Second summit of governors from the Patagonian provinces, where they will advance in the development of regional strategies in response to the national scenario.
The recent tug-of-war over the distribution of the National Treasury Contributions (ATN) opened a profound discussion about Argentine federalism. What appeared to be a technical debate turned into a political symbol: governors managed to establish in Congress that these funds cannot be discretionary; they must be distributed automatically and proportionally according to revenue sharing. For decades, the ATN functioned as a lever for presidential power. Raúl Alfonsín had already warned about the dangers of a paper federalism, where provinces depended on discretionary favors instead of clear rules. This discussion remains alive, and today it returns to the forefront. Javier Milei's veto of the law that ended this scheme clashed with a cross-party majority in both chambers, revealing the parliamentary fragility of the ruling party and the renewed protagonism of provincial leaders.
Today, governors have become central arbiters. According to Perfil (13/09), they are divided into three large blocs: the dialoguers (Cornejo, Frigerio, and Zdero), who maintain an open channel with the Casa Rosada; the United Provinces and Patagonian governors (Llaryora, Pullaro, Valdés, Torres), who refuse to give the President a "political photo" and demand a concrete agenda; and the Kirchnerist governors (Kicillof, Quintela, Ziliotto, Gildo Insfrán), directly opposed to the libertarian management. This fragmentation shows that there is no longer a uniform bloc capable of aligning unconditionally with the Executive. It is not accidental that several radical governors, such as Pullaro, Valdés, and Zdero, are at the heart of this discussion. Radicalism, with its internal nuances, preserves a federalist DNA that seeks to balance power and build bridges, even in times of extreme polarization.
Meanwhile, Milei tried to regain ground with selective transfers. Página/12 (16/09) revealed that the Government transferred 12.5 billion pesos in ATN to Santa Fe, Misiones, Entre Ríos, and Chaco just before sensitive vetoes were debated in Congress, such as those on pediatric emergencies and university funding. The maneuver sought to safeguard legislative support but left governors like Pullaro and Frigerio under scrutiny: the behavior of their deputies became decisive.
The conflict does not end with the ATN. Structural claims persist for pension funds not transferred to the Nation. According to Chequeado (08/08), Buenos Aires demands 1.6 trillion, Santa Fe nearly 2, and Córdoba reached a partial agreement after going to the Supreme Court. These debts strain the fiscal relationship between the Nation and the provinces, highlighting that the discussion on federalism exceeds the context of a veto.
Patagonia appears as an increasingly cohesive bloc. Weretilneck, governor of Río Negro, joined the meetings of Patagonian leaders and signed joint documents along with Chubut, Santa Cruz, Neuquén, Tierra del Fuego, and La Pampa. They demand greater respect for natural resources and reject the discretionary use of national funds. Their inclusion reinforces the idea that federalism is also built from the regions, with common projects that transcend provincial borders.
The Senate has become the most visible stage of this tug-of-war. Página/12, Perfil, and La Nación reported that the opposition — backed by the 23 governors and the Chief of Government of Buenos Aires — moved to reject the presidential veto of the ATN law. The ruling party faced an adverse scenario, marked by previous defeats in the Chamber of Deputies with overwhelming votes in favor of university funding and pediatric emergencies. For many senators, the key was in a simple message: federalism versus discretion.
What is at stake is more than a specific law. It is the definition of how Argentine democracy functions in a presidentialist country. If resources depend only on the will of the President, provinces remain subordinate to a centralist logic that erodes autonomy. If an objective and transparent distribution is established, governors strengthen their role, and federalism gains institutional density.
The current situation reflects something deeper: power is no longer measured only in decrees or speeches on national broadcasts but in the ability to articulate consensus, respect the Constitution, and understand that no province can be held hostage to discretion. Therefore, beyond ideological differences, the defense of real federalism should be a common ground.
Argentina needs clear rules. Governing is not about accumulating discretion but about building lasting agreements. The radical tradition of betting on dialogue, respect for the Constitution, and authentic federalism remains a beacon. As Alfonsín reminded us, “democracy is built every day.” Radical governors, Patagonian leaders, and others now have the opportunity to uphold that vision of a more balanced and republican country.
Comments