President Milei in Davos: why he’s right and why he’s not
The remarks of the Argentine Chief of State in Switzerland caused controversy. But is this libertarian perspective accurate enough?
This week, President Milei spoke before businessmen and global leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos. In his speech, he said that the West is in danger, and he blamed the so-called élites, from the economic establishment to transnational movements, such as the feminist one.
But what does ‘the West in danger’ mean? One can, as President Milei has been doing since the presidential electoral campaign (that doesn’t seem to have ended), think that businessmen that shape the developed economies are a stone’s throw from a bunch of socialists, mere climate change-believers, in turn driven by left-wing identity politics groups. An argument that echoes Trump’s slogan of Washington as a ‘swamp to be drained’ — after all, Davos is the ideal stage for giving a speech against élites, something that Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Jeremy Corbyn and Pablo Iglesias could agree with (odd but feasible associations between the far right and the identity politics, to stay on topic).
Some others do think that the West is in danger indeed, yet because of different reasons. It is true that radical movements foster polarisation -the favourite field of both far right and far left populists-, but the Western project is mainly the project of liberal democracy, which features are separation of powers that control one another, a strong rule of law, free press and freedom of expression, power alternation, the recognition of the opponent as legitimate, especially when they win the elections. And above all, the idea that no politician nor party can claim to represent the whole citizenry, but part of it, thus it is natural that parties negotiate, dialogue, do politics. This is the Western project.
If on the one hand President Milei has won free and fair elections, he often miscredits opponents (‘not my rival, but my enemy’) and the Congress and other politicians as a whole, the famous caste — or swamp, to exercise our Trumpian argot. And the first measure President Milei sent to the Congress was to ask it to give him extraordinary powers for two years, hence half of his term in office, that would have been renewable for other two years solely with President Milei’s signature. Although it is likely that this try is blocked by Congress or the Courts, these are only two concrete examples, one discursive and one on policies, of how the liberal democratic project, ‘the West’, could be attacked.
In addition, President Milei is part of a group of leaders with similar distinctive traits: to name just a few, former President Trump did not recognise his defeat nor transferred power to his successor, but called on an assault on the Capitol of the United States. Former President Bolsonaro followed some of Mr Trump’s examples, e.g. refusing to participate in President Lula’s inauguration. And out of the 27 Member States of the European Union, the only political leader to take part in President Milei’s inauguration was Viktor Orbán, who proudly describes Hungary as an illiberal democracy — a classic example of how when institutions are undermined, democracies end up dying, as the book ‘How Democracies Die’ explains.
Therefore, President Milei is right when he underlines that the West is in danger. He just might have the wrong arguments to make his case.
