From a statistical point of view, the election of the ultraliberal economist Javier Milei to the presidency of Argentina, Sunday November 19, looked like a landslide victory (nearly 56% of the votes). On social networks, however, the news sparked a torrent of desolation. “Horror. Support for the Argentine people”, immediately published on X (formerly Twitter) the micro-party of LFI MP Aymeric Caron, Ecological Revolution for the Living (REV). “Catastrophe”, reacted for her part the MP for Paris Danielle Simonnet (LFI). “Courage,” said environmentalist MEP Karima Delli.
Anti-abortion, climate skeptic, anti-climactic… The pedigree of the character certainly legitimately arouses circumspection, in an era marked by the rise of populism – to the point where even a Donald Trump, despite his record and his excesses, could well reinvest the Oval office in 2024. The brilliance of the new Argentine president has inspired certain commentators to nickname him “Trump of the Pampas”, or even “Argentinian Bolsonaro”.
The fact remains that, until proven otherwise, Javier Milei won at the end of a democratic election. What these outbursts of desolation towards the “Argentine people” seem to deny; suggesting, it is the choice, that he would have voted wrong or that he would be a “victim”.
Argentina is not Russia, where there is little doubt that presidential elections are systematically rigged to benefit Vladimir Putin. It is even less so Algeria, where the 2019 presidential elections pushed a human tide to take to the streets to reject a vote imposed by the army. It is not even the United States where, following the election of Donald Trump in 2016, certain detractors of the Republican had denounced the failures of the American electoral system (where voters vote for a college of electors designated at the level of each state), not to mention the accusations of Russian interference.
Navel gazing
In addition to the latent paternalism that can be seen in these indignations, we can also sense an inability to abandon our frame of reference for a few minutes to try to understand (and not legitimize) the choice made by another democracy. Why did Argentines vote for a candidate who persists in wanting to undermine women’s rights, even though there have been more than 2,282 feminicides in the country since 2015? Why elect an individual whose climate skepticism is evident at a time when climate change is shaping up to be the challenge of the century? Are the Argentines not aware, “like us”, of these problems? Could it be, otherwise, that some of “our” democracies are navel-gazing a little too much…
As explained to L’Express Daniel Raisbeck, policy analyst at the Cato Institute, “one of the most obvious reasons [à cette victoire] is that Javier Milei ran against Economy Minister Sergio Massa in an extremely tense economic climate. In Argentina, prices have soared by 140% this year, the national currency is completely destroyed – it has lost more than 90% of its value against the dollar in the space of a few years. Added to this are fixed prices, fixed exchange rates, export taxes…”
By rushing into the register of emotion, our democracies are not only flaunting their navel-gazing. They also betray their own demons. Starting, with regard to France, with the fear that far-right populism will one day come to power. However, it must be remembered that populism lives, among other things, on a rhetoric of emotion as well as on the rejection of political pluralism. As democrats as we are, there is no doubt that taking this path (even with good intentions) will not be of much help. Quite the contrary.