War metaphors

The terrible images of the war that come to us these days from Ukraine, in addition to sensitizing and emotionally mobilizing us for the suffering that hundreds of thousands of people are going through, seem to have reinstalled some warlike terms into everyday language. It was the President himself who made this blatantly clear by announcing a series of economic measures as part of what he himself described as a “war” against inflation.

War metaphors are obviously not new in the world of politics. Several terms of inoccultable military origin have permeated the lexicon of politicians and analysts for a long time; for example, “strategy” (from the Greek strategos meaning “general”), “positioning”, “attack” and “defense”, “friendly fire”, “blockades”, “withdrawal”, “targets”, among many others.

Moreover, those who do not share the “adversarial model” of politics, which is always more friendly to democratic principles and values, embrace a conception of politics strongly imbued with the logic of war. From those who share the philosophy of the German thinker Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) that the “essence” of politics lies in the “friend-enemy” distinction, to Carl von Clausewitz's classic axiom (1781-1831) that “war is the continuation of politics by other means”, passing in more recent times by the prolific by Chantal Mouffe - Ernesto Laclau's life partner - in which he exalts the agonal face of politics.

Unequal combat

Beyond the opportunity and convenience of resorting to this term while a real and dramatic war unfolding in Central Europe with thousands of deaths, almost three million refugees, and an unpredictable end with the risk of further escalation of war, it is clear that the communication strategy behind the appeal to language belligerent is to realize that there would be a willingness to move forward with profound and drastic measures to “attack” the scourge of inflation head-on.

It is also clear that, in strategic terms, it seeks to build a story that operates as a kind of communication “umbrella” and that seeks to generate consensus around some of the economic policies that the government agreed with the IMF. To continue with the war lexicon, the government seems to have tried to star in a first step in the communication “battle” that will inevitably be fought between those who will want to impose the concept of “adjustment” and those who will seek to inscribe the government's economic policy in a heroic fight against the inflation.

It is also true that, politically speaking, the government needed to regain initiative and go on the offensive after having achieved, with high domestic costs and the invaluable assistance of the opposition, legislative approval of the long-awaited agreement with the IMF.

Moreover, when the government must face the economic program agreed with the international credit agency at a time when inflation escalates to very worrying levels: 4.7% for the last month, with a 7.5% index for food, all this in an international economic context that is already beginning to experience the turbulence resulting from conflict between Russia and the West.

In this context, the President's announcements in Friday's recorded message, together with the specific announcements that will be made by ministers, such as the one already communicated by Julián Domínguez regarding the withholding of flour and soybean oil and the creation of a wheat stabilization fund, seem to be a long way from high expectations generated by the first president.

The internal front

At this time, the presidential environment understands that the main “enemy” is within the Frente de Todos itself, where internal disputes reached their zenith this week during the discussion of the agreement with the IMF in the Senate of the Nation.

If Máximo Kirchner's resignation from the leadership of the ruling bloc in the Chamber of Deputies seemed to have escalated the ever-latent conflict, today the two sides no longer strive to qualify or relativize differences, and the confrontation is open, as was evident in the letter issued by Christianist Senator Anabel Fernández Sagasti, the tweets of Andrés “Cuervo” Larroque, or the sayings attributed to Cristina Fernández herself during a meeting with human rights organizations in the upper house.

With no sign that this confrontation will moderate, the President, who has already announced his willingness to go for re-election, is also advancing a strategy of territorial deployment, with weekly visits to the interior and suburban areas. In this way, leaning on the governors, the unions and some mayors of the suburban area, Fernández will seek to strengthen himself internally with La Campora and Cristina.

Convinced that the consequences of the IMF agreement and the turbulence of the war in Europe will deepen the questions of hard Kirchnerism and turn differences into an insurmountable rift, the question is whether the President will continue to bet on co-government, or whether he will make profound changes in the Cabinet, taking away from La Campora the management of strategic areas such as PAMI or ANSES.

Playing with the belligerent language introduced by the presidential metaphor, the truth is that it will be very difficult to defeat the enemy - inflation - if one's own forces are not disciplined by a shared strategy and built with the same objective. If the own troops respond to two generals.

The opposition trenches

Having overcome the uncomfortable debate on debt with relative success, having managed not only to modify the original text of the draft - which contained in its annexes a virulent criticism of the Cambiemos government - but also to project an image of institutional responsibility by accompanying the government to avoid default, the references of Together for Change will now seek to go on the offensive.

Taking advantage of the weaknesses of a government government that has been hacked by internal differences and confrontations, they will surely seek to attack the government's economic plan and show itself as an alternative for 2023. One more reason that will hinder the success of the government's belligerent plans regarding inflation. However, for this opposition strategy to have an impact, Together for Change must process and moderate disputes between space marshals who have presidential ambitions.

Thus, President Alberto Fernández will try to govern a country in crisis under the crossfire of the opposition and the “friendly fire” of Kirchnerism. It remains to be seen whether the weapons it has to face these challenges will be enough to cross the turbulent battlefield that has been configured.

KEEP READING: