2024-02-14 12:44:18
In his extensive analysis of the situation of recent years, Cristina Kirchner made a harsh self-criticism of the Frente de Todos (FdT) government, of which she was also a part. She blamed the economic crisis on “poor administration of reserves” already the validation of the “scandalous loan” of the Monetary Fund taken by Mauricio Macri.
In addition, He distanced himself from former President Alberto Fernández and pointed him out as the only one who “had the last word and made the final decision” of the measures that were only discussed for a time between the leaders of the three political forces that made up the coalition.
Of the 33 pages of the document, two were intended for self-criticism of the Peronist administration. He stated that the key to the problems of that administration began before its beginning, with “the structural conditioning” of the debt taken by Mauricio Macri.
From this fact, The FdT government “could not or did not know how to cut this true Gordian knot of the Argentine economy”. Added to this was the appearance of “a pandemic without precedent” that had “catastrophic effects” in the world but that, however, in Argentina could be overcome due to “the care and protection policies deployed” during that health crisis.
He also referred to the “severe drought “which reduced the income of billions of dollars” as a result of the fall in crops destined for export.
“Poor reservation management”
Despite recognizing these conditions, CFK pointed out against debt restructuring “without interest relief and little capital reduction” commanded by the former minister Martin Guzman.
He maintained that the measures did not consider the existence of a “bi-monetary economy” and considered that “despite obtaining very important trade surpluses in the first years of management, The government did not achieve the necessary strength in terms of reserves due to poor administration of the dollars obtained”.
“Poor workers”
This, he continued, resulted in the emergence of “a new phenomenon”: that of the “registered working poor.” Although unemployment rates fell, “the purchasing power of the salaries of registered workers was reduced until reaching a situation in which many of them could not cover the entire basic basket”.
This fact contradicted an axiom of Peronism: “Upward social mobility” that “disappeared”.
“It validated the scandalous IMF loan”
Cristina Kirchner also criticized the agreement signed in 2022 with the IMF. She maintained that this measure not only “validated the scandalous loan” taken by Macri but also, “it condemned the government (of Alberto Fernández) to a kind of agony by being forced to implement the policies dictated by the multilateral organization”. Particularly to devalue the currency.
At this point, he maintained that this fact is the demonstration that “inflation, in Argentina, is inextricably linked to the dollar and not to the fiscal deficit”.
The differences within the FdT
The former vice president also recognized the political differences that existed in this regard within the Peronist coalition. He pointed out “Our sector expressed its rejection” of the agreement with the IMF and recalled that this was the reason why Máximo Kirchner resigned from the presidency of the official bench in Deputies.
However, the former president clarified, Kirchnerism marked its differences “with deep respect for the institutions” and without “jeopardizing the parliamentary majorities to sanction the laws that the President (Fernández) needed.”
At this point he referred obliquely to the relationship between the three members of the coalition. “During the first years, the most important measures for the direction of the Government were discussed between the different sectors” but “finally the President was the one who had the last word and made the final decision”.
He recognized that this was “something absolutely logical in a markedly presidential system” and highlighted that “The lack of agreement never implied a dissolution of the coalition”.
“Despite the deep disagreements, no one left the Front or jeopardized the parliamentary majorities to pass the laws that the President needed. “Respect for constitutional institutions took precedence over differences in political and economic management criteria.”he concluded.