Article 38 of the National Constitution, included in the 1994 reform, qualifies political parties as fundamental institutions of the democratic system. Until this reform, they were not mentioned in the constitution. The hint didn’t help much. It was more like a swan song because they are getting weaker every day.
By the way, it would be absurd to establish a causal connection between the constitutional clause and this decline. The factors are different, here and in the world. We can debate the causes, but the phenomenon is a fact of reality that should be ignored.
We see it, alongside countless demonstrations, in what is happening in our National Congress. Candidacy, transfuguismo, total separation of the policies set by party bodies (when they are set, very rarely) from the decisions of the legislators of these parties are some of the consequences of the parties’ weight loss.
One of the most notable examples is radicalism. The UCR is the oldest national party in Argentina, founded at the end of the 19th century, and it is the one that has traditionally embodied the strongest commitment to party institutions. Today, its lawmakers cannot form a common bloc. Some went directly to the governing party; others have a zigzag attitude to the rhythm of the governors’ interests to which they respond; Some maintain fierce resistance to the government.
As a senator, the previous president of his national committee voted differently than the vast majority of his bloc. Maybe he was right sometimes, but the problem is the enormous lack of representation that this divergence points to. The recent election of a 36-year-old leader as president of this body, the youngest in its long history to hold this position and who has a successful record as mayor of Venado Tuerto, appears to be an attempt at renewal in the midst of a very complex situation.
The situation in PRO is no less rosy. Some turned purple prematurely, without waiting for a decision from the party committees. Others were officially adopted after the last general election. Those of us who hold firmly to our convictions and do not allow ourselves to be carried away by ever-changing societal preferences believe that Argentina needs a liberal but truly republican party that will not blindly rally behind a messianic leader.
A party that respects all citizens and seeks common ground with other like-minded political forces. It seems contrary to current trends, but it is important to make all necessary efforts to restore the party system.
It is true that this situation does not only affect Argentina. With its advantages and disadvantages, it occurs throughout the democratic world. It is part of a broader phenomenon, namely the weakening of the rule of law. Democracy does not appear to be in danger, but its republican components are being diluted. What we see in the United States, which has been an example of respect for the Constitution and the laws despite the possible differences in its policies in many areas, would have seemed incredible to us a few years ago.
The institutions have given way to the grossest personalism. The president raises or lowers tariffs, intervenes or ceases to intervene militarily abroad every day, depending on the mood with which he wakes up and the ever-changing sympathy that the leaders of these countries inspire in him. He has transformed the Republican Party into a South American “movement,” “MAGA”; promotes constant veneration of his person among his officials and even in international organizations; promotes a supposed war on drug trafficking while pardoning a former Honduran president convicted of drug trafficking; persecutes journalists with unusual claims; etc
Like all institutions, political parties face a very different context than the one in which they emerged. Today, social networks significantly weaken the role of parties as mediators between society and power.
Something similar happens with journalism. On social networks, we are all politicians and journalists to some extent. Everything is immediate. The Internet and artificial intelligence immediately make us aware of a wide variety of topics. On the other hand, algorithms increase bias and polarization and complicate dialogue and negotiation to reach consensus, which was also a function of the parties.
In this context, it seems quixotic to emphasize the advantages of a party system. And yet it is absolutely necessary. Parties remain useful tools for channeling citizens’ political preferences. We must understand that they are an important aspect of institutionality. They facilitate consensus building and long-term strategies.
Without it, the extreme fragmentation of political representation and heightened personalism will sooner or later lead to instability. Its replacement by other types of organizations, such as NGOs, is illusory. When an NGO participates in the struggle for power, it becomes a political party, even if it pretends not to be one. And he will do politics in the worst possible way: by trying to hide that he is doing it.
The material and moral progress of societies, to be lasting, must be built on the solid foundation of institutions such as political parties. Reforms that do without them usually collapse like a house of cards.
Jorge R. Enríquez is a former national representative. President of the civil association Just Cause. Member of the Republican Professors.
About The Author
