Pablo Tozon: “Kiselov must face the dragon, he cannot be friends with Cristina”

to Pablo TuzonAxel Kiselov faces a dilemma that determines his political future: either break up with Christina Kirchner or repeat the “toxic loneliness” that has flooded everyone’s front. in Fontificia modeon Net TV and Radio Perfil (AM 1190), the political scientist stated that the ruler is living a “paradox”, and warned that if he wants to project himself, he must face the main challenge of the “hero’s path”: “At some point, you have to slay the dragon. It does not mean that you have to make friends.”

Pablo Tuzón holds a degree in Political Science from the University of Buenos Aires and is a political analyst and consultant. He studied International Studies at the University of Torcuato di Tella. He is the author, with Martin Rodriguez, of La grieta naked, macrismo y su tiempo. And founder and editor-in-chief of the digital magazine Panama

Today, after agreement in the legislature in Buenos Aires, we suggested the possibility of Kicilloff getting into debt, a kind of classic hero path, where he has to go through stages in order to become a presidential candidate. Regarding the amount of credit, it appears to guarantee Melly two years of continued macroeconomic independence, but there are still discussions about what to do in his fight with Cristina Kirchner, who does not want him as a candidate and some say prefers him to Massa. How much influence will Christina Kirchner’s presence have on Kiselov’s candidacy at the national level, if he succeeds? At the same time, how much effort did he put into trying to keep Christina Kirchner’s votes in his caucus?

Let’s see, you’re talking through the hero. Also by Joseph Campbell. In an instant you have to kill the dragon. It doesn’t mean you have to become friends; This, however, comes later, when one returns. I think that all the attempts that began in Peronism since the end of Cristina’s first government, whether it was Scioli, or Alberto Fernández, or the All Front as an experiment, or even in this election, this unity that was defeated in October, The possibility of that competition with Christina is impossible.

It is clear that the prevailing possibility, and the dominance of Peronism for many years, will tell you that separation will mean the candidacy of that party and automatically a division that generates a tendency to win, in this case, or whoever faces it against Peronism. The problem is that in this logic, The cake on which these areas are cut and measured becomes smaller and smaller. It’s like a company that, in order not to make the decisions it needs to make, all it ends up doing is shrinking.

Regarding the country as a whole, let us look at where Kirchnerism is today: in many provinces, where it exists, where it does not exist, and where entropy eats away at it. And I just think that entropy can, with the difficulty of the case, because Cristina is imprisoned, and that also makes everything more complicated, but the thing is that someone simply defeats Cristina; To announce that the Peronist leadership that continued had failed. It seems to me that the simpler solution tends to be the good one. In this case, simply put, if it can be assessed that it has been mostly a great organizer of defeats over the last ten years, as Trotsky said of Stalin, but in general the balance of Peronism and some of the ideas that challenge him today, clearly, in light of the electoral result. And compared to what was issued, and what Peronism came out with in September.

Javier Miley will sign the decree calling extraordinary sessions of Congress

It is as if he is saying: There is an experimental variable. If you were Mayor Peroni, you would say: “Well, when I went to the national conference I lost, and when I went alone I won.” I mean this doesn’t even need to be virtual. It seems to me that the solution lies there. And it’s not just a leadership chapter, but some ideas as well. But let us assume that the ideas of Christina and Axel are very similar, but it is clear that the political leadership structure can no longer remain the same. It seems to me to be fairly basic.

Can Kesilo believe that the dragon is already extinct due to his imprisonment?

Any Peronist who does not wear the number 10 and comes out to suggest changing the era will not be believed. And for that, they would almost have to, if he existed, resurrect him again to do so. This idea of ​​inheritance, which has been around since Xiuli’s time, also belittles Cristina greatly, thinking that they can get their hands on her a little without her even realizing it. This thought: “Well, in the end, justice will take away my anger.” This doesn’t work, because now let’s look at who is the head of the Just Party in Buenos Aires: Maximo Kirchner. In other words, it exists, today, and that’s why it still exists.

There is no way out but to break that unity that was so toxic, and the fact is that it generated a government that not only had terrible social and economic results, but that unity did not work. Someone might say: “Well, once the Todos Front government falls, Miley comes in, it will most likely be broken.” However, that poison persisted. And everything indicates that on the 27th there is a possibility that someone will say: “Okay, let’s continue, let’s continue.” Same picture as always, it seems to me that if you see that if someone gets systematically bad electoral results and the government, they should change the formula that got them there. This seems obvious to me.

