The recent Argentine election, held on 19th November, heralded a significant political shift with the election of Javier Milei. This event, capturing global attention, has provoked a flurry of media analysis and speculation regarding Milei's political positioning.
Questions abound: Is he right-wing, extreme right, or defying traditional categorisation? The outcome of this election offers insightful lessons for the political mainstream agenda.
The left-right political spectrum, deeply ingrained in contemporary politics, finds its origins in the revolutionary fervour of the French Revolution in 1789. At the heart of the debate in the Constituent Assembly was a pivotal question: the extent of the king's power.
This question catalysed a passionate discourse that led to a symbolic seating arrangement, with conservatives occupying the right and revolutionaries on the left, as depicted in ‘The Opening of the Estates General May 5, 1789’.
The left faction championed radical change, advocating for a reduction of the king's power to a suspensive veto. In contrast, the right supported a constitutional monarchy reminiscent of the English model, favouring a powerful king with authority over a Parliament dependent on his rule.
The left emerged triumphant in this historical showdown, setting the stage for the downfall of the omnipotent French monarchy and influencing political ideologies worldwide.
As the terms "left" and "right" gained currency, they gradually permeated public discourse during the 19th and 20th centuries, particularly with the rise of public education. This educational shift played a crucial role in politicising individuals making these terms accessible to the general population.
However, this dichotomy oversimplified the intricate nuances of political thought, masking the diverse spectrum of ideologies that exist beyond the traditional left-right binary, and these dichotomies have reached our time.
Where can we place Javier Milei on the political spectrum?
Javier Milei, an avowed anarcho-capitalist and liberal-libertarian, has been predominantly depicted by the media as far-right or extreme-right.
Press and public opinion typically rely on the ideological left-right axis in the political arena. But who exactly qualifies as a centrist, left or right? Is it someone who avoids altering the status quo?
If we consider centrism as not steering away from the established order, then both left and right become factions seeking slight modifications in opposite directions.
The issue lies in the exclusion of numerous ideological currents from this simplified model. We tend to categorise opposing ideologies under the same label; liberalism, ultranationalism, conservatism, and fascism on the right, and socialism, communism, and anarchism on the left, amongst many others.
Milei's opposition to increased taxation, expanded public expenditure, and what he perceives as a 'woke' moral agenda has led to his categorisation as a far-right figure.
The underlying premise suggests that if someone is not on the left, they must be on the right. While the logic seems apparent, the premise is flawed.
If fascism is anti-left, it is deemed right-wing, regardless of its anti-liberal stance. This binary framework, based on opposition to the left, would lead to the classification of both liberalism and fascism under the right.
General labels may simplify information, but they often mislead and oversimplify complex realities. Milei's political philosophy is more accurately described as ultra-liberal rather than ultra-right.
His viewpoints significantly differ from those of prominent figures like Donald Trump or Jair Bolsonaro, who are inclined towards conservatism, protectionism, mercantilism, and nationalism, prioritising the nation over the individual. In contrast to them, Milei champions substantial reforms in Argentine society and economy, aligning him with libertarian principles.
Despite comparisons between Milei and Donald Trump or Jair Bolsonaro in terms of personality and character, their ideas differ significantly. While all three may employ an aggressive political communication strategy to challenge the political mainstream, Milei's ideas are distinctly ultra-liberal, not ultra-right.
They additionally endorse their central bank's collaboration with political power to control credit availability, manipulating fiscal policy to stimulate the economy. But Milei himself has contributed to these misunderstandings: he has some association with these political actors while forming international alliances, understanding the complexity of geopolitics and the necessity for strong alliances.
Mercantilism was predominant in the early modern period (16th to 18th centuries) and involved heavy government intervention in the economy, and protectionist measures such as tariffs and subsidies to promote exports.
Liberalism, on the other hand, emerged as a response to the perceived shortcomings of mercantilism. It gained prominence during the Enlightenment and advocated for individual freedoms, limited government intervention in the economy, and the belief in the efficacy of free markets.
In conclusion, Javier Milei serves as a prime example of an ultra-liberal, not an ultra-right figure.
What can the EU learn from the political figure of Javier Milei?
Milei's ascent has been buoyed by substantial support from young voters, suggesting a generational shift in political preferences and lifestyle choices. This demographic's increasing scepticism regarding the state's role in meeting their needs signals a transformative era.
It underscores the need for the state to adapt its role and services to these evolving societal dynamics. Young people, redefining traditional employment models and lifestyles, appear to shift towards more libertarian values.
The European political spectrum should closely observe this ideological evolution, especially with the 2024 EU elections on the horizon.
The resurgence of ultra-liberal ideas, particularly among tech-savvy younger generations, challenges long-held state-centric views. These libertarian perspectives resonate with a demographic less reliant on an extensive state apparatus.
Engaging and including these groups in discussions about modernizing existing institutions could avert potential ideological clashes.
Milei's election also emphasises the limitations of the traditional left-right spectrum in capturing the nuances of contemporary political ideologies. His labelling as far-right is indicative of a broader tendency to oversimplify complex political positions.
The European Union, in contemplating its approach to politics and governance, should recognise the diversifying political landscape.
A figure like Milei has a disruptive nature and ability to connect emotionally with people, leading to unexpected political phenomena. This is frightening for the EU bubble where debate is heavily restricted and a large mainstream narrative dominates, leaving little room for questioning. Javier Milei has departed from the political mainstream, introducing fresh ideas that will demand attention in the forthcoming elections.
EU politicians tend to discredit figures like Javier Milei because they evoke strong emotions, especially among the youth, leading to powerful reactions that challenge the prevailing status quo.
This Europeanization process has led to monolithic thinking, and anyone with a political style that could question this is perceived as a threat, or anyone challenging the European project is labelled as Eurosceptic, Europhobic, or far-right.
In addition, disruptive political figures can induce fear and panic in stable political structures, leading these structures to group all such disruptive elements. This grouping inadvertently strengthens them, forming a sort of club of marginal leaders. Despite their differing policies, they unite due to the rejection and discredit they face.
In European politics, the winning parliamentary group appoints the President of the European Commission. A coalition government is formed without real opposition. Thus, anyone who questions EU policies is seen as aggressive, far-right, and disruptive.
This institutional flaw has led to a fear of political debate in Europe and a narrowing of the scope for discussion. This rigidity in the EU's structure and the repression of political debate could challenge many aspects of the EU. Not only does it alienate people within its constituency, but it also ostracizes outsider figures who do not fit into conventional European categories.
In conclusion, Javier Milei's election in Argentina is a landmark event that should help political actors to revisit old categories. His political stance, representing a departure from traditional categories, highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of contemporary politics.
For the European Union, Milei's rise highlights the need to recognise and adapt to the evolving political landscape, particularly in engaging with the younger generations. As the EU prepares for its upcoming elections, it must consider these emerging trends and their potential impact on its future direction.
