The VP's role
President Fernández gave a speech in which she did not mention anyone by name, but used words like "betrayed" and "defection." No sign yet of how she intends to respond politically.
I was struck by Julio Cobos' words, as he said, "No one pressures me. I function on the basis of my own convictions. They have to understand that within the government there are dissident voices."
Acting upon your convictions is lauded in politics (if not by those who do not share those convictions!). You "speak your mind" and "let the cards fall where they may." Certainly, Cobos is getting a tremendous amount of attention.
But for a vice president? Should a VP actively work against his/her own president? Cobos says he will not resign, which makes little sense to me. He cast his own equivalent of a no confidence vote, so I can't think of any reason why he would wish to remain in Fernández's government. The message of staying is that as VP it is his job to derail the president whenever he has the legislative chance. That is not the job description any president would accept.
7 comments:
I disagree with you on this. As with the US, the vice president in Argentina is a separate elected position that has autonomy. They don't serve "at the pleasure of the president" as cabinet ministers do. It's a quirk of many presidential systems that there are two national elected executive offices. Usually there is no conflict, but in this case there is.
Cobos was elected as vice-president. Unless he chooses to resign or is impeached by the Congress, it's his job to fill the duties of his office.
It's not about serving at the president's pleasure--it's about being chosen by the president to pursue a given agenda.
This could well be the topic of another post, but a quick read of the constitution does not reveal the "duties of his office" beyond the typical ones of breaking ties and being a warm body. He has the constitutional right to make the president look bad, but is that his duty? If so, there is little precedent for it.
it's about being chosen by the president to pursue a given agenda.
The person is chosen to run with the president, but is elected by and accountable to the people of Argentina. There is not a duty to make the president look bad, but there is also no duty to agree with the president once elected by the people.
Sort of, except that he was elected only because he was chosen by the president, and in fact rode the Kirchner coattails and shared the vote. There is no legal obligation, but my question stands: why would he want to remain in her government?
Even more compelling, I think, is how this looks for Fernandez. I mean, relatively early in your presidential term and your vice-president is already defecting? You would think that being a professional politician she would have had the judgement to choose a running mate who was a bit more in line with her policies and a bit more loyal than what Cobos has shown. This situation is more a reflection on her leadership and judgement than anything else.
Yes, I agree. Further, regardless of what anyone thinks about what Cobos should do, the longer he hangs on, the weaker she looks.
But didn't Kirchner bring in Cobo, who is from a different political party, in order to win the election. While it is a smart move in the short term it seemss risky in the long term.
also I found this article from CNN interesting in how they cover this issue.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/07/18/argentina.farm/index.html
Post a Comment