MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, July 5th 2022 - 07:35 UTC

 

 

“A parliamentary system would not work in Argentina”, says chief Justice

Wednesday, June 27th 2012 - 18:43 UTC
Full article 37 comments

The head of Argentina’s Supreme Court Ricardo Lorenzetti played down the possibility of a parliamentary system in the country because it would represent an “upturn of 180 degrees”, besides there is no clear initiative to reform the constitution. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • briton

    bacause they would spend there time claiming the other parties .
    silly billy

    Jun 27th, 2012 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    And I thought that all modern countries had a parliamentary system?

    Perhaps Argentina must be some sort of dictatorship.

    Jun 27th, 2012 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Tabutos

    “bi-polar conflicts” sums up CFK pretty well

    Jun 27th, 2012 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    An 'upturn' of 180 degrees?

    Thing he means an about-face?

    And how dare he refer to TheMad Bitch of Argentina by upgrading her bi-polar condition to multi-polar, as if she had many faces!

    Oh, oh, just spotted a flaw in my post! :o)

    Jun 27th, 2012 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • PirateLove

    who cares what would work in Argenweener, if it harms Argenweener im for it.

    ITS ALL GOOD!!!

    Jun 27th, 2012 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JohnN

    Actually, best way to propel Argentina to the top of the human development charts, to reduce its corruption, and to increase its freedom, is to implement a constitutional monarchy. Yep - check out the rankings and see that constitutional monarchies, whether of Britain, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc - are really “chart-toppers” for being great places to live.

    Maybe CFK could install son as Argentina's first monarch, Rey Máximo, given that he is already a Peronist princeling?

    Jun 27th, 2012 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • xbarilox

    Of course it would not work, Argentine politicians are one the most dishonest in the world.

    Jun 27th, 2012 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    Probably

    Jun 27th, 2012 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • brit abroad

    of course it wouldnt work, i can only think of RG football being something that actual does the job it is intended to do.....everything else is simply poo!

    @ 6, I think that this is good idea, but suggest they come under the sov. of the Falklands and by doing so inherit Lizzy as monach. Then everyone can live happily ever after.

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 04:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Dr. Jeorbbels

    You can bet Fernandez would be in favour of a parliamentary system of government. Much easier for her to hold on to power indefinitely, provided she can keep her mps under control. She has only 3/4 years left under present system.

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 05:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Room101

    That's the whole point isn't it? How does he know it won't work until it is put to public vote?

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Idlehands

    Would any system work better than any other in Argentina? It doesn't have a great history of good governance and I don't believe it is because they have the wrong system.

    The political culture is what needs to be changed.

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Richfe

    Maybe it's just me...but I find it a bit weird that the unelected judiciary are discussing how the elected legislature/executive are structured. Isn't that in itself an indication of institutional problems...in normal countries proposals for structural change come from elected officials.

    Besides they seem to be ignorant that parliamentary vs presidential isn't the same as bipolar vs multi-polar: both the US and UK tend to be bipolar with presidential and parliamentary systems respectively, whereas across Europe you can see examples of multi-polar presidential and parliamentary systems.

    The thing is all this “common house” stuff seems more to be aiming at unipolar...perhaps they want to do away with democracy and become a single party state like China...

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • British_Kirchnerist

    I personally think a change to a Parliamentary system would be too drastic and unnecessary. Plus I think its cool that as things stand now Cristina is head of government (in charge of the country day to day) AND head of state (the symbol of the country), I wouldn't want her to stop being either. Much better to just abolish term limits =)

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    Just think, B_K, if she became the Empress you could be her Grand Vizier.
    Or Master Butler of the Royal Bedchamber.
    Or .............................l'll stop being silly now.

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Chilean perspective

    “A parliamentary system would not work in Argentina”, says chief Justice.
    Well I think NOTHING would work in Argentina.

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    Britain has seen it all! After the Romans left, Britain was a number of territories effectively ruled by warlords. When we reached Alfred the Great, we saw Britain unified under a single king advised by the Witenagemot (the meeting of wise men). But, for the most part, the king and the wise men still had to get out there and do their bit. Our next change was signalled by Magna Carta, a limitation on the power of the king. And then came a parliament. Divided between the landed gentry and the rich merchants and lawyers. Then came Charles I and the English Civil War as the king and parliament fought for control. Followed by the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell. The accession of Charles II saw the king give up more powers. And so we have moved on to where one part of Parliament is elected by the people. The monarch is a “constitutional monarch” much loved by the people of Britain and the embodiment of the heart, soul and spirit of the British people.

