In a key session, the Chamber of Deputies rejected Milei's veto to the disability emergency law, kept in place the one on the increase for retirees and approved the automatic distribution of the ATN to the provinces. More than a political battle, it was a reminder that Congress has a central role: to set limits, guarantee rights and defend institutionality against the excesses of the Executive.
Wednesday's session made it clear that, despite the narrative of permanent confrontation, Congress is not painted. It was a long day, full of tension, but with a concrete result: the deputies put limits to the Executive and showed that the balance of powers is still alive.
The rejection of the veto to the disability emergency law is not a minor detail. With 172 votes in favor, the majority held that the State cannot look the other way when it comes to guaranteeing basic rights. Disability is not a statistic or an expense: they are people with concrete needs, families waiting for answers and a system that has been underfunded for a long time. The attempt to deactivate this law with a presidential veto was a political and human error, and Congress corrected it.
The fate of the increase for retirees was different. The two thirds were not enough to reverse the veto and the Executive's decision was upheld. This raises a fundamental dilemma: can a country that claims to prioritize "fiscal order" really do so by cutting back on the most vulnerable sectors? The discussion should not be technical, but ethical. And if no progress is made on a fair scheme for retirees, the political vacuum will be filled by social discontent.
But the most interesting thing was what happened with the National Treasury Contributions (ATN). The approval of the law that obliges to distribute them automatically among the provinces is a silent but profound change. At least on paper, the discretion of the Executive to reward or punish governors is over. And that is a triumph of federal democracy. That resources should be distributed according to objective criteria and not according to political sympathies is, in essence, what those of us who believe in a more balanced country have always defended.
In short, the session left a clear message: Congress is not a rubber stamp. When the Casa Rosada tries to govern by force of decrees, vetoes or arm wrestling, it encounters a limit that is not ideological, but republican. And here something essential appears, such as betting on consensus, on the respect for the Constitution, on the idea that no president, neither this one nor those to come, can take society ahead.
What we saw is not an isolated fight. It is part of a larger discussion about how we want democracy to work. Because governing is not about imposing a plan at any cost: it is about building majorities, accepting limits and understanding that, without real dialogue, there is no course that can endure.
Comments