María Eugenia Vidal: "Let's change today, you do not need a trainee to the presidency"

In the context of the election year and the economic situation that is of interest to the public, the Governor Maria Eugenia Vidal He spoke in a comprehensive exclusive report with Jorge Fontevecchia on the Argentine reality and in particular on what is happening in the province of Buenos Aires. In this selected part of the interview, the governor talks about the prospects before the elections and explains how she made the decision not to unveil the elections in the province of Buenos Aires.

– Why did you finally decide not to deploy the elections of the province with the national elections?

-Well, it was a joint decision, right? With Marcos, with Horacio, with Jaime, with Mauricio, with all the team of Cambiemos and had to see several factors. The first was an election to finance the province of Buenos Aires with nearly three billion pesos that were not included in the budget and which had to be reduced to all that is important and sensitive in the province. The second, I am satisfied with the people who will vote so often in an election that they have to spend several Sundays to vote throughout the year, in a history where the province has always been unified and the third, opportunity The idea was to discuss the province of Buenos Aires but that would not have been possible. I think that in this scenario, the elections would have been nationalized even if what had been elected was not president, given the behavior of the elections in recent years. And, the truth is that if it was worth it, it was necessary to discuss the province separately from the nation. I think that unlike this, the unification involves more than one act, a presidential candidate, a candidate for leadership of the government and we will have the opportunity to discuss the province more than if we were alone. I think that alone, there were even more nationalizations. Paradoxically, going together gives us the opportunity to better discuss the province.

-What advantages did you see when you badyzed deployment possibilities?

-Well, that one. That's right, no? I had two great benefits and I was convinced later that they would not be possible. The first is to be able to discuss the province separately. I think that in the future we will have to take it into account. I think the province deserves a separate debate. And, second, the province must also be able to implement another form of voting. Because the province has the electronic voting allowed by law. If we had not had the time, we could have done pilot tests and even made a single vote by ballot. I think that would have given more autonomy to the people of Buenos Aires when it was decided to start from this history of the ballot that has generated so many irregularities over the years and, well, , has become unified. As the National Congress had not advanced in this debate even though it was a proposal of Mauritius in its first years of government, it is not possible, right? We must use the same mechanism as the national mechanism. I think that separation would have given us that possibility.

– Expect an improvement in the economy, weighed in the decision?

No I never feel that the vote – and I have repeated it many times over many campaigns – I think it is underestimate people. I think the vote is a long time building. So, I do not think that a month, June, August or October, will change something in that sense.

-It was badyzed the possibility, even if it was not most likely, that it was lost and if, in the middle of the year, we changed, the defeat in the province against Macri. could happen to Alfonsin, who advanced the elections to win and lose half a year before the end of the mandate had to advance the government's delivery?

-I have never, in those three long years that we have, I have imagined a scenario where Mauricio has not finished his term. And I do not think it's a realization of change in particular. I think it's a feat of the Argentines. I think today – in Argentina today, there would be no room for that. Neither in his case nor in that of another president. I think that after more than thirty years we have managed to overcome that and I think it is an achievement of all. So no. I never imagined that this situation was winning or losing in the province.

-Is it an badysis or your subsequent decision that Cristina Kirchner may or may not be a candidate for the presidency or a candidate for appointment to the governorship?

-The truth is that I always imagined Cristina as if she was running for a national election. I never imagined him governor, nomination candidate. We always imagine it as a candidate for the presidency.

-Well, has anything changed in the badysis of progress, progress or non-development, whether or not Cristina is running for president?

Not in a way, the province of Buenos Aires had already faced Cristina in 2017, is not it? She was a candidate and Cambiemos drew up her own list. No, nothing would have changed.

-And at some point in these badyzes, that Mbada was a candidate for the governorship in the province?

-Well, he has never expressed his intention publicly. The truth is that we have never received any information in this regard. So no. At the same time, I think no one defines his vote – that's why I do not believe in the electoral asphalt or in what is done at the last moment to win an election, I think the vote is a deep construction of a long-standing link, not cyclical- I also think that the elections are not defined or that the electoral strategies are not defined by the opponents. I am convinced that we must prove to people that they vote that it is the best option. Not that the other is bad. I think that going to an election thinking that we're going to vote because it's the least bad, it's bad for the people, it's bad for politics, it's bad for a project. In the same way that I am one of those politicians who believe that if they lose an election, people are wrong or vote badly. I think that there is an enormous power that you must respect and that you must know how to listen, right? At the same time, I think that when we win the elections, there is also a danger in believing that we won the elections. Earn what we represent at any given time. And so strong was that in 2017 going with a candidate – two candidates at the time, Esteban and Gladys González, who did not have a level of total knowledge in the province – I think that what I He won is the concept of change, beyond people. And I still believe it. I believe more in building identity political spaces than people. People go by, and to believe that a person wins an election, is misinterpreting reality.

-And a particular person, the case of the emergence of Lavagna as a candidate, somewhat modifies the electoral landscape?

