The Weimarization of Argentine Politics and State Autonomy

PERUZZOTTI ENRIQUE

Thesis Eleven

MIT Press

Año: 1993 p. 124 - 140

Argentina has an unique history of political instability. During the past sixty years, Argentinians have witnessed the establishment and failure of numerous regimes, from democratic to authoritarian. Since 1930, civilian and military administrations have succeeded one another without having been able to interrupt a cycle of institutional deterioration and political decay. The return to democracy in 1983, after the traumatic experience of the last authoritarian regime, was perceived by the large majority of the population as the initiation of a new period in Argentine politics that would leave behind decades of political and economic instability. Raul Alfonsin stated at the inauguration of his presidential period that it was the beginning of one hundred years of democratic rule; and his optimism was shared by large sectors of society. In contrast with earlier democratic transitions, there seemed to be a widespread commitment to democracy in the bulk of the population. Despite its promises, the recent democratic transition has not lead to the final institutionalization of democracy in Argentina. Nonetheless, it allowed the first democratic transfer of power in decades and, at present, there is no imminent threat of a military take-over of power. Paradoxically, present democratic administrations have managed to survive even under highly adverse circumstances, but democracy as a regime is not yet consolidated. We are now experiencing a novel and interesting phenomenon, what I Term radical plebiscitarianism, where democratic administrations operate in a situation of under-institutionalization; of the political game. What characterizes this version of democracy is the predominance of charismatic modes of policy-making and the absence of an institutional network that frames, articulates and processes societal demands.