Funding Disruptions Are a Systemic Failure – Philanthropy Must Do What’s Right and Support Local Leadership

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Featured, Financial Crisis, Gender, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Inequality, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

SORIA, Spain, Mar 17 2025 (IPS) – The slashing of US aid funding by Donald Trump and Elon Musk, and cuts or planned cuts in international support by several European states, threaten to cut off the oxygen supply to a civil society already in a critical condition. At CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance, activists and grassroots groups have shared with us time and again that shifting and volatile donor priorities are one of the top funding challenges they face, alongside limited resources for strategy and restricted funding.

Tais Siqueira

Local civil society in the global south is most affected by these challenges. Funding disruptions are no temporary matter. They reflect systemic failures and deep power and funding inequalities between the global north and global south. They undermine trust, shift power away from the communities most affected by global challenges and force local organisations into a reactive survival mode rather than enabling them to drive strategic action.

This is a critical moment for philanthropy to step up and put locally led development principles into practice. This means channelling more resources directly to local civil society, advocating for the meaningful participation of a diverse local civil society in policy spaces at all levels, ensuring their financial, legal and security resilience, and reimagining the role of philanthropy as being not just a funder, but an investor, catalyser and collaborator. As a starting point, philanthropic funders should do the following.

1. Commit to immediate, flexible, and sustained financial support

Local civil society is on the frontlines of addressing some of the world’s most pressing issues. Yet it’s often the first to feel the impact of funding disruptions. Philanthropy must act quickly to provide immediate, flexible and emergency grants to help local organisations survive funding gaps, including by increasing flexibility in existing grants to allow for operational reallocation to cover urgent needs, such as security-related expenses, salaries and insurance.

Unrestricted funding is also critical. Local groups need autonomy to allocate resources where they’re most needed, including for financial, legal and digital protection. Philanthropic funders should prioritise high-quality support – funding that is flexible, predictable and for core work – to support local civil society’s agency and autonomy and avoid orientation around donor priorities. Philanthropy must recognise that trust in local leadership is both the right and strategic thing to do.

2. Strengthen local civil society’s governance through collaboration and promote trust and support

Local leadership isn’t just about financial support; it’s about co-creating the systems and structures that enable local groups to thrive. Philanthropy can play a pivotal role in supporting local groups to strengthen their governance, risk management and compliance systems by fostering collaboration and innovation rather than imposing external standards. Support should be tailored, context specific and co-designed.

One key step is providing direct support to local groups to develop systems that prioritise accountability while trusting them to manage resources. This requires funders to move away from overly prescriptive conditions and toward models of support that acknowledge the leadership and agency of local civil society.

Philanthropy must also recognise that compelling narratives and ambitious policies are needed to stimulate trust and support local civil society. Progressive philanthropic funders can encourage others to follow suit.

3. Invest in infrastructure enabling diverse local civil society groups to collectively organise, share resources and strengthen resilience

In an increasingly interconnected world, the ability of local civil society groups to connect, collaborate and share resources is more important than ever. Investments in infrastructure can enable civil society to bravely defend and promote civic freedoms. Investment will facilitate collective influencing and knowledge-sharing networks, ensuring organisations are better prepared for further funding instability.

Philanthropic funders can earmark funds for emergency response, including for legal defence, audits and unforeseen security threats. Security in the digital sphere is also a critical need, and support can be provided for digital communications infrastructure, encrypted platforms and security audits.

Support for protection of civic space and promotion of civil society participation in decision-making will help enable strategic resistance against rollbacks of hard-won rights and gender, racial and social justice gains.

It’s also crucial to recognise that progressive local civil society groups and leaders are key enablers of locally led development and strengthen civil society’s support infrastructure. Investments in these infrastructures ensure that local groups have the necessary space, resources, agency and autonomy to shape and implement solutions that best fit their contexts.

CIVICUS’s Local Leadership Labs initiative addresses the political, technical and behavioural barriers that hinder governments, donors and other stakeholders from fully embracing and resourcing diverse civil society groups as legitimate participants in development. These labs support radically inclusive spaces, where local civil society groups can drive the development of policies and solutions, together with decision-makers and other key players. This cultivates spaces for collaboration, allowing diverse civil society groups and multi-stakeholder initiatives to share knowledge, reflect and strategise together.

A call to reaffirm commitment to locally led development

Philanthropic funders have unique convening authority, networks and partnerships that can be leveraged to advocate for locally led development. This isn’t just about funding; it’s about using influence to shift narratives and create an enabling environment where local civil society can thrive. Philanthropist must publicly reaffirm their commitment to the Donor Statement on Supporting Locally-Led Development and take real steps to put these principles into action.

The challenges are immense, but so too are the opportunities. By fostering an environment where local civil society has the resources, autonomy and trust to lead, philanthropy can move beyond financial transactions and become a transformative partner.

Tais Siqueira is Coordinator of CIVICUS’s Local Leadership Lab

  Source

Civil Society at the Finance in Common Summit Calls for Community-led, Equitable, and Human Rights-based Development

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Development & Aid, Energy, Environment, Financial Crisis, Food and Agriculture, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Inequality, Sustainability, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Civil society organisations and community leaders at the Finance in Common Summit 2023. Credit: Sebastian Barros/Forus

CAPE TOWN, South Africa, Feb 24 2025 (IPS) – As public development banks gather for the Finance in Common Summit (FiCS) in Cape Town, South Africa, civil society and community activists from across the world are demanding a shift to a community-led, equitable, and human rights-based development approach, that prioritise people and planet over profit, and a reform of the global financial architecture.