    By contrast, despite what it calls itself, argieland is not much different to imperial Spain. It has “formalities” that say “We're a democracy”, but is governed by decree. I'd say argieland has around 500 years to go. But it might not make it. We have only to interpret the attitudes of the majority of argies that come on here. “We're right, because we're right. Don't argue.” “It's ours because we say so!” Autocracy at best. Imperialism at worst. And let's not forget the corruption and bullying!

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Simon68

    17 Conqueror (#)

    A great post Conqueror, this is the second or third time I've been really impressed by your very succint rendering of a situation. Bravo.

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JohnN

    On a (distantly) related note, whats the reason why Argentina has a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Religion (Culto)? Costa Rica has that too, and Ecuador sticks their Culto office in with justice and human rights.

    Argentina's actual Secretary of Religion (Culto) (http://www.culto.gov.ar/) seems to be focused on somehow directing the religions to play nice with each other and avoid friction, which given that Timerman is a Jewish minister in a historically anti-Semitic nation, might reflect a real need (are they any closer to catching those Iranian AMIA killers?)

    However, could be that historically, the notion of what Culto was meant to be protecting interests of the Catholic Church? For example, iIn the current Culto office, looks like the Catholic Culto still gets its own Director-General (http://www.culto.gov.ar/)

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    17 Conqueror

    Excellent post. Romans to now in 18 lines!

    Please try understanding Uruguay a little better.

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve-32-uk

    @6 Agreed

    The presidential system works until you get a bad president, then it will fail. The less responsibility and power for the one person the better, as their decisions affect everyone. Separating the head of state away from the countries decision making, further emphasises this and splits the responsibility and tasks.
    The presidential system is also more vulnerable to corruption.

    Argentina is a example of how not to do it. Currently they have a crazy leader with too much power, totally out of her depth, dragging the country to its knees. She has sought much fame, but a leaders job is not to seek attention like a celebrity, it is to run the country. It could now take decades for Argentina to recover from her failed ideology.

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @20 I'm not sure where Uruguay is. And I don't mean geographically. As I read the history, the people who “moved” to “Uruguay” didn't want to be Brazilians and they didn't want to be argies. They became “Uruguay”! And who helped make it happen? Britain. Am I right so far? Right at the beginning of World War 2, Uruguay was neutral. But it still knew right from wrong. Thus the scuttling of the nazi warship Admiral Graf Spee. And what about today? Who controls Uruguay? From where I'm standing, argieland does. Who “leads” Uruguay? Good question. Isn't it supposed to be Jose Mujica? The question is: what is he? Is he a canny politician? A farmer out of his depth? Or a frightened old man? Has Uruguay forgotten who its friends are? Or could be? At the behest of argieland, he bans Falklands-flagged vessels from his ports. Although the Falklands has brought trade to Uruguay. His citizens visit the Falklands and, apparently, want bilateral trade as the Falklands has various high-quality goods. He refuses to accept a goodwill visit from a Royal Navy warship, even though the visit had already been arranged and confirmed. At the behest of argieland. He lets argieland leach money from his country.

    Let's consider little Britain. How many times has it caved in to much bigger France, Spain or Germany? When appropriate, it's even faced up and stood up to China and Russia. So tell us about Uruguay? What does it need? Markets for its goods? A friend? A bit of bottle?

    Does Britain “need” Uruguay? Well, no. Did we make a major fuss about Uruguay's discourtesy to our warship? One of Her Majesty's ships. We did not. Did it run out of food or fuel? It did not. It carried on. To a fledgling nation that needs its protection. Has any Uruguayan read the UN Charter recently? Do you think your current actions are consistent with the Charter?

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Welsh Wizard

    @ 15 lsolde

    Or just a grateful eunuch....

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Simon68

    Until the peronists die off, no system will work in Argentina.

    Peronism has no ideology, it exists only as a means of accumulating power through the misery of a large majority of the population which depends on government hand-outs for it's survival.

    While this system perpetuates itself Argentina will not be a democracy!!!

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Max

    There are no any education systems to prepare any individuals by deserving this place on to become parliamentarian.

    All of them are oligarchy puppets..no anything else !
    They don't deserve privilege.

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    20 ChrisR
    22 Conqueror
    This could turn into a very interesting conversation,

    Just like the other blogg over argentina with that guy [ hermes]
    Just a thought.
    .

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    22 Conqueror

    You are absolutely correct about everything you say, albeit without, in my opinion, truly grasping the situation Uruguay finds itself in.

    Yes, Britain fought many wars against greater foes. But can you really claim that the Germany army was more than 10 times bigger than ours? And what about our allies? In WW2 we had, belatedly, the might of the armed forces of the USA.

