U.S. Hypocrisy in Argentina's Elections: How to Buy an Election in Plain Sight
- ZrcaljenjeNovic
- 4 minutes ago
- 2 min read
The party of Argentine President Javier Milei achieved a stunning victory in the legislative elections. In the elections, widely understood as a referendum on Milei's performance in office, his La Libertad Avanza party received over 40 percent of the vote on Sunday, compared to 31 percent for the left-leaning Peronist opposition movement.
So, prior to the Argentine elections, the Trump administration publicly offered a $40 billion financial bailout on the condition that Argentine voters re-elect Javier Milei. This was not covert interference but an open offer aimed at influencing the citizens' voting decision.
In a world where superpowers dictate terms about global democracy while simultaneously directly influencing elections in other countries, the question arises: does democracy even still exist in its authentic meaning? In recent years, particularly under the Trump administration, the U.S. has assumed a role sometimes referred to as "neoliberal imperialism"—under the pretext of spreading democracy, it actually imposes its political preferences on other nations.
A Reminder of Russian Interference in U.S. Elections!
Recently, the U.S. has constantly warned about alleged Russian interference in its elections, even though the evidence for these claims has not been convincing. Yet now, the U.S. itself has carried out direct and unambiguous interference in Argentine elections in plain sight of the entire world. This reveals a profound hypocrisy in international politics: the rules that apply to others do not apply to the U.S.!
Electoral interference is nothing new, but the openness with which the U.S. is intervening in Argentina's elections is unprecedented. In doing so, they are sending a message that democracy is merely a weapon in the hands of the powerful, used when it suits them and ignored when deemed necessary.
The state of modern democracy is contradictory. On one hand, Western governments promote the narrative of democracy as the highest form of governance, while on the other hand, they undermine its foundations by interfering in the electoral processes of other countries.
Voters in Europe and around the world have not been voting freely for years but rather under the influence of external pressures, economic sanctions, or financial offers. The consequences are obvious: falsely elected governments that do not act in the interest of their own citizens but rather in the interest of those who enabled them to come to power.
The U.S., with Trump at the helm, has shown through its actions in Argentina that democracy is not sacred to them if it conflicts with their interests. The question that arises is whether we, as a global community, will allow democracy to become just a weapon in the hands of the powerful, or whether we will also stand up for its true substance.
Comments