antipodean
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,100
- Likes
- 3,150
This is true. However regardless if primary elections are relatively new or not, we must remind ourselves that they are part of the democratic framework of the state and are set in law. They were imposed on the last government (and all governments since then) and they have shaped today's political landscape.
To suspend them when it is no longer advantageous (e.g. a risk to the coalitions that govern because various minority factions and unpopular candidates may not get enough votes to remain as an option in the general election to stay part of these coalitions) is a violation of democracy no matter what way one spins it and has a serious impact on the outcome of the general elections.
Either scrap primary elections (PASO) altogether or be consistent in following the law. Argentina is a poor state, it could always use the money for something more meaningful so this is no argument. Nor is the health crisis in one year from now when vaccines will be more widespread and the overall risk should be lower (or any crisis for that matter given the perpetuity of them in this country.)
In other news related to the general elections, the opposition has raised the concern of the very recent appointment of a militant Peronist judge in a court with electoral competence. Talk about timing.
Perhaps there is a reason why the current administration is so accomodating of Bolivia's Morales or Venezuela's Maduro ... democracy works better for the corrupt when you can turn it off and on like a light.