    What allies does Uruguay presently have? None. Well none it can trust to actually help it when push comes to shove. Yes, I most certainly think that Pepe should get rid of his 'lowly' past which he continually pushes as being 'homely' and start to really push back at Argentina particulary about trade agreements which are just not working for Uruguay like they are not working for Brasil, Chile, you name it.

    Yes, I sometimes get very frustrated with Pepe myself, but rather him than someone like The Mad Bitch of Argentina.

    He may also pull off a masterstroke. It is very likely that the Chinese will go for financing and building a deep sea port on the Atlantic coast in the region of Rocha. I know the possible pitfalls with getting into bed with the Chin, but they do own some big ports around the world, seemingly, without problems.

    This port will remove all the stupidity of Argieland and the (NOT) dredging of the Plate, allow grains, soya and many more important exports easy access to the port along a slightly enhanced road network without problems. There are already improvements being made to the commercial rail sytem. Brasil will also make extensive use of this port for its southern exporting area.

    And while Uruguay PRESENTLY has a government who seem not to like the British, the same CANNOT be said about the people of Uruguay and governments do not last forever.

    Jun 28th, 2012 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Idlehands

    Did none of you smell anything fishy about Conquerors post?

    While it was an excellent summary of the progression of the governance of England it is actually copied and pasted from the Wikipedia page on the English Parliament.

    Jun 29th, 2012 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • British_Kirchnerist

    #23 Now you're getting nasty Welsh. Are you sure you ever supported Nestor?!

    Jun 29th, 2012 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @27 “But can you really claim that the Germany army was more than 10 times bigger than ours?” I don't know. Who is “ours”? And where did I suggest any such thing? If you think hard about it, I think you'll find that what Britain wanted was the United States' INDUSTRIAL might. You might want to note that Britain had already started to “win” before U.S. forces decided to join in. Never mind the Battle of Britain. Check out the North African campaign. Two years before the Americans decided to get off their backsides. And then Britain had to teach them how to do it. As Churchill said “Give US the tools and WE will finish the job.”

    Allies for Uruguay? None, you say. Do you think it might not be a good idea to spit in the face of someone who could be? Let's face it. Did Uruguay not grovel to argieland? And did Uruguay not then rush to grovel to Britain to explain why it “had” to do it?

    I'm glad that you suggest that the people of Uruguay “like” Britain. So let them get up on their hind legs and say so. If “Pepe” is so much a “man of the people”, let them tell him what to do. Or are you saying that 3 million people can't tell him what to do?

    @28 No, it's not. It's a selection and a condensation. Evidencing the fact that I know what I'm talking about. Since I know what I did, I'll challenge anyone to show that it's a “copy and paste”.

    Jun 29th, 2012 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    30 Conqueror

    Uruguay is a Presidential Democracy and the President is elected by the people to literally 'run' the country as the Chief Executive of the Government and the Head of State.

    I am unsure if there is an impeachment process available to the rest of the elected 'lawmakers' if they decide he has turned rogue and want him gone. If not, as a member of Mercosur, the agreement of 1999 would be used.

    I think, if you really believe that we (I am British) were winning the war, you may be mistaken. Look at the Battle of the Bulge where the alliance was fought to a standstill and it almost turned into a rout.

    And what about the use of the bomb to shorten the war in the Pacific of which Britain was a part?

    I used to see things only in black and white and then I grew up.

    Jun 29th, 2012 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • British_Kirchnerist

    #31 “I used to see things only in black and white and then I grew up”

    A good attitude to be sure =) You still have a “blind” spot on Cristina though!

    Jun 30th, 2012 - 06:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @32B_K,
    You are the only one here who is blind when it comes to Cristina.

    Jun 30th, 2012 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Dr. Jeorbbels

    Argentina is trapped in a time loop 1933-1945-1933...uses democracy to elect a despot. The current incumbent of president acts as a petulant child with a real attitude problem. Time to move on and enter the world of real politic.

    Jun 30th, 2012 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • British_Kirchnerist

    #33 I'm not her only supporter on here. Do you think (Think even!) that the others consider her ugly??

    Jul 02nd, 2012 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @35B_K,
    I don't think she is ugly as such.
    No one retains their youth forever.
    But she is my mortal enemy so l'm not going to extol her looks or virtues.

    Jul 03rd, 2012 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • British_Kirchnerist

    “No one retains their youth forever”

    She still looks young to me =)

    “But she is my mortal enemy”

    Only in your head. When real peace comes to the South Atlantic I think the two of you might even get on, strong woman to strong woman =)

    “or virtues”

    So you admit she has them.....

    Jul 03rd, 2012 - 11:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!