Carlos Stornelli, Prosecutor, hero or villain?

How can you beat him because he is imprisoned and therefore not competing?

Suppose: Kiselov won the split. His idea won, his idea won. And it ended up being a success. The question is: Will this idea continue? Will the division here remain or not? Or to put it another way, will Peronism in Buenos Aires outperform Kirchnerism in the 27th election? This also poses a problem for Kiselov in the end, because Kristina will not be a candidate. But I say: There is a part there, the liberation, that one could say that I don’t think will come back.

The issue is not ideological, but rather politically motivated. Kiselov is the person who measures the most in Kishnerism today. If this is any indication of greater rationality or collective intelligence in Cristina’s leadership, It should already be Kiselov’s candidate. It is not well understood whether ideas are even half the same. He was always like Benjamin in Christina’s economic thinking, and even in her government. Why is he now at such a breaking point? I say this without sarcasm, as we collectively do not understand how this works.

But suppose they preferred to go with the one who confronted her in 2013 and said that she should go to prison, as a slogan of unity. A unity that is certainly sustainable for reasons day and night between Massa and Kirchnerism. So it cannot be explained to citizens. Massa is no longer what he used to be; In this sense, after being a minister, he can no longer remain a man of economic rationalism in the face of the Bolivarianism of the other side. Those clothes don’t fit.

At the ruling party level, is the victory of 40% versus 35% for Peronism exaggerated?

No, I think it’s because of what we’re talking about, no. Meaning: If it is because of the net number, then yes. But the level of political fragmentation around it is so great that when we say hegemony, it is the hegemony of this century, at this point in the century, which is all wired up. They are all short waves. It is not hegemony, as Kirchner might have said in 2005 or 2006. But it is true that this may sometimes give the impression that voters realize that Argentina can only manage its affairs under periods of dominance. This Republican parity that we are in with the rift has been of no benefit, almost since the time of Macri, that is, since 2013, when 54% failed, and finally the regime entered into a kind of chronic parity.

Miriam Bregman: “Fernando Iglesias has changed for Lilia Lemoine, but the compassion is the same.”

But in the face of this hegemony, which is undoubtedly stronger than this, the opposition united. In this false hegemony, the opposition disintegrates.

There is a problem with Kirchnerism. In the 1990s, for example: yes, it joined later, but before that the Grand Front was invented, which effectively countered the extremism of the Coordinators. It is not that Menem’s opposition was old Alphonsinism. In fact, ancient Alphonsinism was quite acceptable, hence the Olivos Charter. There was a new sector.

Why was it not created?

I think there’s a part of politics that suspects that this was more incidental, that it was a little more extraordinary. So, the incentives to renew were less, saying, “Well, this is up to the pros, because eventually it’s going to fail,” because it was also part of the climate of the red district, but more generally than it was the last months before the election. A government that seemed to be slipping in the bathtub, until the libertarian fly appeared and came, but until the American rescue and the rescue carried out by the Argentine people came, finally with the elections, and we are in this stability… and all sectors were for the elections. They were judgment scenarios.

When does the election cycle start?

It’s December 2025. Almost summer 2027. In other words, one year to go. In the process, one might wonder: What will they try to do? Form a new opposition or rather survive, assuming this cycle continues and everyone gets re-elected? And he says, “Okay, whoever wants to go, let him go.” Today all politics, even part of society, is treated as if it were so. But wait, just as everything was shortened, these processes were shortened as well. These exhilarating processes are usually shorter. We’ll see what happens, however Today politics says “I don’t even have time.”

If I had to start thinking of a real, strong opposition alternative to a runoff, and I had a year to go, the tendency, one might say, would be to say: “Okay, let’s survive, let’s survive.” This scenario fits the following. In fact, this is why when I say hegemony I say it in a major way, looking around, not in itself, not in the economic program, not in the political program itself: it is the way the ball is left in the court. I prefer the medium a lot.

Let’s see, another social actor: They tell me that some union members, who have a lot of experience, are smoking underwater waiting for labor reform to emerge, and that next fall we will begin to see material exhaustion and that the loss of quality of life will lead to… The effect is where it is the street that produces the reaction Not an alternative to Campemos or the coalition. Imagine that is possible? It could be. There is a part where there is no solution to the following model. In other words, nothing indicates that things will be different in the next two years.

RM/DCQ