The President of Democracy Raul Alfonsin Dies

[perry]

Didn't Alfonsin have to resign before the end of his term because he couldn't handle the economy? And why did he allow the torturers to go free? Seems that one of the few good things the Kirchners have done is to prosecute these human rights violators....a bit late, I'd say. So why such a huge turn out for his funeral? A friend of mine said that his mother struggled to make ends meet during his Presidency and she has no love for the man. The fact that he smoked himself to death seems to have been lost as well. Am I missing something?

I have done a lot of reading of late on Alfonsin and have to say I am now undecided about him . I made the original post based on a few articles I had read but thanks to Moxon and you Sergio I delved deeper into Alfonsin the man and his legacy and now I am not as convinced as I was in my original comments.

 

[RWS]

Pericles, my Anglo-Argentine cousins would say (in private) that Alfonsín was the best president that the country has had in nearly a century -- but that that was distinctly relative.

So, you see, both your original post and your reconsideration have value.

 

[sergio]

It's a sad reality that Argentina's Presidents (many of them military dictators!) over the past six decades or so have been so bad that Alfonsin appears better than most merely because he was less corrupt than the others. Several Argentine friends who lived through his aborted Presidency and who followed his career tell me that he surrounded himself with dishonest people who did a lot of stealing.

 

[Moxon]

Several Argentine friends who lived through his aborted Presidency and who followed his career tell me that he surrounded himself with dishonest people who did a lot of stealing.

Its hard in Argentine politics not to surround yourself with thieves, but yes according to most accounts he didn't steal or if he did it was minor (or well covered), so why aren't the tributes a little more prosaic 'Alfonsin the president who didn't steal' why does sentiment have to trump reality again (does this remind you of another president, alive and in office somewhere north of here?) and what is this Argentine need for mass public displays of elation, rage or grief?

My first post in this thread wasn't an attack on you Pericles or Alfonsin, rather I was just fed up with the wall to wall airbrushing that had gone on without respite in the media. The decisions he made interest me greatly, were they necessary? Was the threat that great? After talks with many Argentines I have come to the conclusion no, he had massive public support at that time, the military was still a demoralised and impotent institution after the Malvinas war, the rebellions were relatively minor and contained and when they occurred hundreds of thousands of Argentines were on the streets. It seems there would have had to have been mass open air slaughter for the military to take power - so why did he do it? This is what I was expecting to be looked at in some detail by the analysts in the TV studios but there was nothing. You have to worry when the only person to raise these points publicly is Hebe de Bonafini - why this mass adherence to this blinkered version of his life? I think Sergio gets close to a least some of the truth when he mentions who it was that set in motion the repealing of these laws, but that's another post.

 

[fedecc]

Im a local and im not particular supporter of Alfonsin or the Partido Radical. But to explain things a little:

It's true, his administration wasn't particularly good economically speaking, but he didn't have it easy to begin with.

First of all, the peronist that allways feel that their rightfull place is beeing usurped when they are not in government, made his life a living hell. The syndicates made 13 general strikes and an unnumerable amount of particular ones. Such things never happen in peronist administration, and not precicely beacuse of good administration...

As far as human rights, unlike the Kirchners that were actualy friends with the military in the 70s and made a couple of millions, Alfonsin was actualy a human rights lawyer. When he was president he judge the military leaders in an exemplary trial unheard of in latin america. If he then chose to pass the amnisty laws for the lesser ranks of the military is beacuse he chose peace over more blodshed, 50 years of intermitent military regimes don't just end like that. The military may have been very weak, but Alfonsin considered them a threat, and democracy to precious to risk it.

If you ask me, judging the juntas was bad enough.... but thats another subject.

In any case, Alfonsin wasn't a good president but he was a great man, and people value that. As far as the impact of his dead, you have to put it in context. If he would have died 4 years ago, none of this would have happened, he would have had a much smaller ceremony. But he died just when the peronist government is in decay, with corruption out of control, total lack of respect for the republican intitutions and a government that makes confrontation and revenche his only constant policy. And this is precisely what Alfonsin represented (or what people belive he represented, it doesn't matter).

 

[RWS]

Excellent insight, "fedecc". Thank you.

