— What do you think about the lack of dialogue between Alberto Fernández and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner?
—The personal reality between Alberto and Cristina is an issue that I don't know. The truth is that they are public discussions that damage the project in general and highlight the need to find mechanisms of internal functioning that strengthen the Front of All. We need to process the debates in such a way as to emerge strengthened and from the unity and mechanisms of internal discussion that allow us to build a fairer country for the future.
The one who speaks, the one who criticizes, the one who questions the public differences between the Head of State and the Vice-President of the Nation is Daniel Menéndez, the national coordinator of Barrios de Pie, one of the main social movements that, together with Evita, does not hesitate to openly support the President in the face of the internal tensions that generated parliamentary debate over the agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), like those of Deputy Máximo Kirchner, who resigned from the presidency of the ruling bloc in the lower house. Or the poison letter of the former president demanding changes in the national cabinet after the electoral defeat in the Primary, Open, Simultaneous and Compulsory (PASO) legislative elections.
Do you share Cristina Kirchner's decision to leave the presidency of the session before the vote on the agreement with the IMF?
—As the statements and debates were taking place, it could mean that outcome in Congress. It's time to turn the page and hold on to our agreements. In front of us are the concentrated sectors that form prices and expressions of the right that are going to do a lot of harm to our people. Within that framework, we have the responsibility to find mechanisms for internal debate within the Front of All and to sustain the unity of space that will allow us to travel through this time.
— Why did social organizations such as Somos Barrios de Pie and the Evita Movement support the Government's agreement with the IMF? There are social spaces, within the Frente de Todos itself, such as Juan Grabois' MTE, which ensure that it will generate unemployment and reduce the amount allocated to social plans.
—We appreciate the fact that this agreement has been reached with the Fund in the context of extreme macroeconomic weakness in our country, coupled with the complexity of the international situation and the historical difficulties that IMF demands always have. No serious analysis can be done without starting from this basis. We are clear that the Monetary Fund always requires an economic program that generates greater social difficulties. It was necessary to discuss firmly, not to give in to key aspects, such as not making progress on structural adjustments or reforms. And this was achieved, above all, from the permanent denunciation that was made throughout the negotiation process in international forums where it was revealed how the debt was taken to such an extent that even the Fund had to recognize its illegitimacy. As President Alberto Fernández says: this allows us to move towards an Argentina where it is possible to guarantee growth without restricting the items in education, social policies, health, science and technology and public works. But no analysis can be made separate from the terms in which the agreement that Mauricio Macri made with the Fund was agreed. The problem is not limited to terms of the payment or non-payment of a spurious debt, this is about the ongoing political struggle that will be waged every month every year for the next generations with a Monetary Fund that wants to reduce the margins of our national sovereignty.
— How do you rate Juan Grabois' much more extreme and critical positions? He is not as optimistic as you are, on the question of the Fund he thinks the same as Máximo Kirchner and La Campora
—Grabois is consistent with what he has been proposing and expresses it clearly. Beyond the fact that we don't have a common view at this point, he is a social leader with a lot to contribute from coherence and debate. And rest assured: we can find points that unite us in the face of the challenges facing the Front of All and our homeland. The Campora has its political positions and we have ours. The story goes that, when we split up, it was the people who lost. And we learned that lesson. I understand that the chimento of the intern over or the criticism of the other are common currency and even more so in the media, but that is mud and chiquitaje. We have great challenges ahead of us. We must stand together, recreate trust, build bridges, think about the future in good times and bad. If we manage to solve that, we will live up to the Homeland. First Argentina, more than ever. The people can't wait, it's now, we have to seize this opportunity.
Do you really think that the socio-economic situation will improve after this agreement?
— We are going through a context of enormous weakness resulting from the unpayable debt left by the Mauricio Macri government and the difficulties to grow that are dragging on. In this sense, negotiation and the possibility of postponing payments of the Fund opens up the possibility for Argentina to boost its growth and that, on the basis of that growth, it can repair wages and improve the incomes, especially of popular households: to promote a process of social policies tied to the development of the popular economy . We work to live up to sustaining public, productive, social and economic policies that invigorate the internal market. There is a prospect of improvement in Argentina, but the situation is unfeasible if we do not solve the dramatic problem of poverty and do not advance an inclusive strategy that is our historic task. I work on that all the time, to make it present on the agenda of the Frente de Todos and in the public discussion.
Menéndez is part of the State apparatus: he is the undersecretary for the Promotion of Social Economy and Local Development, a strategic area that reports to the Ministry of Social Development of the Nation, headed by Juan Zabaleta.
Until Fernández arrived at Casa Rosada, the social leader questioned the International Monetary Fund. However, now, he, along with other popular leaders, such as Emilio Pérsico, of the Evita Movement, and Esteban Castro, secretary general of the powerful Union Workers of the Popular Economy (UTEP), does not hesitate to support and conclude the agreement reached by Balcarce 50 with the credit agency.
—With the approval of the agreement in Congress, what scenario is open to social spaces?
—It opens up space and time for society as a whole, not just for our political force or for social movements. It is key to broaden our gaze, to place ourselves in the context. The agreement with the Fund gives us predictability that must translate into an imminent improvement in economic activity. Inflation levels in Argentina are the Achilles heel of social policy.
—Yes, inflation seems unstoppable, at least with current economic policies.
