Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Karina Milei have almost nothing in common, but where they do, they have a great deal in common.
At first glance, the differences between the two are impossible to hide. One was elected to numerous important positions and, twice, to the Presidency. The other has never been voted into office. One is a natural polemicist and an enthusiastic public speaker. The other does not speak in public and, when she tries, shows serious communication difficulties. One is a lawyer, though she has spent almost her entire life in politics. The other holds a degree in Public Relations, but before coming to power had devoted herself to personal ventures such as baking, angelic channelling and tarot card reading.
What they do share, on the other hand – the same gender, strong personalities, a ‘K’ in their names, a current dedication to politics and legal troubles of, for now, differing scale – includes one factor that makes them unique. They are the two most influential women in the country. One influences her party directly, along with a significant share of voters. The other influences her own party and, through her brother, another important sector of society.
One could say that just as the ruling party’s electoral future lies in Karina’s hands, the opposition’s future depends on the stance Cristina takes.
Them
Both wield their influence in similar ways: from the centre of power. The former president remains, still, the axis of the Peronist solar system; the Presidential Chief-of-Staff controls access to the president and functions as the Milei government’s political organiser.
Both operate according to the logic of personalist leadership, moving within a closed circle of trust that produces discipline, internal cohesion and differential treatment between those on the ‘inside’ and those on the ‘outside.’ It is a circle that shares a common enemy: the press. Hence the shared hostility toward those who stress-test official statements against reality and ask follow-up questions without permission.
There is also a kind of maternal leadership that unites them – Javier says his sister is a “guardian angel” who protects him (besides being the reincarnation of Moses, with him as brother Aaron). The President has said that during the abuse he received at the family home, it was she who supported him and who later took charge of putting his life in order until he moved to Olivos. Cristina is, literally, the mother of the Máximo, the leader of La Cámpora (the Kirchnerite youth movement) who also serves as her chief political representative. But she also exercises a maternal role over her rank and file, one that mixes authority and affection. Karina is ‘El Jefe‘ (“The Boss”) to her brother, just as Cristina is boss to her son. They are united by their love for those closest to them, but when disagreements arise, they are the ones who have the final word.
They are mothers and bosses; shrewd builders of power and implacable enforcers against anyone who gets in their way.
Cristina
Cristina and her son swear she is innocent and that it is the prosecutors and judges who convicted her who are corrupt – a claim her political children (leaders and militants) take as an unquestionable truth.
Imprisoned and legally barred from running for office, she is determined not to lose her central role in building a future alternative to power. Which is the great dilemma facing anyone hoping to lead an opposition that includes Peronism.
With her support, how does one forge a successful coalition when one of its mentors has been convicted by the courts and by a majority of the population? And without her, how does one convince those who would like to vote for her but cannot to back an opposition candidate who lacks her explicit endorsement and does not promise to free her the moment he takes power?
Máximo Kirchner wants a say in resolving this dilemma internally. That is why his most recent speech at Parque Lezama was devoted not to criticising the government, but to the Peronist governors seen as too compliant with Milei and to Axel Kicillof, who cannot be bothered to go and visit his mother.
The Kirchners believe that if they are not a constitutive part of any opposition alliance, the former president will not soon regain her freedom. However, should the country head toward another run-off decision, there is a strong chance that anticristinismo would outweigh antimileísmo and that any candidate who smells of Cristina would lose to that social animosity.
So which would be worse for her: Milei winning again, or a Peronist taking office who has clashed with her, or who at least does not consider her his boss? And in ideological terms, which would be worse for Argentina, in her view: an economically heterodox leader or an anarcho-capitalist? Someone who respects minorities, or one who calls homosexuals paedophiles? Someone close to Benjamin Netanyahu and Nayeb Bukele, or one closer to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Claudia Sheinbaum?
In the past she showed pragmatism by backing candidates she did not agree with but whom were competitive, such as Daniel Scioli, who lost, and Alberto Fernández, who won. Today that is no longer enough.
For a Peronist candidate to have a chance of winning, they would need Cristina’s voters – but not her endorsement.
Karina
The youngest of the Milei siblings had never been in politics before their rise to the top. That is one of the qualities her brother used to seduce a portion of the electorate who is fed up with the ‘casta‘ (“political establishment”).
In these past two-and-a-half years, Karina has not managed to build a complete party structure with governors or many mayors behind it. She has only added legislators swept in on the electoral strength of her surname.
She shares her brother’s conviction that, since he is God’s “chosen one” to confront “evil,” other leaders and parties must fall in line behind him and behind whichever candidates she designates. But will what has worked for her so far be enough again? Or will this time the Mauricio Macris and Patricia Bullrichs of politics demand more before continuing to back their libertarian, anti-republican crusade?
Karina shares with Cristina a poor image in the polls, and in most of them, hers is worse than the former president’s. Milei’s chief-of-staff is also working against the natural wear and tear of being in government, plus the ongoing judicial scandals (‘$LIBRA’ cryptocurrency scam and corruption linked to the ANDIS national disability agency) and those that could implicate her in the near future – just like the corruption allegations that brought down Manuel Adorni, her friend and confidant.
Karina’s poor image, along with her stage fright, makes any candidacy of her own almost as impossible, as if she, like Cristina, had been convicted. Her power does not come and is unlikely ever to come from the ballot box, but from what the head of state grants her.
That is both her strength and her weakness. Her strength, because as long as her brother remains convinced that she is an interspecies communicator who translates his dogs’ advice for him and connects him to God, no scandal and no person will be able to remove her from her position. Her weakness, because if Javier loses power, she has everything needed to become the prime target of every personal vendetta and every collective reckoning.
Us
The degree of influence each of them wields speaks as much to their own qualities as to the country’s shortcomings. They are the most extreme symbols of a society unable to build rational leaderships that are capable of breaking the siege of foolish polarisation.
Out of this absurd and unproductive struggle between two options that appear very different, but that agree on one thing: keeping us forever divided, and forever in the same place.
related news
