Anatomy of an instant

Good faith is a fundamental concept of the institutional system. It informs the legal, economic, and political spheres. It originates from pre-law, that primordial space where law intertwined and merged with religion and magic. Everything boils down to believing in the other, trusting in the other—nothing more, nothing less than credit.

This is the fundamental perspective for analyzing the anatomy of the scandal surrounding the President of the Nation. It is not strictly a criminal matter; that will come later. It is an event of institutional gravity, with legal, political, and economic ramifications, which must, at all costs, be contained in the immediate term and not extend into the medium term, because too much is at stake. Essentially, everything is at stake: from confidence in the economic plan to the appointment of judges and even the potential call for impeachment.

One must begin with the understanding that the President’s word is an institution in itself because it is the head of power speaking. The one who holds the office bears an added responsibility that obliges them to measure their words carefully; they do not speak in a personal capacity but as a representative of a nation. It is the voice of a country being expressed. This is why reducing everything to freedom of expression is a misinterpretation. Of course, the President can speak; in fact, there are times when they must. But there are also times, like this one, when they are obligated to remain silent. In this context, freedom of expression takes on a different configuration due to the weight of the office, which demands prudence.

It does not matter whether the statement is made via a national broadcast or on social media. What we have here is what is known as a probatio probatissima, a piece of evidence so obvious that it becomes conclusive. That is precisely what the President’s message on their personal X account represents: the very network that enabled their rise has now become a web that ensnares them. In the face of such an undeniable event, there are only two possible paths: to explain and accept the consequences or to double down.

Unfortunately, given a year of governance and considering the approach of political imitators on the international stage, the expected response is almost obvious. It is said that in a moment of similar political pressure, President Perón told his minister Guardo: "What does it matter? We are used to governing in the midst of chaos." There are countless counterexamples of leaders who assumed the cost of their mistakes and moved forward, thinking above all about institutional responsibility and the consequences for the country.

Until now, we have been on a jovial stage where everything was reinvention and possibility, with seemingly unlimited credit in the eyes of public opinion. But not everything follows a linear path—not in politics, not in economics, and not in law. Now we are facing a black swan, a stage that could take on tragic connotations if the chosen path is one of self-destructive tendencies. Let us hope that is not the case, because it is not only the actors and the play that are at stake, but also the trust of the audience—that is, all Argentines—and their future

February 16th, 2025

February 16th, 2025