CFK’s approval rating demands explanation
By Sebastián Lacunza
Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief
In the last few weeks pundits,
journalists and even opposition leaders all paused to consider a
significant element of the Argentine political world — if it is bitter
or sweet is in the eye of the beholder. Well into the last year of her
eight-year mandate, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s approval
ratings are back to above 40 percent.
The world of polls and surveys is not exempt from the hyperbole of Argentine public debate, and as such there are some who claim that this figure reaches 55 percent and others who place it around a quarter of the population.
A 40 percent approval rating places the president above her colleagues in Chile, Peru, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela and it is more than the figures enjoyed by Radical socialdemocrat Raúl Alfonsín and conservative Peronist Carlos Menem as they ended their mandates.
In January and February, the president’s ratings felt the consequences of the death of AMIA special prosecutor Alberto Nisman. However, in those turbulent months the deterioration of the presidential approval was moderate as it fell five to 10 points, which have already been recouped according to the most credible polls.
CKF’s significant support requires explanations. In addition to the predictable wear and tear for a political project that will complete 12 years in power (including former president Néstor Kirchner’s term), the 2011-2015 period witnessed the worst economic performance. If after the calamitous collapse of 1999-2002 Argentina was as the head of the regional ranking in terms of growth, reduction of inequality and poverty until 2011, the more recent macroeconomic numbers have been mediocre and in some indicators, worse than the South American average.
Sociologist Eduardo Fidanza, head of the Poliarquía consulting firm and a strong critic of Government House, has been alerting for months about the “persistent popularity” of President CFK. As such, analysts and opposition figures refer to a supposed moral degradation for the country given that the president has not been affected by corruption accusations that include Vice-President Amado Boudou or Nisman’s death four days after he accused the head of state of seeking to whitewash those accused of the attack against the AMIA. They contrast her case with the severe difficulties faced these days by the two other female South American presidents, Dilma Rousseff and Michelle Bachelet, whom — they explain — are paying the price for corruption accusations in the form of a loss of popularity.
This hypothesis seems untenable even applied to Chile and Brazil. In the game of politics, across the ideological spectrum, examples can be easily found both of local and international leaders whose popularity, to some extent, was independent of the allegations that involved their governments and figures. Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, Felipe González, Nicolas Sarkozy, George W. Bush, Luis Lacalle, François Mitterrand, Augusto Pinochet, Silvio Berlusconi, Hugo Chávez, Bill Clinton and Jacques Chirac are just some of those who have survived beyond accusations, indictments or convictions.
The complaint filed by the late prosecutor Nisman, its shady nature exposed by a federal judge and an appeals court, raises questions. The main one is why it was filed, what the prosecutor’s purpose was and who urged him to issue such a precarious writ. The summer storm’s events, including the still unresolved death of the prosecutor, are likely to have left the president in a more solid position, which goes beyond the many questions that still need to be answered by the national government, such as the pre-democratic management of the intelligence services since 2003.
However, when the president’s approval ratings must be addressed, social spending gives a more robust, less spasmodic explanation. The Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLAC) points out that the Argentine government has been the biggest investor in reducing inequality both with direct programmes and conditional transfers measured as a percentage of GDP. It is no accident that Argentina is followed by Brazil, and both lead the rankings for tax burdens.
The Universal Child Benefit, which covers 3.8 million children; the Plan Progresar for 1.2 million young people to complete their studies (which has just been increased by 50 percent); and the almost universal income for people over 65, either via retirement or non-contributory pensions represent an issue impossible to ignore regarding the political scenario. The above are ambitious programmes which imply huge budgets, and are far from being the only ones.
Of course there is room to discuss the sustainability of Argentine social spending or, even more, the relevance of energy subsidies that also benefit wealthier sectors of the population. In any case, eight months out from the inauguration of a new president and when there is talk of political successes and defeats, no analysis should omit the fact that millions of families travel along paths that are not the most mentioned by the media.
@sebalacunza
The world of polls and surveys is not exempt from the hyperbole of Argentine public debate, and as such there are some who claim that this figure reaches 55 percent and others who place it around a quarter of the population.
A 40 percent approval rating places the president above her colleagues in Chile, Peru, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela and it is more than the figures enjoyed by Radical socialdemocrat Raúl Alfonsín and conservative Peronist Carlos Menem as they ended their mandates.
In January and February, the president’s ratings felt the consequences of the death of AMIA special prosecutor Alberto Nisman. However, in those turbulent months the deterioration of the presidential approval was moderate as it fell five to 10 points, which have already been recouped according to the most credible polls.
CKF’s significant support requires explanations. In addition to the predictable wear and tear for a political project that will complete 12 years in power (including former president Néstor Kirchner’s term), the 2011-2015 period witnessed the worst economic performance. If after the calamitous collapse of 1999-2002 Argentina was as the head of the regional ranking in terms of growth, reduction of inequality and poverty until 2011, the more recent macroeconomic numbers have been mediocre and in some indicators, worse than the South American average.
Sociologist Eduardo Fidanza, head of the Poliarquía consulting firm and a strong critic of Government House, has been alerting for months about the “persistent popularity” of President CFK. As such, analysts and opposition figures refer to a supposed moral degradation for the country given that the president has not been affected by corruption accusations that include Vice-President Amado Boudou or Nisman’s death four days after he accused the head of state of seeking to whitewash those accused of the attack against the AMIA. They contrast her case with the severe difficulties faced these days by the two other female South American presidents, Dilma Rousseff and Michelle Bachelet, whom — they explain — are paying the price for corruption accusations in the form of a loss of popularity.
This hypothesis seems untenable even applied to Chile and Brazil. In the game of politics, across the ideological spectrum, examples can be easily found both of local and international leaders whose popularity, to some extent, was independent of the allegations that involved their governments and figures. Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, Felipe González, Nicolas Sarkozy, George W. Bush, Luis Lacalle, François Mitterrand, Augusto Pinochet, Silvio Berlusconi, Hugo Chávez, Bill Clinton and Jacques Chirac are just some of those who have survived beyond accusations, indictments or convictions.
The complaint filed by the late prosecutor Nisman, its shady nature exposed by a federal judge and an appeals court, raises questions. The main one is why it was filed, what the prosecutor’s purpose was and who urged him to issue such a precarious writ. The summer storm’s events, including the still unresolved death of the prosecutor, are likely to have left the president in a more solid position, which goes beyond the many questions that still need to be answered by the national government, such as the pre-democratic management of the intelligence services since 2003.
However, when the president’s approval ratings must be addressed, social spending gives a more robust, less spasmodic explanation. The Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLAC) points out that the Argentine government has been the biggest investor in reducing inequality both with direct programmes and conditional transfers measured as a percentage of GDP. It is no accident that Argentina is followed by Brazil, and both lead the rankings for tax burdens.
The Universal Child Benefit, which covers 3.8 million children; the Plan Progresar for 1.2 million young people to complete their studies (which has just been increased by 50 percent); and the almost universal income for people over 65, either via retirement or non-contributory pensions represent an issue impossible to ignore regarding the political scenario. The above are ambitious programmes which imply huge budgets, and are far from being the only ones.
Of course there is room to discuss the sustainability of Argentine social spending or, even more, the relevance of energy subsidies that also benefit wealthier sectors of the population. In any case, eight months out from the inauguration of a new president and when there is talk of political successes and defeats, no analysis should omit the fact that millions of families travel along paths that are not the most mentioned by the media.
@sebalacunza