Our era is marked by an obsession with rankings. We have rankings for universities, songs, tourist destinations, democratic quality\u2026 There\u2019s hardly a corner of life that doesn\u2019t have one. Or perhaps there is: there is no ranking of lies. No list of the biggest, the most universal, or the most brazen lies. If such a ranking existed, I know where my vote would go: to the idea that we live in democracies. It checks all the boxes\u2014it\u2019s a colossal lie, universally accepted and repeated shamelessly by everyone: both the governed and the governing. The former, perhaps, because they are largely unaware of the truth. The latter, because they pretend not to know it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So, what is that truth? Are we living under autocratic or dictatorial regimes? No: the truth is that\u2014except for clear deviations like Cuba, Nicaragua, or Venezuela\u2014we live under mixed regimes<\/em>. Mixed regimes? What kind of modern invention is that? Actually, it\u2019s no modernity at all\u2014the concept is roughly 2,000 years old. Polybius (1st century BCE) argued that the best form of government was not monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy. That is, not the rule of one, a few, or the majority, but a combination of all three. A mixed government with monarchical, aristocratic and democratic components. In his day, that meant in Rome: the two consuls (monarchy), the Senate (aristocracy) and the tribunes of the plebs (democracy).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The constitutional founders of the R\u00edo de la Plata\u2014and likely of all Latin America\u2014drew from this idea when designing the republics born of independence in the early 19th century: a single executive leader (monarchical component), a Senate (aristocratic component) and a lower house (democratic component).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main justification for the monarchical component was unity. As stated in the act of August 31, 1818: \u201cthe idea of adapting to the government system of the country the main advantages of monarchical, aristocratic and democratic governments, while avoiding their abuses. The monarchical government is advantageous for the unity of plans, for the swiftness of execution and for secrecy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n A quarter-century later, while drafting the Argentine Constitution, the figure of the vice president was added\u2014copied directly from the U.S. Constitution without debate. If, for Polybius, the two Roman consuls represented the monarchical element of the ideal government, why shouldn’t the president and vice president of a Latin American republic <\/a>function in the same way?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Today, we have plenty of arguments to counter that\u2014both theoretical and practical. Let\u2019s skip the theoretical ones; after all, they weren\u2019t strong enough to prevent the framers from copying the vice presidency instead of choosing another succession model. And we can\u2019t really blame them, as they were opening the doors to an entirely new political world. They couldn’t have foreseen the difficulties that would emerge later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n