RDI questioned the political agreement to appoint judges after the appointment of Pablo Yadarola in the Federal Chamber

In recent discussions on Argentine politics, legal expert Natalia Volosin raised concerns over the political agreement surrounding the appointment of Judge Pablo Yadarola to the Federal Court. During her appearance on Ronda de Investigación with Perfil, Volosin highlighted how the support received by Yadarola from various political sectors reflects broader issues of corruption and impunity within the country’s judiciary. She emphasized that these problems are deeply rooted and affect all levels of society, challenging the notion that they are exclusive to any one political movement. The controversy emerged following Yadarola's recent confirmation to the Federal Court, which has sparked renewed debate about the influence of political interests in judicial appointments. Volosin pointed out that while some have framed the issue as a specific problem within the Peronist movement, she argues this perspective overlooks the long-standing nature of systemic corruption in Argentina. According to her, such claims ignore historical patterns of abuse of power that span beyond any single party or ideology. Volosin rejected the idea that corruption is uniquely tied to Peronism, citing the work of historian Roy Hora, who had previously suggested that corruption was a defining feature of Peronist political culture. In response, Volosin asserted that serious study of corruption in Argentina reveals its structural and widespread nature. She noted that while the Peronist party has played a dominant role in recent democratic periods, this does not justify labeling corruption as a unique phenomenon associated with that political faction. She further explained that Argentina's history of corruption dates back to the early years of independence, even before the emergence of Peronism. Volosin cited multiple historical examples, including governments under leaders such as Macri and Milei, to illustrate that the issue transcends ideological lines. She argued that the capture of state institutions, whether through neoliberal policies or other frameworks, is not confined to any particular political model, nor is it primarily driven by economic or political theories. Volosin described the current situation around Yadarola’s appointment as emblematic of a larger pattern. She criticized the consensus formed among different factions of power, suggesting that these groups collude to maintain their positions rather than addressing the root causes of corruption. This dynamic, she claimed, prevents meaningful reform and perpetuates a cycle of impunity. Her remarks echoed a longstanding critique that has been central to her analysis for over two decades. She concluded her argument by referencing a recurring metaphor used in her work: "Corruption is a dish, and impunity is another dish from which everyone eats." This phrase underscores her belief that the problem is shared across all segments of society and that no group can claim exclusive responsibility for it. The lack of political will, according to Volosin, is the primary barrier to change, not a lack of knowledge or understanding of necessary reforms. She stressed that the solution lies not in academic debates but in collective action to break the entrenched systems that sustain corruption and impunity.