This year, Aldo Javier Pinto, Camila Giménez, and María Teresa Troiano died of cancer. What did they have in common besides their illness? All three received medications from the Directorate of Direct Assistance for Special Situations (Dirección de Asistencia Directa por Situaciones Especiales or DADSE) of the Ministry of Health. However, since Javier Milei’s government took office, the program was canceled and the patients who benefited from the assistance stopped receiving their treatment. Transport funding was also cut, and coincidentally, a recent train accident left 60 people injured. The government blames a service operator, but in reality, the signals were not functioning.
Javier Milei won the elections with a discourse of a mega fiscal adjustment that would only affect the political “caste.” Today, six months into his tenure, the government’s strategy to achieve social consensus for the adjustment involves stigmatizing various social sectors. In fact, almost half of the adjustment made by this government has been at the expense of pensions, with the argument that many people retired without making contributions.
Throughout its history, Argentine society has gone through several periods of adjustment, resulting in political costs that no party wants to bear. Therefore, those seeking to impose cutbacks employ various strategies to contain a potential social rebellion. Milei has chosen the Machiavellian strategy of selecting enemies, blamed for our problems, whom the government aims to overcome through adjustments. Thus, the government’s campaigns of stigmatization began through lies and misinformation.
The Social Urban Integration Fund (Fondo de Integración Socio Urbana or FISU) and public universities were labeled as corrupt institutions, allowing Milei to pave the way for reducing funds in both cases. The government also reported corruption in DADSE’s medicine procurement, halting drug delivery, affecting thousands of patients. Finally, the president attacked social organizations for manipulating social plans received by their affiliates, while denouncing the state as full of “ñoquis”—people who don’t work but still get paid—leading to the dismissal of thousands of state employees.
This stigmatization campaign sustained the adjustment for a while. But as the months passed and the lies unraveled, the opposition to the government grew. The deaths from the lack of medications prompted a critical view of the adjustment. Additionally, both FISU and the universities had been previously audited by internal and external bodies, and no reportable crimes were found.
However, the adjustment to universities led to a severe blow to the government, with a massive mobilization where leaders from various opposition sectors (Peronism, radicalism, the left, and unions) were seen, prompting the Congress to debate an increase in educational funding, contrary to the government’s desire.
A similar situation occurred with the scandal of five thousand tons of food stored in warehouses that were not distributed due to management problems. First, the government claimed they didn’t exist, alleging that the registered dining halls were based on a pre-pandemic list. Then it said the food wasn’t expiring and was stored for emergencies, but when floods hit, it stated they had nothing to offer the provinces. Eventually, the judiciary ordered the food distribution, but since thousands of people had been laid off, there was no one to do it, and the task was ultimately assigned (something the government criticized) to an ultra-Catholic organization.
One of the most notable cases involves pensions, with their adjustment accounting for almost half of the total adjustment made by the libertarian government. The strategy in this regard was to attack those who had retired without making the corresponding contributions. These are people who worked in the informal market, in domestic tasks, or were housewives and who could access pension moratoriums that allowed them to receive a pension, ensuring that almost all eligible Argentines could retire. However, to pave the way for the adjustment, the government introduced the narrative: “pensions are low because many retired without contributing,” identifying an enemy: Kirchnerism.
While the government has reduced the deficit, its strategy has failed. Just six months into Milei’s administration, his image remains relatively positive, but the political class is turning its back on him. Following the pension cuts, which account for almost half of the adjustment, Congress intends to vote for an increase in them. In response, Milei threatened in an interview to “veto everything” and said he “couldn’t care less.” However, the opposition is close to achieving 2/3 support in both chambers, which would impose the agenda on the president and significantly impact governance.
Autor
Licenciado en Ciencia Política por UNLaM y periodista por TEA. Trabaja en Poder Ciudadano, capítulo argentino de Transparencia Internacional, como responsable del área de Comunicación y como Responsable de Proyectos del área de Sector Público y Fortalecimiento Institucional.