 

[Moxon]

Thanks for your post fedecc, I'm not sure I agree with everything you say, but certainly, yes, I think a lot of outpouring in the media and from the public can be attributed to the current political situation. Welcome to the forums and I hope we get to see more of your opinion here.

 

[sergio]

Fedec makes some interesting points. It may be true that Alfonsin found it politically difficult to prosecute the torturers however it would seem that he preferred to stay in power as long as possible rather than stand on principle and do what was right. Had he stood firm, he would have gone down as a man of integrity who struggled to achieve justice. As it turned out, his inability to deal with the economy forced him to resign. I'd rather have been forced from office because I fought for human rights. As for the emotional reaction of the public, an Argentine friend in his 60's argues that there is a certain immaturity and lack of education among the general public that lends itself to excessive displays of emotion. I believe that few people in Argentina really understand the concept of democracy. The idea of individual responsibility, of the critical role that each citizen plays in sustaining a system that works to the benefit of all, is largely absent here. Sadly, the media live in fear of recrimination so they self-censor. A number of years ago a reporter named Cabezas came very close to uncovering serious corruption. His body washed up on the beach at Pinamar. The case has never been resolved. Then there is the issue of all the public money Nestor Kirchner sent OUT OF ARGENTINA when he was governor of Santa Cruz. To this day no one knows how much money there is or exactly where it is. It seems it was never repatriated. And let's not forget the two terrorist attacks on Jewish organizations. After more than a decade, the cases remain unsolved! I can't imagine such a situation occurring in more developed countries. Certainly in the UK or the US there would be constant, relentless media scrutiny and a huge public outcry. Where is the investigate reporting on these and many other issues? Where it exists at all, I am sorry to say, it is quite limited and restrained.

 

[fedecc]

It may be true that Alfonsin found it politically difficult to prosecute the torturers however it would seem that he preferred to stay in power as long as possible rather than stand on principle and do what was right. Had he stood firm and done what was right, he would have gone down as a man of integrity who struggled to achieve justice.

Well i actually think that is an incredibly selfish argument, i mean, to chose personal glory and prestige over whats actually good for the people.

As for the emotional reaction of the public, an Argentine friend in his 60's argues that there is a certain immaturity among the general public that lends itself to excessive displays of emotion. I believe that few people in Argentina really understand the concept of democracy. The idea of individual responsibility, of the critical role that each citizen plays in sustaining a system that works to the benefit of all, is largely absent here.

I agree, we lack good democratic and republican practice, we don't know how to resolve our issues through the institutional and legal channels so we do it by other means (protests, blockades, etc.). And while i believe this has been a constant in argentine history, i also belive it wasn't always this bad. The collapse of 2001 and the "everything goes" policy that followed left the country more chaotic than ever. But i guess it's a learning process, and we have made some advances, at least nobody argue democracy is the way now.

A number of years ago a reporter named Cabezas came very close to uncovering serious corruption. His body wound up on the beach at Pinamar. The case was never resolved.

Actually, the Cabezas murder was HUGE, and it was solved. The master mind was a famous and powerfull bussiness man called Alfredo Yabran. He commited suicide by shooting himself with a shotgun. The actual killers (six men in total), were trialed and condemned, although most of them are free now because laws here are not very hard.

The issue of all the money Nestor Kirchner sent OUT OF ARGENTINA when he was governor of Santa Cruz has NEVER been resolved. I can't imagine such a situation occuring in more developed countries.

This is true, i don't think this money is ever comming back. Truly unbelivable.

 

[Moxon]

Well at last this thread has turned into a productive discussion rather than an attempt to drown out apparently 'alternate' viewpoints. I'm sure Pericles didn't post here expecting no responses and I'm fairly sure he doesn't think the whole world should agree with him.

To those that claimed I had the story wrong I can only conclude that you either knowingly denied what are accepted facts, knew very little about the facts but assumed popular sentiment was an infallible reference or know of some alternate theories regarding what passed in those times. If the latter is correct I hope you'd still be forthcoming with the information, in which books it is contained and which of these established facts are actually incorrect, this particular time in Argentine history interests me greatly.

If one of the other possibilities is correct and to those who want opinions, impressions (or even facts) snuffed out in the interests of maintaining a positive vibe or conforming to popular sentiment then there's another BA forum run by an expat who specialises in intolerance and intimidation in the pursuit of the party line (and all round niceness), perhaps you should try it.