regime. You will get one vote or none. Apply by promising to strengthen democracy, as if you believed that we live in a pure democracy. Your voters will miraculously multiply.
One of two: either Belarra and Fernández still don’t understand that our governments are not pure democracies, but mixed regimes, or they actively ignore it.
In other words: is your ignorance or your demagogy greater?
With a wealth of experience honed over 4+ years in journalism, I bring a seasoned voice to the world of news. Currently, I work as a freelance writer and editor, always seeking new opportunities to tell compelling stories in the field of world news.
