Nisman Dead!

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

Could someone explain to me the concept of "bribing the poor for votes" ? I've heard this exp<b></b>ression many times, and I just can't understand the logic, except from a standpoint of absolute contempt for democracy. By what reasoning can it be wrong for a politician to promise poor people (or any citizens for that matter) that by voting for him or her, their conditions will improve?

D'Elia - 25 manguetes for the pibes to turn up at a demonstration.

Do you think that stops there?

Criminal gangs loosely associated with football sell everything you need. Drugs, votes, bodies for protests. Pay the money and you get what you need.

Aside from that "loyal" areas will see milk, basic foodstuffs distributed by La Campora, they will directly ask or tell you that this is happening on the basis of who the neighbourhood votes for. The woman who comes round to our house to clean lives in a villa, she's happy to tell me that they all queue up and take what's on offer and listen to the speeches and make whatever promises they need to to get food.

If you didn't vote FpV, the goods aren't flowing into your neighbourhood. That's the problem. It's a reward system based on loyalty.

It goes well beyond targeting your political base with progressive policies, I have no problem with that, as you say that's democracy.

That said, it's laughable to listen to someone from the US gas on about democracy which has been sold to corporations, lobbyists and private interest groups. The KoCks have decided they will spend almost 1bn USD on buying, sorry, influencing the next election. So, to listen to "pensador" chirp on about caudillos and social spending is ludicrous.

Glass houses and that....

 

[Irelander]

The issue with buying votes is when the incumbent uses public funds for said purchases. Most voters would expect such monies to be used for public services but if that money is used to buy beer, fridges and other such items I recall from a video a few years back then that would be deemed abuse..unless you invite the rest of the nation over to have a beer and keep your cheese in the aforementioned fridge.

aha ... so according to this logic it is "wrong" to use public funds to benefit one sector of the population and not the other. Say if a government targets heath spending to reduce infant mortality among the poorest 10% of the population, it must allocate the same amount across all the other percentiles? The underlying assumption is that any attempt by an elected government to pursue a redistributive policy is by definition immoral.

 

[nicoenarg]

aha ... so according to this logic it is "wrong" to use public funds to benefit one sector of the population and not the other. Say if a government targets heath spending to reduce infant mortality among the poorest 10% of the population, it must allocate the same amount across all the other percentiles? The underlying assumption is that any attempt by an elected government to pursue a redistributive policy is by definition immoral.

Huh?

I don't think you're understanding this very well. If the government only improves infant mortality of those who voted for them regardless of their needs, that's what's wrong. You seem to be looking at it from a "if they're redistributing wealth it must be good!" perspective where the reality is that we're not in Scandinavia but Argentina. Things work a little bit different than the Utopian government that really cares for the poor and its the evil rich and middle class that don't like it.

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

aha ... so according to this logic it is "wrong" to use public funds to benefit one sector of the population and not the other. Say if a government targets heath spending to reduce infant mortality among the poorest 10% of the population, it must allocate the same amount across all the other percentiles? The underlying assumption is that any attempt by an elected government to pursue a redistributive policy is by definition immoral.

When that benefit is made on the basis of policital loyalty, then of course it is wrong.

Targeting infant mortality is a valid policy, based on a social need. Recognising a need and allocating resource to solve a problem which is in the national interest to be solved, morally and from the perspective of population growth. Something Argentina needs.

Rewarding people for votes is clearly corrupt. There is no correlation between policy making and using the public's money to reward votes. Saving children's lives vs beer&milk for the faithful is some wild analogy to make??

 

[Johnny]

D'Elia - 25 manguetes for the pibes to turn up at a demonstration.

Do you think that stops there?

Criminal gangs loosely associated with football sell everything you need. Drugs, votes, bodies for protests. Pay the money and you get what you need.

Aside from that "loyal" areas will see milk, basic foodstuffs distributed by La Campora, they will directly ask or tell you that this is happening on the basis of who the neighbourhood votes for. The woman who comes round to our house to clean lives in a villa, she's happy to tell me that they all queue up and take what's on offer and listen to the speeches and make whatever promises they need to to get food.

If you didn't vote FpV, the goods aren't flowing into your neighbourhood. That's the problem. It's a reward system based on loyalty.

It goes well beyond targeting your political base with progressive policies, I have no problem with that, as you say that's democracy.

That said, it's laughable to listen to someone from the US gas on about democracy which has been sold to corporations, lobbyists and private interest groups. The KoCks have decided they will spend almost 1bn USD on buying, sorry, influencing the next election. So, to listen to "pensador" chirp on about caudillos and social spending is ludicrous.

Glass houses and that....

Amen to that.

 

[Irelander]

If the government only improves infant mortality of those who voted for them regardless of their needs, that's what's wrong.

Where is the evidence that the government "only improves infant mortality of those who voted for them"? How do they impose this conditionality in a democratic vote by secret ballot?

When Mauricio Macri convenes the captains of Argentine industry and outlines to them how he as president will implement tax cuts, deregulation etc. - is he not equally guilty of "buying votes"

 

[nicoenarg]

Where is the evidence that the government "only improves infant mortality of those who voted for them"? How do they impose this conditionality in a democratic vote by secret ballot?

When Mauricio Macri convenes the captains of Argentine industry and outlines to them how he as president will implement tax cuts, deregulation etc. - is he not equally guilty of "buying votes"

The infant mortality thing was your analogy. Not mine. I was just using it to explain a concept but apparently it was a futile attempt.

And yes, if Macri or XYZ or whoever only selectively favors those who voted for him, then that's corrupt too. I am not sure what you're looking for here but I think from everyone who has written to you about this its pretty clear that regardless of the political party or the person who is president, anyone who buys votes and selectively favors those who voted for them while ignoring the rest and lining their own pockets is corrupt and that is wrong.

 

[Matiasba]

Clientelismo is not only a patrimony of peronismo. Even Macri does it.

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

Where is the evidence that the government "only improves infant mortality of those who voted for them"? How do they impose this conditionality in a democratic vote by secret ballot?

When Mauricio Macri convenes the captains of Argentine industry and outlines to them how he as president will implement tax cuts, deregulation etc. - is he not equally guilty of "buying votes"

I think what he is saying is that IF they improved infant mortality of ONLY those who voted for them THEN it would be wrong. You've done a bit of selective quoting there. You've also dodged the question as to whether it's ok to reward your voters with food and money?

Is that OK?

Macri, as with any other politician, is free to announce his policies to whoever he chooses. I imagine the govt will be free to do the same. All parties would have to justify those policies and see if they fly with the electorate. He would be playing to his political base, much the same way as the govt announcing social spending is appealing to their base.

In govt though, if Macri was to busy himself showering gifts and contracts (he might!) on those companies based on their loyalty, then yes, that is wrong.

We're into whataboutery here though.

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

Clientelismo is not only a patrimony of peronismo. Even Macri does it.

He probably does, in fact he more than likely does.

However selective criticism and whataboutery helps no one. All too often in Argentina we only criticise the opposition and don't hold the politicians we support to the same criteria.