rellas were the defining image for the 18F march on Wednesdsay.
By Sebastián Lacunza
Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief
A review of the massive and sometimes surprising demonstrations that have confronted Kirchnerism, starting with the first rally in front of Congress following the murder of Axel Blumberg in 2004 to the present days, reveals a few shared elements.
• Broad appeals (“for more security”; “against corruption”; “for the Republic”; “in favour of the farmers”) that are able to rally large groups but insufficient to clearly delineate the interests of those demonstrating.
• A lack of leaders or the rise of an ephemeral one that was restricted to that specific march.
• Attendance drawn from the middle and middle-upper socio-economic classes which are less permeable to Peronism.
• A degree of “spontaneity,” a characteristic that is eventually undermined by some media who praise it excessively.
As there are no clearly defined leaders and the call to march welcomes all comers — the positive effect of widening the rally — the flipside is that the voices and interpretations can overlap. While some may see an epic feat, others denounce a coup-mongering march that has been backed by the media. Where to put the emphasis is then left open to interpretation.
A key element, that Kirchnerism has been able to take advantage of, is that these kinds of vehemently “apolitical” marches repel any kind of appropriation by parties. This forces opposition leaders to march “as common citizens” and in the best of cases, to head later to a television studio to comment on the protest. Playing at non-politics is an impious act for politicians facing a passionate crowd whose support they are forbidden from requesting.
The 18F march and how it transpired brought some clarity after its meaning had been subject to debate by the appeals of some of the prosecutors and politicians that organized the march and by government dismissals.
In the end, it was a peaceful mobilization of between 100,000 and 200,000 people (which may even be more than the number of those who marched following the AMIA terrorist attack only days after the bombing in July 1994). Given that on this occasion the appeal “in memory of prosecutor Alberto Nisman” sounds generic, it is simpler to define the 18F rally by what it was not. That is to say that it was not a mass accusation against the government of murder (which would make the Pink House a perpetrator of an act of state terrorism), a hypothesis that had been clearly put forward by the some of the organizing prosecutors such as Germán Moldes, Raúl Pleé, Ricardo Sáenz and Carlos Rívolo. At least two of them are responsible for judicial decisions that have been questioned by the victims of the AMIA bombing — for which they should give explanations rather than lead a march.
It can be inferred from the opinions gathered from those who attended the march, that in their majority they backed the accusations made by Nisman against President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of whitewashing the role of the alleged mastermind of the bombing. As a minimum, they questioned the government’s response to the prosecutor’s death. However, the marchers who resisted under the rain were by all accounts more cautious than the various strata of the Judiciary and the opposition.
Of course it must be ruled out that the vast majority of those who marched favoured a coup, and even more so that they felt that they were responding to a march organized by “drug traffickers” and “anti-Semites” as the presidential Chief-of-Staff Aníbal Fernández had said two days before the event. Neither Nisman’s mother, nor his daughter, nor his ex-wife nor did those marching deserve such disrespect. Some of the government’s most extreme critics and the admirers of the last dictatorship took advantage of the circumstances but they were no more than isolated elements, something difficult to prevent in massive marches.
The demonstration, as a consequence, was a success due to its participants and on this occasion even improved on the level of reflection generated by the pot-banging demonstrations.
It has been correctly noted that the government played an important role as an involuntary promoter for the march with the unfortunate comments by the president on the investigation in the death, the aggression exhibited before the march or the sudden shifts in the relationships with spy Antonio “Jaime” Stiuso and Nisman himself, and the management and mismanagement of the Intelligence Secretariat. All of that is supposed to be accepted in the name of pragmatism, in a game in which enemies (coup-mongers, members of the mafia and others) are discovered only instants after they are no longer allies, according to the Pink House’s strict interpretation. Amen.
Six months out from the presidential primaries, it is worth asking if this time someone will be able to rise to the challenge of appealing to the centrist, conservative and even progressive non-Peronist voters. It is probable that this electorate will be inclined to trust in a competitive candidate, with experience in government, backed by a political party with territory and inner debate beyond the mere electoral marketing in addition to the necessary technocrats and intellectual supporters. Will one appear on the horizon?
@sebalacunza