Reality is always simpler than the illusory machinery created by interventionist minds, and the first results of these policies are already showing: the regressive nature of income distribution has become more pronounced, as the economic recovery has not translated into social recovery.

The first fact that can be established regarding the current economic stage is that, after 3 years of uninterrupted growth at a 9% annual rate, only in 2005 did the GDP reach the figures of 1998. The Argentine economy needed 7 years to reach the levels of activity of the best year of convertibility. However, the social scenario emerging from this recovery is critical.

According to a recent report elaborated by Claudio Lozano, a member of the Argentine House of Representatives and representative of the trade unions that oppose the powerful and pro-government Central General de Trabajadores (CGT), the GDP per capita is 2.8% lower; the unemployment rate (without taking into account the beneficiaries of economic aid plans granted directly by the government) has grown 2.4% (which means 400,000 more unemployed citizens); the poverty rate has increased 33.5% (that is to say, we have almost 4,300,000 more poor citizens), the extreme poverty rate exploded and increased 114% (which means that there are over 2,700,000 destitute citizens), and the average income of working people has decreased 25.4% in real terms. This average income, which, in 1998, was 34.1% larger than the cost of the household basket, is now 6.7% below it (implying a detriment of almost 120% in this measure). Finally, the difference in income between the poorest 10% and the wealthiest 10% of the population has grown from 22 to 31 times, denoting a significant widening of the gap.

In sum, the recovery of the level of activity is based on the deeper social pauperization and a wider inequality in the distribution, or what is commonly described as the formula “high dollar, low wages”, and the lack of official policies aimed at encouraging production, savings and investment.

Meanwhile, the outlook rendered by a review of the rest of the domestic policy variables does not appear to be any more optimistic.

According to Elisa Carrió, a member of the House of Representatives from the opposition and the leader of an interesting political group branched from the Radical Party, President Kirchner is responsible for some kind of deterioration in the bilateral relations with 19 countries. The Queen of Holland, President Bush, President Putin and the kings of Spain were some of the authorities who experienced themselves the scarce presidential diplomacy, so damaging for the globalized relations of the 21st century.

Neighboring countries like Chile and Brazil also had to endure a similar behavior, not to mention Uruguay and the environmental fever that has awakened in the Argentine President. The continent too has witnessed his peculiar manners.

No sector of society can escape the presidential sway. The political power imposes harsh conditions on national and foreign companies such as withholding taxes, compulsory rather than voluntary price agreements, or the banning of exports. The relationship with the media is tense and the bulky official advertising plan is arbitrarily manipulated in favor of the obliging media. Provincial governors are domesticated by dint of the grant or restriction of subsidies and budget items according to their docility to the central power, and representatives receive constant recommendations to vote in favor of or against certain bills.

At the same time, the level of street violence, child delinquency, and the school leaver rate rise. The Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires and its 300,000 students are leaderless because ultra-leftist groups prevent the meeting of the Academic Committee that must appoint a dean, and the Secretary of Domesic Affairs refuses to instruct the Police to restore order, claiming that the conflict takes place in an area of academic jurisdiction.

Probably, Evo Morales and Hugo Chávez are the only figures that tarnish President Kirchner’s present: his illusion to set himself as the anti-hero of South America has been taken from him by the other two: Evo, who nationalized the Bolivian hydrocarbons, and Chávez, with his verbal attacks against the US.

It is in this scenario, with no strong social leaders nor political parties providing an alternative for the citizens, that Argentina is getting ready for next year’s presidential elections.

* María Zaldívar is a TV journalist from Argentina and Bachelor of Political Science (UCA, Catholic University of Argentina)

www.hacer.org