From Rosas and Alberdi to Milei: The historical DNA behind libertarian decisionism

Historian Marcela Ternavasio, recently awarded the Konex Prize, has explored historical connections between 19th-century political dynamics and contemporary libertarianism in Argentina, focusing particularly on the influence of figures such as Juan Manuel de Rosas and Juan Bautista Alberdi on current leader Javier Milei. In a discussion with journalist Jorge Fontevecchia for Net TV and Radio Perfil, Ternavasio analyzed how the polarization and personalist leadership tendencies observed today have deep roots in Argentina's past. She emphasized that these patterns are not exclusive to any one political ideology but have been present throughout history, finding new expression in Milei’s libertarian movement. Ternavasio, a professor and graduate of the National University of Rosario, holds a master's degree in Social Sciences from FLACSO and a doctorate in History from the University of Buenos Aires. She completed her doctoral studies at Harvard University and currently works as a researcher for CONICET and the National University of Rosario Research Council. She is a member of the National Academy of Argentine History and a corresponding member of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences. She has been honored as a visiting professor at the National University of Rosario and recently received the Konex Merit Award in the fields of History, Politics, Culture, and Intellectual Thought. In discussing the book The Revolution of the Vote, Ternavasio highlighted the significance of the Sáenz Peña Law, which established universal male suffrage in Argentina. However, she pointed out that this was not a novel concept introduced by the law itself, but rather a recognition of a practice that had already existed for over a century prior. She explained that following the independence movements in Latin America, especially in the Río de la Plata region, the political landscape began to shift toward the principle of popular sovereignty through voting. From around 1810, particularly after the 1820s, a broad electorate emerged, allowing all free men to vote. This challenges the traditional view that 19th-century elections were largely fraudulent or manipulated. Instead, Ternavasio argued that each period had its own mechanisms for conducting politics and elections, emphasizing the importance of understanding how conflicts were managed through electoral processes during that time. The key point, she noted, was recognizing how political conflict was handled in the 19th century through the logic of elections. She further clarified that while the Sáenz Peña Law formalized universal male suffrage, it was preceded by similar practices in different parts of the 19th century, each with their unique characteristics. This historical context provides a broader perspective on the evolution of electoral systems and the role they played in shaping political ideologies and structures. Ternavasio’s analysis suggests that the current political climate, marked by strong individual leadership and resistance to consensus, can be traced back to earlier periods in Argentine history. Her work underscores the need to move beyond simplistic interpretations of Argentina's political past and instead consider the complex interplay of factors that have shaped the nation's democratic institutions and political culture over time. Her insights into the historical underpinnings of modern political phenomena offer a nuanced understanding of how Argentina's political identity has evolved, highlighting the continuity of certain themes and the emergence of new expressions within the framework of historical developments.