Argentina: A Beacon To The Middle East & The World

Analysis of the Argentine election has been abundant. Local pundits have done their job. So have international media, with everyone from Time Magazine to China’s Xinhua News Agency pitching in with comments ranging from fluff to more profound insights.

By far the most interesting commentary, in my view, came from Al Jazeera’s Arabic language anchor, Mohammed Alami, who covered the election for millions of viewers in the Middle East. Alami is an impressively experienced journalist. He is also a very intelligent man whose roaring laugh is both contagious and disarming.

For Alami, who is based out of Washington, D.C. , the election itself was in some ways a boring one. The main problem: predictability. The outcome was never really in doubt. This kind of certainty is the antithesis of interesting, especially for journalists who prefer covering stories whose endings are unpredictable.

This wasn’t a last minute, come-from-behind victory for Cristina Kirchner. The game was over before it even started. Pollsters unanimously agreed Cristina would win. And she did, trouncing her competitors after four years of rapid economic growth gave her and her husband, President Nestor Kirchner, all the support they needed to remain in the Casa Rosada.

But while most observers talked about Argentina’s political history, its quirks, its previous experience with female leaders, and the Kirchners’ alleged desire to rotate indefinitely through the presidency, Alami was figuring out how to make the election relevant for Middle Eastern viewers – people who have little experience with democracy and even less experience electing female leaders. What follows is a paraphrasing of comments Alami made about his presentation of the election to Al Jazeera’s Arabic-language viewers.

“This was really a remarkable election,” said Alami. “In less than 30 years you’ve gone from a dictatorship to open elections – open elections in which a female is elected president. This can be a real example for people in the Middle East. It should be inspiring. You had 30,000 people disappear here. Thirty thousand! You had a dictatorship. And now you have open elections. Here you can criticize the government and still sleep at night. They’re not going to come after you for being critical. This is part of what I tried to share with our viewers in the Middle East.”

Considered this way, and viewed in the context of Middle Eastern history, Argentina’s election was nothing short of incredible. It was a remarkable display of political progress from a nation that has evolved impressively in a very short period if time. In the history of nations, thirty years is a relatively brief span.

It is easy to criticize Argentina for its past sins and present problems. Much of this criticism should be welcome. An informed and critical citizenry is a sine qua non of effective government. This is necessary to constrain overly ambitious politicians and their overarching policies. It is necessary for progress. But for criticism to be effective, it must be constructive. It must not be cynical. There is a difference between being critical and being cynical. One can be critical while also being hopeful and faithful. Cynicism, however, is the mark of a critic who has lost his hope and faith.

Despite Argentina’s problems, there is little reason to be cynical about the country or its future. This is especially true considering how much Argentina has accomplished in recent years. Of course, there is room for improvement. Corruption abounds, as does poverty, inflation, injustice and crime. Congress is docile and populated by too many people who neither represent their constituents nor intend to do so. But for the most part, Argentina is a country of remarkable achievement, enviable natural resources and relatively strong political institutions. Argentines themselves are hardworking, smart, persistent and creative.

Argentina has produced five Nobel Prize winners. Compare that with China, which accounts for 20% of the world’s population but just six of its Nobel winners – five of whom are “Chinese Americans” who were either born in the US or emigrated to it. Since 1963, Argentines have also registered more patents (per capita) with the US Patent and Trademark Office than residents of any other Latin American country. Meanwhile, educational achievement in Argentina is unmatched in many other parts of the world. The average Argentine spends 16.4 years in school. That’s more than Italians (15.7), Israelis (15.6) or Mexicans (12.5). And Argentina’s adult literacy rate is among the world’s highest at 97.2%. Even Argentina’s homeless people can be found reading the newspaper.

All of this means that while Argentina has issues, as Argentines readily – even eagerly – admit, the country has an impressive degree of social capital and competitive advantages that go beyond a 3-to-1 exchange rate. Argentina’s missteps are well-known. But its ability to evolve despite them is noteworthy and merits acclaim. Sometimes the progress has been slow. Consider the case of Christian von Wernich, the 69 year-old Catholic priest who was found guilty earlier this month of direct or indirect involvement in the murder, torture or kidnapping of 49 people decades ago during Argentina’s dirty war. Nonetheless, justice was finally delivered. Argentina’s effort to overcome its past should be an inspiration not only to the Middle East but also to other developing nations.

If Argentina’s accomplishments are controversial, Al Jazeera’s are all the more so. Many people associate the network with terrorism and Osama Bin Laden. During an interview last week in Buenos Aires, I introduced an Al Jazeera colleague to a local analyst for an interview. The analyst said jokingly, “Ah, you’re the network of Bin Laden.”

As it was explained to me, Al Jazeera, in Arabic, means “another voice.” The network has been kicked out of Iran and Iraq for seeking to operate as an independent media outlet. It has sought to speak truth to power in a part of the world that has had little tolerance for this. In that sense, the network is revolutionary. It has unprecedented potential to influence thinking in the Middle East. This makes it all the more interesting to ponder the value of Al Jazeera’s election coverage. It also provides added reason to reflect on Cristina’s victory and what it means to Argentina.

Since 1983, when Raúl Alfonsin helped restore democracy to Argentina, the country has been engaged in a quiet, non-violent revolution. It has been a revolutionary effort to overcome dogmas, distrust, stereotypes and habits that have hindered progress and stifled growth. Like her or not, Cristina’s victory Sunday was the culmination of a fair election devoid of the kind of physical violence and emotional intimidation that still plagues much of the world. It was an election that allowed people of all socio-economic, religious and racial backgrounds to influence their future and pass judgment on the current government. To this extent, the election was not just a personal victory for Cristina. It was a political victory, even if a subtle one, for people around the world who are pushing their countries to evolve from the kind of political system Argentina had 30 years ago to the one it has today.