Analysis: Is Peronism still the dominant political force in Argentina?

By Rosendo Fraga

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – The legislative election in Argentina on November 14 is the fourth consecutive such election lost by Peronism in the province of Buenos Aires since 2009. Half of these defeats have also coincided with those at the national level.

As Peronism won two of the last three presidential elections that have taken place before these legislative elections, it is clear that this type of election cannot be taken as a preview of the next presidential election, as it happened between 1983 and 2009.

Read also: Check out our coverage on Argentina

But four consecutive defeats in the mid-term elections raise the question of whether Peronism is still the dominant force in Argentine politics, as it was since its first electoral triumph in 1946.

These defeats also record a presidential one, which is that of 2015. In these terms, it would seem that today Peronism in Argentina is only one of two axes, but it has lost its dominant situation.

But if in 2023 Peronism were to win again, we would not only have a prevailing political situation, but we would have to recognize it as hegemonic. In this case, between 2001 and 2027, Peronism will have governed 23 years of the period.

In the same perspective, Peronism would have won five of the six presidential elections held during the first three decades of the 21st Century.

In political theory, it is usually said that a system is bipartisan when two forces take turns in relatively similar periods in the exercise of power. This is the feeling left by the four consecutive defeats of Peronism in the legislative elections in the country’s central district, which is the province of Buenos Aires, once the impregnable bastion of this political force.

It is said that a political force is dominant when it governs longer than its alternatives. For example, if it wins two out of three presidential elections. This situation occurred in the last three decades, in which non-Peronism won three elections, and Peronism won the other six.

In turn, a force is hegemonic when it wins three out of four elections. This has happened so far in the 21st Century with Peronism, winning four out of the five presidential elections held.

In this context, the result of the next presidential election will define whether Peronism consolidates itself in the 21st Century as a hegemonic force in Argentine politics or whether it maintains its dominant role and may evolve into a two-party system in the future.

To be dominant or hegemonic, Peronism has an advantage: its capacity to mutate ideologically. It is a pragmatic force that tends to adapt to changes in society.

In the 1990s, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the consequent hegemonic role of the United States as the only global power, this political force shifted to the right with Carlos Menem. For ten and a half years, it exercised power with a perspective of this orientation -historically opposed to Peronism-, promoting free markets, privatizations, and alignment with the United States.

After the 2001 crisis, the brief presidency of Eduardo Duhalde was an attempt at moderate populism, which meant only a transition of a year and a half.

With the triumph of Néstor Kirchner in 2003 and the two successive presidencies of his wife, Cristina Kirchner, which began in 2007 and 2011, Peronism, with a center-left populist orientation, governed for twelve and a half straight years.

Now, the Fernández-Kirchner formula, which can be considered an attenuated version of Kirchnerism, articulated in a sort of permanent conflict between the President and the Vice-President, has been in power for two years.

Peronism is a singularity of Argentina. It has no clear global or regional similarities. Ideological turns are usually disguised with the names of successive leaders: Peronism, Menemism, Duhaldism, and Kirchnerism.

This shows a coincidence of political culture that overcomes political differences.

In conclusion, four consecutive defeats in mid-term elections generate the impression that Peronism is one of the two axes of bipartisanship. Still, the presidential elections held so far in the 21st Century show that Peronism consolidates a hegemonic model, having won four of the five presidential elections of the period and having governed 16 of the last 20 years.

By Rosendo Fraga, Director of the Centro de Estudios Unión para la Nueva Mayoría (Center of Studies Union for the New Majority)