UNR historian Camila Perochena analyzed the political uses of the past made by Argentine presidents from the democratic transition to the present at the 17th National Congress of Political Science.

Historian Camila Perochena, who recently clashed with President Javier Milei in 1910 regarding whether or not Argentina was a world power in XNUMX, spoke about the political uses of history at the XNUMXth National Congress of Political Science held at the UNR. A professor of history, a graduate of the Faculty of Humanities and Arts at the UNR, with a Master's degree in Political Science from the Torcuato Di Tella University, a PhD in History from the UBA, and Director of the Master's Degree in Journalism at La Nación Di Tella, her lecture covered the different uses of the past made by Argentine presidents since the transition to democracy until today.

For his analysis, he distinguished two blocs: one from 1983 to 2003, with a more consensual and pluralist memorial regime, and a second, from 2003 to the present, more conflictual and polarizing. He explained that there are "memorial warriors," political actors who believe there is one true history, that we must fight for it and put an end to falsified history. On the other hand, there are "memorial pluralists," who believe there are different ways of approaching the past, and all can coexist in the same political space. Finally, there are "deniers," who believe that in order to look to the future, we must ignore the past.

"Alfonsín had the most difficult memorial dilemma to resolve because he was in the transition to democracy," he said, and differentiated two positions during his presidency: with regard to the recent past, he had a "memorial warrior" perspective because it was necessary to truly understand what had happened during the dictatorship, but this coexisted with a prospective perspective because it was necessary to close that chapter in order to look to the future.

In the long term, he aimed to rescue pluralistic moments from the past to reflect on the present, for example, the adoption of the Argentine National Constitution in 1853. "He uses that moment of state-building after the civil wars as a mirror to consider democracy in opposition to violence, with a more consensualist approach." This use of the past seeks to symbolically sustain a liberal conception of democracy.

In terms of strategy, Menem continued with a regime of remembrance for coexistence that sought to avoid opening battles over the past. He took office saying he wanted to be "the president of Sarmiento and Chacho Peñaloza, of Alberdi and Facundo Quiroga, of Balbín and Perón." The main difference was that "for Alfonsín, there was no democracy without justice. For Menem, however, democracy didn't require justice but reconciliation, and with this idea he justified the pardons." During his first two years, he positioned himself as a "prospective memorial," seeking to close the past battles that divided Argentines in order to look to the future. Later, he became a denier who refused to talk about the past, and forgetting began to take center stage in the construction of democracy.

According to Perochena's analysis, this changed with Néstor Kirchner. He was a memorial warrior of recent history, as evidenced by several actions, including the rewriting of the prologue to "Nunca Más" in the 2006 edition. He revived the ideals of the militant organizations of the 80s and prudently remained silent about revolutionary methods and violence. There was a strong critique of Alfonsin's memory of the XNUMXs and a break with the consensual memorial regime of the transition to democracy.

Cristina Kirchner deepened this perspective, and in 2007, she emerged with the idea of a "cultural battle," which, for this memorial warrior, implied "rewriting the past." For her, true history was historical revisionism in the face of falsified liberal historiography. This led her to create a narrative of 200 years of Argentine history in which she proclaimed: "We have come to fulfill the unfulfilled promises of the May Revolution." There she draws a parallel between 1810 and 2010, with both good and bad.

“In this idea of waging a battle over the past and politically polarizing the present, history was an important element, something recurrent in 50% of their speeches,” the historian stated, emphasizing: “The purpose of history was to establish that division between an “us” and a “them” in the present.” This marks the beginning of a memorial regime dominated by conflict and a polarizing use of the past that “is very effective in building political identity, mobilizing, and generating emotions and anger.”

Regarding Macri, the researcher argued that he was a denier of memory because he made forced uses of the past, without a specific concern for a historical narrative. For him, looking back on the past made him nostalgic, which prevented him from projecting himself into the future. His discourse does not feature any leader from Argentine history, nor does it recall historical moments because there is a clear idea that "the past must be left behind." "This position did not mean abandoning the memorial regime dominated by conflict, because for Macri, that was the way to differentiate himself and establish an opposition to Kirchnerism." Later, the PRO itself offered a self-criticism about the problem of not having a historical narrative to build an identity.

“Milei jumps on that memorial regime dominated by conflict and fills it with outrage,” Perochena stated. “He believes there's a true history he needs to show, which is that of liberal Argentina in a golden age when we were a power in 1910 and which began to fall in 1916 with the arrival of mass democracy. He's telling us that it's not easy to reconcile mass democracy with liberalism.”

From the romanticization of armed organizations in the 70s during Kirchnerism and the attempt to break with the Alfonsin consensus, today the pendulum is swinging the other way because these organizations are seen by the current government as the main culprits of the chaos and violence, which ultimately justifies the military dictatorship.

For the historian, there's a common thread in the polarizing use of the past by Milei and Cristina, but with one important difference: during the Kirchner era, historical revisionism coexisted with research by Conicet (National Institute of Statistics and Census), universities, and broadcasters on the Encuentro channel. Today, such coexistence is impossible because of a discourse against intellectuals and academics, who are considered a "caste." "Today, there's no room for other interpretations of the past."

Journalist: Victoria Arrabal/Photographer: Camila Casero