Many members of this website are critical of the current Argentine President and her politics, and while this post won’t take a position on current politics, it will try to establish that our criticisms may not be legitimate when viewed within the context of Argentine society and legal tradition.
The Argentine constitution is remarkably similar to the Constitution of the United States, discounting the reforms of 1994 (which dealt more with political maneuvering by Menem) and some specific text added during Juan Perón’s rule. However, while both documents have their roots English common law, Locke and Montesquieu, their interpretation and application a extremely different. For example, both the Constitution of the United Sates and Argentina give the individual a “right to work.” In the United States, what is implied is that each individual has the right to enter freely into a contract with another, offering his labor and services. In Argentina, it is often interpreted to mean that the state not only has the responsibility of guaranteeing said right, but the obligation to provide employment.
Both Constitutions provide the right to assemble, associate freely, and by extension, protest against the government. But while the letter of the law is similar, the forms of protest permitted, socially and legally, couldn’t be more different in the United States and Argentina. One cannot begin to critique the differences without understanding the Argentine ‘Proceso,’ the limited popular support of social protest in the United States and the tradition of protests that existed and exist in Latin America (and by extension, Argentina).
The United States is also almost unique among Western democracies in that a large (majority?) of the population does not support a strong federal government. While that is less true today, thanks to the rapid expansion of executive power since Clinton, recent elections in the United States makes clear that the United States population remains skeptical of government attempts to provide social services and assume responsibility not specifically enumerated in it’s constitution. Argentines, however, hold an expansive and liberal view on the responsibility and role of the Federal government. Again, without passing judgement, the Argentine citizen has delegated a large amount of responsibility to the state; while minimizing personal responsibility, and by extension, power.
The same can be said with respect to economic policy. The right to private property is a basic right, usually recognized as a natural law, in modern, liberal democracies- it’s stance here in Argentina is tentative. The Argentine State has respected it weakly, at best. But again, that natural law would be hard to respect (although it is in the Argentine Constitution) if society interprets the constitution as saying that every individual has a right to work, and in the case of the Ciudad de Buenos Aires, an inherent right to a household (it is in the Constitution of the Ciudad de Buenos Aires) .The United States Constitution makes no promises about equality or opportunity, except in respect to the law. No one is guaranteed a job, a home, success or equality of standing (again, except in his natural state and before the law). Whereas, equality in Argentina, as stated in the their constitution, is understood differently. When the President speaks about dividing the wealth, money for families with children, she is addressing the Argentine concept of equality and opportunity.
So, are our criticisms legitimate? In many cases, no. We are looking at Argentine society through an American/English/Australian/whatever prism. What we understand as a the social contract between the government and the people varies greatly from what the overwhelming majority of Argentines understand it to be. While our laws may be the same on paper, it is impossible to import our national experiences here. This post isn’t going to touch the myriad of other problems that Argentina faces. But when it comes to what responsibility the citizen will or will not assume in Argentine, well, it appears that the overwhelming majority of Argentines have already settled that discussion.
The Argentine constitution is remarkably similar to the Constitution of the United States, discounting the reforms of 1994 (which dealt more with political maneuvering by Menem) and some specific text added during Juan Perón’s rule. However, while both documents have their roots English common law, Locke and Montesquieu, their interpretation and application a extremely different. For example, both the Constitution of the United Sates and Argentina give the individual a “right to work.” In the United States, what is implied is that each individual has the right to enter freely into a contract with another, offering his labor and services. In Argentina, it is often interpreted to mean that the state not only has the responsibility of guaranteeing said right, but the obligation to provide employment.
Both Constitutions provide the right to assemble, associate freely, and by extension, protest against the government. But while the letter of the law is similar, the forms of protest permitted, socially and legally, couldn’t be more different in the United States and Argentina. One cannot begin to critique the differences without understanding the Argentine ‘Proceso,’ the limited popular support of social protest in the United States and the tradition of protests that existed and exist in Latin America (and by extension, Argentina).
The United States is also almost unique among Western democracies in that a large (majority?) of the population does not support a strong federal government. While that is less true today, thanks to the rapid expansion of executive power since Clinton, recent elections in the United States makes clear that the United States population remains skeptical of government attempts to provide social services and assume responsibility not specifically enumerated in it’s constitution. Argentines, however, hold an expansive and liberal view on the responsibility and role of the Federal government. Again, without passing judgement, the Argentine citizen has delegated a large amount of responsibility to the state; while minimizing personal responsibility, and by extension, power.
The same can be said with respect to economic policy. The right to private property is a basic right, usually recognized as a natural law, in modern, liberal democracies- it’s stance here in Argentina is tentative. The Argentine State has respected it weakly, at best. But again, that natural law would be hard to respect (although it is in the Argentine Constitution) if society interprets the constitution as saying that every individual has a right to work, and in the case of the Ciudad de Buenos Aires, an inherent right to a household (it is in the Constitution of the Ciudad de Buenos Aires) .The United States Constitution makes no promises about equality or opportunity, except in respect to the law. No one is guaranteed a job, a home, success or equality of standing (again, except in his natural state and before the law). Whereas, equality in Argentina, as stated in the their constitution, is understood differently. When the President speaks about dividing the wealth, money for families with children, she is addressing the Argentine concept of equality and opportunity.
So, are our criticisms legitimate? In many cases, no. We are looking at Argentine society through an American/English/Australian/whatever prism. What we understand as a the social contract between the government and the people varies greatly from what the overwhelming majority of Argentines understand it to be. While our laws may be the same on paper, it is impossible to import our national experiences here. This post isn’t going to touch the myriad of other problems that Argentina faces. But when it comes to what responsibility the citizen will or will not assume in Argentine, well, it appears that the overwhelming majority of Argentines have already settled that discussion.
