When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

Adios Peronism? Argentina Tries To Finally Bury The 20th Century

The Macri government's sober discourse and steady reformist hand suggest the political and economic dramas of the last century in Argentina may be ending.

A new dawn for Buenos Aires?
A new dawn for Buenos Aires?
Jorge Ossona

BUENOS AIRES — The results of last month's parliamentary elections in Argentina may be the final proof that a new historical cycle in Argentine politics has begun. That would mark an end to the radical social and political options that dominated the country through the 20th century.

Back in 1930, several political storms coincided to halt the dual promises of growth and greatness that Argentina had entertained — and which had seemed unstoppable, in the first decades of the 20th century. There was an abrupt end to the pattern of prosperous farming exports that had made this outlying "periphery" of the continent into one of the world's granaries, and of institutional improvements initiated in 1912 and 1916 that promised the consolidation of a liberal republic.

Already in the early 20th century, various essentialist perspectives — touting the country's "intrinsic" nature — had begun to change our collective culture into competing secular ideologies marked by authoritarian or corporatist discourses. Ruling elites began speaking on behalf of all Argentines, promising to re-found the fatherland and regenerate the decaying cultural order.

The country then witnessed a succession of regimes: There was the New Argentina of General Juan Domingo Perón and his followers, then the Liberating Revolution of their opponents, the Argentine Revolution of the 1960s, an authoritarian outfit led by generals, the Peronists' return with Argentine Power (Argentina Potencia), and the 1970s' Process of National Reorganization imposed by the last military junta.

The democracy installed in 1983 was in principle more sober in the scope of its leaders' ambitions. But even here, these could not entirely resist the temptation to "refound" things, as suggested by terms like "the third historical movement" coined by supporters of the first president, Raúl Alfonsín, and "the First World County" that the Peronist-inspired President Carlos Menem promised with the whiff of an earlier Argentine Power slogan.

There are no more prodigious options left — we've used them all.

The result was intellectual inertia and a fondness for facile answers that meant tackling problems with broad measures, and scant attention to details.

This approach soon became the source of new problems piling onto existing ones, further hampering their resolution. Protecting domestic industry to reduce imports became a social response to the effects of the Great Depression, and continued as elites remained oblivious to its long-term sustainability. The peasants and farm hands of the Humid Pampas outside the capital moved in to become a dense urban working class. By the 1950s, they would begin emulating the consumption patterns of people in an advanced welfare state, which Argentina was not. Wage increases unleashed productivity but also endemic inflation that was checked only from time to time.

The manufacturing branches that grew in the 1960s and 70s did so with little concern for the small scale of the local market. In the 1980s, inflation became exponential and Argentina's massive foreign debt was coupled with a deepening rich-poor divide. In 1989, the country emerged from hyperinflation by artfully using convertibility, though that could not be sustained beyond the late 1990s and led to the socioeconomic crash of 2001.

Pampa outside of Buenos Aires — Photo: lrargerich

Two years later, the "soy monsoon" gave the impression that prosperity had come to stay, though it only lasted a decade. Then began the period of penury that continues to this day. The state, meanwhile, was systematically drained and dismantled, as it kept responding to shortcomings by outsourcing even the most elementary functions to corporate partners detached from the public interest.

The administration that began in 2015 appears not to want to refound Argentina, but free the inherent capabilities of a country that has impoverished and isolated itself from the world. It is a Herculean task the government has begun without the usual bombast about regeneration. There are no more prodigious options left — we've used them all.

Nor will there be automatic majorities at every election. The governing party will have to negotiate with opponents finely woven agreements between different interests. The easy promises and magic formulae must give way to identifying and dealing intelligently with specific problems. In short, the time has come to speak seriously about the issues affecting a modern republic with a mature, capitalistic economy.

If the country can grow at a moderate but steady rate over the next 15 years, better integrate itself in a world whose technological advances leave no place for ideological games, and make progress on reducing the social and cultural poverty of our cities and provinces, then we may assert that the government first elected in 2015 represented a bona fide rupture, launching a whole new cycle to replace the dramatic politics of 20th-century Argentina.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Russia-Ukraine War

How Vulnerable Are The Russians In Crimea?

Ukraine has stepped up attacks on the occupied Crimean peninsula, and Russia is doing all within its power to deny how vulnerable it has become.

Photograph of the Russian Black Sea Fleet headquarters with smoke rising above it after a Ukrainian missile strike.

September 22, 2023, Sevastopol, Crimea, Russia: Smoke rises over the Russian Black Sea Fleet headquarters after a Ukrainian missile strike.

Kyrylo Danylchenko

This article was updated Sept. 26, 2023 at 6:00 p.m.

Russian authorities are making a concerted effort to downplay and even deny the recent missile strikes in Russia-occupied Crimea.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

Media coverage in Russia of these events has been intentionally subdued, with top military spokesperson Igor Konashenkov offering no response to an attack on Russian Black Sea Fleet headquarters in the Crimean city of Sevastopol, or the alleged downing last week of Russian Su-24 aircraft by Ukrainian Air Defense.

The response from this and other strikes on the Crimean peninsula and surrounding waters of the Black Sea has alternated between complete silence and propagating falsehoods. One notable example of the latter was the claim that the Russian headquarters building of the Black Sea fleet that was hit Friday was empty and that the multiple explosions were mere routine training exercises.

Ukraine claimed on Monday that the attack killed Admiral Viktor Sokolov, the commander of Russia's Black Sea Fleet. "After the strike on the headquarters of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, 34 officers died, including the commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Another 105 occupiers were wounded. The headquarters building cannot be restored," the Ukrainian special forces said via Telegram.

But Sokolov was seen on state television on Tuesday, just one day after Ukraine claimed he'd been killed. The Russian Defense Ministry released footage of the admiral partaking in a video conference with top admirals and chiefs, including Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, though there was no verification of the date of the event.

Moscow has been similarly obtuse following other reports of missiles strikes this month on Crimea. Russian authorities have declared that all missiles have been intercepted by a submarine and a structure called "VDK Minsk", which itself was severely damaged following a Ukrainian airstrike on Sept. 13. The Russians likewise dismissed reports of a fire at the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet, attributing it to a mundane explosion caused by swamp gas.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has refrained from commenting on the military situation in Crimea and elsewhere, continuing to repeat that everything is “proceeding as planned.”

Why is Crimea such a touchy topic? And why is it proving to be so hard to defend?

Keep reading...Show less

The latest