Almost a year has passed since the phenomenon of economist Javier Milei caught us all by surprise. We are few, and I include myself, who saw it coming so clearly, yet we still doubted a possible triumph in the runoff after he finished second in the general elections in October against Sergio Massa, the official candidate.
Now, with a clear mind, we can provide an explanation for Milei's unprecedented individual victory. Moreover, political science has already explained this multiple times even before Milei appeared on television for the first time, demonstrating that it was one step ahead.
1- Counter-democracy:
Pierre Rosanvallon (2006) explained a very interesting phenomenon to us. He argues, just like all of us, that the weaknesses of the actors in the democratic system have harmed representative democracy; but he innovated by arguing that this distrust in the democratic system has not resulted in a weary and passive society, but rather the opposite.
According to the author, in a society where suspicion towards political actors is ingrained, it leads to a society that still exercises its citizenship by criticizing, monitoring, obstructing, punishing, and manifesting, among other unconventional forms of political participation that nonetheless denote expression, involvement, and political intervention. He calls this way of exercising citizenship counter-democracy, which implies a hopeful society that believes improvement is only possible if they are the ones who set out to achieve it.
2- Popularity leader:
It is in this society where people believe it is more prudent to defend themselves collectively rather than betting on traditional parties. These traditional actors are no longer the old intermediaries between the demands of society and the state apparatus; instead, they are distant from the true needs of society, blurring their social foundation and identity ties.
In light of this, the only vital function that political parties retain is being the sole pathway to state power, hence they are reduced to being a merely instrumental resource for winning legislative or presidential elections, which then become the period of greatest political intensity.
Isidoro Cheresky (2007), a year after Rosanvallon, advocated for proximity as a remedy. Cheresky visualizes a popularity leader, a concept that frames the figure of a single individual capable of connecting with public opinion, reconciling with it after a long time of being abandoned and left to its own devices.
This popularity leader is an adaptation to winning over the electorate in situations and spaces where parties are no longer welcome. His direct and personal approach, which conceals a party structure, builds its support on the backing and companionship provided by public opinion. Being considered just another person from society, detached from traditional politics, he criticizes the latter as a tool for generating popular support.
3- Teledemocracy:
Finally, Sergio Fabbrini (2008) contributes that the ideal scenario for the popularity leader to connect and get closer to public opinion (through personifying concerns and political leadership) is the media. This way of presenting oneself consists of a practice called teledemocracy. It precisely arises from the abandonment of the public sphere as a space for the exchange of ideas, replaced by media and networks.
He adds that, due to the sensationalist nature of the media, the presentation of this leader often resembles a show. As a consequence, voters end up voting for a personification of their interests rather than a party apparatus specialized in political representation.
Reflections:
In this way, we can learn that just because a milestone sounds or is marked as unprecedented does not mean it truly is. The answers have always been on the shelves, and the warnings were duly presented.
I have selected three concepts dating around ten years before Milei became an icon of Argentine culture, and precisely with them, we can understand how he was able a) to present himself directly and individually to public opinion through the media and networks (teledemocracy); b) his level of connection and assimilation with society (popularity leader); and c) how it is explained that the latter decides to vote for an unknown candidate, without a political-party apparatus, to let the old politics know that it no longer represents them (counter-democracy).
Sources cited:
Cheresky, I. (2007). Politics After Parties. Prometeo.
Fabbrini, S. (2008). The Rise of the Democratic Prince. Who Governs and How Democracies are Governed. CFE.
Rosanvallon, P. (2006). Democracy and Distrust. Journal of Political Studies (new era), (134), 219-237. https://www.cepc.gob.es/sites/default/files/2021-12/26352rep134010.pdf
Comments