Argentina

Context

From post-war times and for a long time, Peronism and radicalism were movements-parties that did not acknowledge each other.  In 1983, with the removal of the military, the political system seemed to evolve toward a two-party system similar to those existing in long-term democracies. But, from the nineties, a process of de-aggregation of political parties took place that became accentuated in 2001. The eruption of the “pots and pans protest” (cacerolazo) led by the slogan “Make all of them go”, could be seen as circumstantial, but at present one can say that a lasting distance was created between citizens and political representation.  It seems improbable that traditional parties may reconstitute themselves, at least the way they were in the past.

As for the institutional normalization of the country, when presidential elections took place in 2003, and the swearing-in of a President elected by popular vote, Argentina entered a cycle of social and economic recovery. Néstor Kirchner was elected President after failed presidential successions that attempted to channel political and social conflict initiated with the 2001 crisis and the anticipated departure of the Alliance from governments.  Between 2003 and 2005 the economy grew at record rates, and improved on the highest level before the call.  This recovery was faster than what social and political actors and analysts expected at the time.  In terms of the social situation, the deterioration without precedent suffered after the 2001 crisis, with poverty and indigent rates higher, respectively to 50% and 25% m began to be reverted as of 2003.  However, and in spite of the fact that this improvement in the social conditions of Argentines was notable, it did not keep up the same rhythm of growth of the economic indicators.

This economic and social recovery was made possible thanks to the notable rehabilitation of political credibility and of the efficacy of the State experienced from 2003. In the 2003-2005 period a progressive reconstitution of Presidential authority was effected, thanks to a very active governmental role and to certain reforms whose realization seemed impossible earlier: renovation of the Supreme Court, partial renovation of federal justice, restructuration of public debt, derogation of amnesty laws for human rights crimes and the reopening of the corresponding processes.

Legislative elections were held in October, 2005.  Though the government confirmed its legitimacy, new challenges arose. The form of governance, which had been tolerated and even supported by the exception situation, began to be questioned.  These elections legitimized the presidential figure, as well, and to a lesser degree, that of other leaders and at the same time confirmed the process of de-aggregation of traditional political parties, as well as the persistence of absenteeism and blank votes.

In these circumstances, the country, and in particular the President, were at a crossroads.  In a context of institutions and political actors upstaged by a successful President, the latter had affirmed his legitimacy, based on direct contact with public opinion.  The continuity of this format could put aside the opportunity for building a political community that would take into account both the plurality of political actors as well as the requirements for argumentation and deliberation of citizens aware of public matters. On the other hand, an only slightly institutionalized power brought risks of instability, due to its vulnerability in face of shifting popularity. In this context, the requirement for a progressive institutional stabilization, the PAPEP emerges, at request of the Argentine government.