eleconomista.com.ar
In Argentina, where power often trumps institutions, internal conflicts not only paralyze the state: they exhaust citizens and delegitimize those who rule. Politics is stuck at home… and the crisis lives abroad.
In political science, there is consensus on a basic idea: the ability to govern does not depend solely on winning elections, but rather on building and supporting an institutional coalition capable of addressing internal conflicts without these conflicts paralyzing the work of the state. However, in political systems with low levels of institutionalization, as has been the case historically in Argentina, internal conflicts within the government often become the protagonists of the political cycle, eroding the ability to govern and directly affecting public life.
The internal affairs of a government are neither a temporary phenomenon nor limited to a political force. Rather, they respond to recurring patterns derived from not fully institutionalized parties, personal leaderships, state structures that are permeable to sectional interests, and a logic of power that prioritizes sectional outbidding at the expense of state policy construction. In these contexts, the public agenda is usually governed by a logic of balancing or confrontation between internal actors vying for influence, resources, and decision-making capacity.
The first effect is observed in administrative ability. When internal battles take precedence over programmatic goals, governments become trapped in a cycle of perpetual fluctuation. Instead of responding to standards of administrative efficiency and continuity, the state bureaucracy is forced to align with the dominant faction in every situation, shifting priorities, slowing down strategic policies and preventing the implementation of medium- and long-term plans.
In this way, inter-institutional coordination is also compromised. Public bodies that should cooperate end up competing with or obstructing each other; Strategic guidelines are relaxed in internal struggles for control of territory and budget; Public policies lose coherence and predictability. The result is a state that functions more as a field of conflict than a structure for planning and action.
In parallel, internal tensions, often exposed and exaggerated by the media, create a political climate of permanent symbolic crisis. It is not simply a problem of perception, although that is important: in contemporary democracies, public opinion is a fundamental source of power. When citizens observe a ruling party mired in internal conflicts, the effect of distrust is activated, which not only weakens the government’s social legitimacy, but also weakens its electoral representation base. The implicit message is clear: if those who govern cannot agree among themselves, it will be difficult for them to solve collective problems.
Finally, internal factors reveal an uncomfortable reality: the institutional fragility of the Argentine state, which still operates more under the logic of government, understood as managing the power of the moment; This is in light of the logic of the state, which is understood as continuity, clear rules and strategic projects that are sustainable over time. Decisions are subject to personal or sectoral conflicts, rather than responding to national priorities and standing programmatic agreements.
When politics is organized around interpersonal relationships rather than institutions, the system becomes weak, ineffective, and unpredictable. Internal symptoms, more than just a symptom, are a mechanism that reproduces this weakness. Overcoming this pattern requires more than a call for unity. It requires deep party reforms, the professionalization of the state, clear rules of governance and a political culture that rewards effective administration over domestic bidding. As long as this does not happen, internal conflicts will continue and citizens will continue to pay their political, economic and social costs.
About The Author
