Laurik International

The farmers' strike closer to an end

It has been two weeks after the deadline for conversations with the government and consequently a new period of strike. But only in the last few days the idea of being able to finalise the strike and negotiate again seemed plausible... One may wonder why the government never showed signs of dealing with the situation. The main reason is attributed to the Kirchners' personality and their perception in terms of yielding or modifying a policy that they launched and supported.

It must be stated that, although Mrs. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is a qualified politician, she had a significant role during her husband's administration and now that the tables have turned in terms of who is President, it cannot be expected that Mr. Néstor Carlos Kirchner will mind his own business without actively participating in the political scene.

Mr. Kirchner's guiding principle during his government was "divide and rule" and this seems to apply to our current President's policy-making as well, especially in a context where the civil servants are the same as during the previous administration.

The farmers' strike began on March 12^th after the former Minister of Finance, Martín Lousteau, announced an increase in export taxes on grain. This implies that currently, a 44% levy applies to soybean exports, for instance, which significantly decreases the farmers' profit in a context of increasing commodity demand at a global scale. Furthermore, this measure implied the export taxes were mobile, i.e. not fixed, allowing these percentages to be modified based on the necessity of keeping low prices for consumers to avoid increases in internal prices due to the high level of demand in the international market.

The main obstacle the government had was Mrs. Kirchner's idea of not going back or modifying any policies because that would translate into a perception of governmental weakness. Therefore, after some of the farmers' unions and associations complained about the measures and asked for reconsideration, the President gave public speeches during which she firmly stated not going back with the measure.

An unexpected side-effect was that the farmers' associations gathered for the first time and united against this policy. This implied that the strike was significant, especially considering that Argentina is an agricultural country and that many regional economies would not survive without farming.

The President asked the farmers to finalise the strike in order to negotiate. After this took place, negotiations were held between the presidents of the main four rural unions of Argentina and the Chief Cabinet Minister with a deadline after which, should the situation not be solved, the strike would continue. Although there seemed to be a solution, no agreement was reached and the strike was back on. The main difference between this and the previous period is that now the farmers would allow trucks to freely circulate and they promised not to cause a food shortage so as to maintain the support from cities, such as Buenos Aires.

Considering the above-mentioned, one cannot help but wonder why, after all this time with no measures taken or encouraged from the government, the President and her staff seem to want to solve this situation as soon as possible. Why did they not take the necessary actions before, if the President's approval and image decreased considerably with the farmers' strike? One can assume it is because the President was trying to "divide and rule", that is to wait for public opinion - especially from the main urban areas - to stop supporting farmers by blaming the former for increases in prices as a result of the lock-out. This way, she could avoid taking certain policies and then dealing with its consequences and she could easily blame the farmers for food shortage and more side-effects without any political risks of taking any action.

The problem is that the farmers are asking all Argentines to join them in Rosario (the second largest city in Argentina) on Sunday, May 25^th (anniversary of the Argentine decision of independence from Spain on May 25^th 1810) to unite and fight for a truly federal system. In the perception of the President and her closest advisors, this is a spontaneous gathering which illustrates disapproval of the President and the way she handled the situation. We can only hope this administration will accept the rules of democracy and modify its Manichaean perceptions and its attitude of "you are either with or against us" as government. This can only lead to achieve a more real representation of all Argentines and industrial sectors.