-I think that in Argentina in general, it also happened during the experience that I lived in Buenos Aires and in the province itself, it is difficult to consolidate a third party. It is difficult to form a third shortly after the elections. Of course, as I said recently, it is the citizens who choose, is not it? And, there can always be surprises. But the truth is that today – I believe that beyond the names, Lavagna or anyone else who represents this third space – is difficult in a society so polarized that we have today to build a third option.

-Who will win and what will lose? Let's change there was a presidential candidate between Mauricio Macri and a radical candidate.

-D first, I think I – and I find myself in a very clear place there, I think that there is a natural leadership of Mauricio Macri and that it does not … has not yet appeared in Change to become an intern, is not it? On the other hand, our partners in the agreement that we already have ceased to be an electoral agreement because it has been more than three years since we are a government agreement and a joint team – the province of Buenos Aires is a very good example. with radicalism and with the Civic Coalition – the truth is that I believe this person has not emerged yet. This does not mean that it will not happen, but for the moment it has not happened and our partners have not raised it either, is not it? ? There was no mention of -I go frequently to Change meetings at the national level and no meeting presented a radical proposal going beyond any public statement we heard. And I think that until those leaders are out, I do not see the need. I think the situation is very different from that of 2015, where Ernesto Sanz and Lilita Carrió and Mauricio Macri had to start by showing that they were ready to go to the unit in the same trainee. Today, this unit is no longer in doubt, is not it? I do not feel it doubtful in the province of Buenos Aires in the daily life in my relations with the provincial legislators, with my lieutenant-governor, with the ministers of radicalism. I feel a shared job, right? I do not see what the differences should be, right? There is not even so clear yet.

-While in other areas of the opposition, internal sectors, what this would show is the affectio societatis, using your terminology, that it is no longer necessary today to prove it …

– I believe that when there are interns, it is because there is no obvious leadership, right? Cristina does not need detainees in her political space. Mauritius, for example, is also an obvious leadership. Perhaps, in a third space, we need to determine what is this leadership and that – that's fine that there are interns, that people choose and that they be open. I mean, I believe in this mechanism, but I think that every electoral moment is different. In 2015, Cambiemos needed this trainee. I think he does not need it today.

– What gives you a positive image 10% higher than that of the president?

-Well, polls are always an image, right? But even when this has been consolidated over time, I think the role of the governor, unlike what some former governors intended to set up, is infinitely less laborious than that of president. The president undoubtedly makes decisions on two issues for which a governor does not make decisions pertaining to foreign policy and the economy. And, definitely, these decisions condition the reality of any province. It's like that. And I think Mauricio had the toughest decisions, especially in a system where decisions on public service rates were still national. From this year, the province of Buenos Aires signed the transfer last week. We will therefore define with the city government the tariffs for water, electricity and gas, which have been the most discussed. during the last years. and he had to make those decisions for Mauricio or manage problems such as inflation, problems that the governor does not define and I think these are definitely the most difficult problems he has had to face. They had to deal with a lot more than in my case the province of Buenos Aires.

– But it seems to me that in terms of external relations, there is no disgust on the part of the population. The problem with the least approval relates to the economy.

-Well, without a doubt, we had a very hard 2018. Very hard. I rule the province of Buenos Aires where two-thirds of families live in Conurbano and must come from the hardest-hit regions of the country in their economy, their SMEs. Unlike the interior, with the harvest of fine wheat and thick corn, there is some reactivation, so nobody talks about it because I live in the province of Buenos Aires. But, I also think that it's not the result of a three-year government beyond the specific economic decisions made in the last three years, but many, many years even beyond from the Kirchner government. It includes it, but it goes beyond the areas where the Argentineans do not realize what other countries of the world have accomplished. We can not sustainably grow for more than ten years. We did not argue that it is spectacular at 6% or at least two, but it is maintained at three or four per cent like all developed countries. We have not managed to have inflation below one figure as regularly. We have not achieved a balance between what we invest and what goes into the state and where we invest it and a sustainable priority over time. And this is not a failure of a political space, but many political spaces over several years, no? I describe this many times as the culture of the shortcut. That is, trying to find an innovative, different Argentinian idea that forces us to do things differently and the truth is that the rest of the world, many countries we admire – and we have seen in the G20, I saw it very clearly there, very different countries that go from Russia to the United States through China, France and Japan with idiosyncrasies, a different story, different problems , different economies. All in unison say to themselves: "It's the way", which is a very difficult, very difficult road, but that's the way they followed.

– You say that no president called to govern at this time would have, by the economic conditions, a good approval on the part of society?

– No president would have been made easy. I do not doubt it. Suppose, from the moment we started, in a country where there was still a default, where we still had stocks at exchange rates, where inflation was repressed. Not to mention the fact that we could not discuss in common what was inflation or poverty because INDEC had been destroyed. I think the starting point would have been difficult for any president. In fact, many economists, including recognized opposition economists such as Miguel Bein, mentioned as Scioli economist, have often acknowledged that the government has allowed them to do the same thing. With which I do not think it would have been easier for anyone. Without a doubt, it is more difficult to do this when you are a non-Peronist government with a minority in both Houses. I think that makes it even more difficult.

Read the full interview of Jorge Fontevecchia with Maria Eugenia Vidal here.