“We are moving forward with an agenda that allows us to lower inflation levels and, above all, food prices. This is the debate that we must open in Argentina. Because it is not enough to solve the immediate problems that dramatically impact the situation; the debate must also take place on how we are going to deal with the debt that was restructured and how we are going to solve the social problems that are Argentina's real debt. That is why it is essential to move forward in a discussion on the regressivity of the tax system. It was key for us to reach an agreement with the Fund, but also to specify who will bear the cost of that agreement.
“And who is going to take over the agreement?
“It must be made clear that the burden of debt must fall on those who have the most and, above all, on those who escaped it. That is why it is essential to decouple food prices from the domestic market from the export values that rose since the war (it refers to Russia's invasion of Ukraine). There is also a need to make progress on key aspects such as taxing wealth. There is an income, an export surplus that must be taxed in order to build a better country, more developed in industrial terms and that distributes, from a present State, diminishing the inequities that exist in our social structure. That is the agenda that follows the agreement, a discussion about wealth in Argentina and about progress in terms of better levels of equality.
— Do you agree to apply higher retentions to the field?
“Absolutely! We have to understand that Argentina's problem is inequality. The context of the war in Ukraine marks the need to decouple domestic prices from commodity growth. It is a task that cannot be postponed. Without discussing this situation, any possibility of a popular and autonomous project is unfeasible. The situation demands them, they are not forever, they are specific tools for a specific reality.
Do you think that the Government will be able to reverse mistrust over your management?
—A new stage is opening in Argentina, the Frente de Todos in government has to resume the electoral agreement and from there become stronger. Join in a country look. Popular militancy is the alternative so that governments do not return that deteriorate the productive apparatus and the income of the popular sectors. In that sense, we have to be realistic, but optimistic at the same time. There are social difficulties and we have to fight hard against existing levels of inflation and urgently improve workers' incomes. Because if we are going to improve the social situation in Argentina, our people will accompany us, our society will have a vote of confidence and that will allow us to build a possible horizon from which to support the government. To recover the Argentina that Macri left us, we need 20 years of popular governments that put production, work and the improvement of the purchasing power of the popular sectors on the agenda. We are going to solve the problems of our people. It is from this conviction that optimism and the conviction that, in Argentina, there is a popular government born for a while.
Daniel Menéndez is emphatic when he speaks. He does not hesitate to draw a thick line between leaders such as Máximo Kirchner and Grabois, about whom his coherence stands out. “History says that when we were divided it was the people who lost,” he assures and ventures not four, but “20 years of popular governments”.
— Who does it harm and who benefits the inmates within the Front of All?
—It benefits neoliberalism, the market without morals, the unpunished right, those who do not want to transform anything so that everything remains the same and be able to continue accumulating obscene wealth. It harms the governing coalition and the society that sees it as an alternative for inclusive development. That is why we must rethink ourselves, we are in time to improve the functioning of the coalition, which, as several actors have already said, must seek mechanisms to bridge differences and strengthen institutions. It is clear that, at least we, start from a premise that orders our political action. It is true that this process has difficulties and limits, but, even with shortcomings, the Frente de Todos government is always absolutely better than a neoliberal and right-wing government. For what is at stake in Argentina, the challenge is to consolidate a long-term process. Where the national project has the muscle to support tensions. Between the two views expressed by the great coalitions, one that is around production and labor, and the other that is around speculation and deindustrialization. One that promotes parity and labor development and another that wants low wages and an increasingly tragic scheme of flexibility and precariousness. One that seeks a link with the world from Latin American integration and multipolarity in foreign policy, and another whose centrality is placed on an integration based on functionality to American interests. It is the obligation of the national and popular camp to get out of this juncture, relying on the points of agreement to rebuild Argentina.
— Does the negative vote of Máximo Kirchner and camporista deputies position you better within the governing space?
“We managed to gather the votes needed to get the agreement, we have a more comprehensive look at history. We obviously have coincidences with Máximo and La Campora and, in general, with everything that puts employees and the most vulnerable sectors as a priority. But the fact of agreeing on that paradigm does not mean ignoring a great reality: for us, the consequences of not agreeing with the IMF would translate into currency runs, currency devaluation and economic constraints that would result in more inflation and more poverty. Now we have the enormous challenge, as a government and as the Front of All, of building a scenario of social improvement.
“He didn't answer me if Evita and Barrios de Pie are better positioned within the ruling coalition.
“It's not something that worries me. We are convinced that the fate of the Front of All is that it does well for the Front of All. The only chance that the popular sectors have of having a horizon of progress is the All Front.
What budgetary allocations increased in the Ministry of Social Development? Or did none increase and remain the same as last year?
“We are convinced, and we have the President's commitment that no policy of the Ministry of Social Development will be compromised. We work daily with thousands of colleagues with the aim of making social policy a passage towards the development of the popular economy and joining a scenario of progress into a social policy that emerges from production rather than assistance. Argentina is beginning to have conditions to be able to link social policy with productive policy that leads to the generation of more and more work.
Did the treatment of the law by the agreement with the IMF generate tensions within the Union of Workers of the Popular Economy, where critical leaders such as Grabois and Deputy Juan Carlos Alderete, the leader of the CCC who demonstrated in the street against the agreement, are contained?
—Within UTEP there are different sectors that were crossed by this discussion. Obviously, as in the whole of the popular camp, there was a variety of opinions. It seems to me that today UTEP plays a central role and, after this juncture, our task is to strengthen ourselves and put UTEP in a leading role that will strengthen the popular economy and fight for the voice of our popular economy to be present in the public debate and on the streets. We can argue hotly with each other, but we don't confuse the adversary.