Governance in Argentina of Javier Milei faces a structural dilemma; The radicality of its economic and political program requires a level of consensus and institutional stability that, paradoxically, its own style of government is responsible for undermining. In this context, repression emerges as a privileged resource to maintain control against growing social resistance.
To understand this dynamic, Michel Callon’s approach (1998) on sociotechnical networks is useful. Far from conceiving power as something concentrated in a unique actor, Callon proposes to understand it as the result of frames articulating people, institutions, technologies and speeches. The stability of a government depends, then, its ability to build and sustain a robust sociotechnical network. When this network is fragmented or overflows, governance enters crisis.
The Sociotechnic Netcolism of Mileism
Milei’s government is held in a network that combines:
This framework has allowed the Government to operate without a broad political coalition (only the PRO) or a solid parliamentary base (only the PRO). For that reason, its fragility is evident, it depends on the loyalty of few actors, the patience of markets and the effectiveness of repression against protest.
Governance in tension
Democratic governance implies the ability of a government to implement policies respecting institutional rules and preserving legitimacy. In the case of Milei, that governance is tension by three factors:
- Institutional weakness: Without a majority in Congress and with conflicting relations with governors, the Executive lacks political support to sustain structural reforms.
- Social costs of adjustment: The increase in poverty and inequality feeds street protests and strikes that defy the continuity of the program.
- Confrontative style: Permanent disqualification towards opponents and journalists reinforces polarization and limits the construction of consensus.
Faced with these obstacles, the government resorted to repression As a tool to maintain order, transferring the problem of governance from the institutional level to the coercive plane.
Repression as a state policy
Patricia Bullrich He has built his political identity around the defense of order against social protest. Under the government of Milei, its role is enhanced, Security forces are deployed to discourage pickets, marches and strikesunder protocols that limit freedom of expression and association.
Repression fulfills a double function, disciplinary to the mobilized sectors and send a sign of firmness to international markets. However, this strategy has high costs: democratic legitimacy weakens, generates complaints of human rights violations and feeds a climate of conflict that Erosion even more governance.
The sociotechnical labyrinth
The concept of “sociotechnical labyrinth” can be applied to describe the current situation. Callon (1998) warns that power networks are not static or completely controllable. When multiple actors with divergent interests interact in an unstable framework, decisions can generate unforeseen effects and negative feedback.
In Argentina, the government tries to articulate a network in which financial, coercive and communicational interests converge. However, that network produces unwanted effects:
- Economic measures benefited the markets, but fed social protest.
- Repression reinforced the image of authority, but eroded international legitimacy.
- Hate discourse mobilized accessions in networks, but today hinders institutional governance.
Thus, the government is trapped in a maze where each apparent exit leads to new blockages. The adjustment needs repression, repression needs legitimacy and legitimacy is eroding with the adjustment.
The fragility of control
The apparent strength of the government, based on a radical discourse and the initial support of the markets, hid a structural fragility that emerges now. Governance cannot be sustained indefinitely in coercion or digital communication. Comparative experience shows that governments that base their legitimacy on repression tend to face growing levels of resistance, international isolation and, ultimately, continuity crisis.
In this sense, the Sociotechnical Network of Mileism ran the risk of becoming uncontrollable. Financial actors can withdraw if they perceive instability; Security forces can face legal and social limits to their actions, and citizens, mobilized in the streets and networks, can alter the balance of power.
Conclusion
Javier Milei’s government exemplifies how governance can become a sociotechnical labyrinth. Lacking a broad political base and depending on repression and external financial support, its stability becomes precarious.
The systematic resource to Repression reveals the impossibility of building consensus and evidence the crisis of democratic legitimacy. Rather than guaranteeing governance, this strategy deepens institutional fragility and places the country in a permanent risk scenario.
Callon’s perspective allows us to understand that Power does not reside exclusively in Milei or its intimate circle, but in an unstable network of actors that can desert at any time. The conclusion is clear; Without reconstruction of political legitimacy and without openness to pluralism, the libertarian experiment is condemned to remain caught in its own labyrinth.
Doctor of Political Science, Master in International Economic Policy, Director of Do.com.ar, Canal Youtube: @Drpabbab
Source: Ambito
David William is a talented author who has made a name for himself in the world of writing. He is a professional author who writes on a wide range of topics, from general interest to opinion news. David is currently working as a writer at 24 hours worlds where he brings his unique perspective and in-depth research to his articles, making them both informative and engaging.