“With more than 10 % global investment flowing through them each year, public development banks hold immense responsibility—not only to fund infrastructure and development but to do so in a way that is just, inclusive, and sustainable. Development that does not listen to the voices of the people it affects is not true development; it deepens inequalities, harms ecosystems, and leaves communities behind. True development is not done for communities, but with them”, says Mavalow Christelle Kalhoule, Chair at Forus.

Since its first edition in 2020, civil society has been playing a critical role at FiCS in ensuring public development banks are accountable to the people they serve, and in amplifying the voices – too often ignored – of communities in the Global South who are most directly affected by development projects.

“Over the next few days, the world’s public development banks will be patting themselves on the back for all the good they’re doing around the world. But all that glitters is not gold. Way too often these institutions are replicating a neocolonial and neoliberal approach, dividing the world between those to be sacrificed and those to benefit from the sacrifices”, says Ony Soa Ratsifandrihamanana, Africa Regional Coordinator at the Coalition for Human Rights in Development.

Civil society organisations and community leaders at the Finance in Common Summit 2023. Credit: Sebastian Barros/Forus

Amidst rising inequality, debt crises, and the climate emergency, public development banks must move beyond rhetoric and commit to concrete, transformative actions. This is why over 300 civil society groups have joined forces to bring their demands at FiCS, calling on development banks to champion a new era of development finance, placing human rights, community leadership, and environmental sustainability at the core of all financing decisions.

“The world is passing through the most critical and testing times of its history and once again the solutions are being imposed without the consent, participation and engagement of citizens at large and representative civil society in particular. This is the time to think, reflect and act out of the box, and this opportunity of coming together at FiCS should not be considered business as usual,” says Zia ur Rehman, Secretary General and Director at the Asia Development Alliance.

In a context of shrinking civic space and increasing attacks against the human rights movement, development banks should also play a more decisive role to make sure people can actively and safely participate in decision-making processes and consultations.

“While development banks acknowledge the importance of civil society engagement, their frameworks often fall short in implementation, resulting in limited access to information, tokenistic public participation, and a lack of accountability for reprisals against activists,” says Manana Kochladze, Strategic Area Leader – Democratization and Human Rights at CEE Bankwatch Network. “There is a pressing need for development banks to collaboratively develop a unified and proactive approach to safeguarding and expanding civic space”.

More than 60 civil society organizations and community activists will also join the Summit in-person, to share their first-hand testimonies on the actual impact of development projects. From renewables in Kenya to green hydrogen projects in Chile, too often projects presented as sustainable are displacing local communities, polluting the environment, and failing to ensure that the benefits trickle down to those most in need.

Civil society organisations and community leaders at the Finance in Common Summit 2023. Credit: Sebastian Barros/Forus

“When decisions are made without the input of local voices, finance becomes an instrument of exclusion, perpetuating inequality and undermining true progress. We demand a comprehensive overhaul of global financial structures that prioritizes community rights. A shift to people-led finance will enable genuine economic transformation, lifting up every individual and fostering resilient, inclusive growth that benefits society as a whole,” says Ndeye Fatou Sy, Programs Manager at Lumière Synergie pour le Développement (Senegal).

The Lesotho Highlands Water Project, for instance, provides water to South Africa in exchange for royalties and generation of hydropower for Lesotho, but has led to devastating socio-economic and environmental impacts. Hundreds of families have been involuntarily resettled and more than 30,000 people lost their cropland and grazing land, with a particular impact on women.

“As we gather at the Finance in Common Summit, we remind public development banks that front-line communities should not bear the cost of development. Public development banks must create and use independent accountability mechanisms to hear directly from local communities and ensure that their land, livelihoods, and environment are protected,” says Robi Chacha Mosenda, Senior Associate at Accountability Counsel.

Civil society and community representatives participating at the Summit will also present viable and alternative solutions, such as small-scale and renewable energy solutions that are led by Indigenous communities themselves.

“Any form of financing by multilateral development banks should start with support to community-led planning initiatives that ascertain that decisions on energy alternatives centre the rights of affected persons and communities”, says Mwebe John, Africa Finance Campaigner at Recourse. “Multilateral development banks are investing more money than ever into renewable energy, but the scale and kind of projects matters if these investments are going to truly power people and protect the planet. Community-led projects are popping up everywhere – from rooftop solar in India, to micro hydropower in Indonesia, and rural mini grids in Rwanda and Tanzania. These are the types of projects to be supported,” adds Federico Sibaja, IMF Campaign Manager at Recourse.

These stories show that it is key for development banks to use FiCS as an opportunity to step out from their echo chamber, listen to those who are bearing the brunt of their investments, and strengthen the dialogue with civil society.

Lorena Cotza is Communications Lead, Coalition for Human Rights in Development

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Civil Society Fights Against Budget Cuts Amid Calls for “Aid” Reform

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Conferences, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Financial Crisis, Global, Headlines, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Sarah Strack is Forus Director

“Woman crosses a local business in the streets of Kathmandu, Nepal” (Both Nomads)

NEW YORK, Oct 16 2024 (IPS) – Multiple conflicts, the climate emergency and other crises are destabilising many parts of the world and intensifying the strain on the resources needed to finance the global sustainable development agenda. Amid these challenges, data from 2023, shows that Official Development Assistance (ODA) reached a record-breaking US$223.7 billion, up from US$211 billion the previous year, according to Eurodad.

However, if one looks beyond the mere figures, worrying trends are emerging. Major donors like Germany and France are reducing their development budget and several countries are already announcing cuts for 2025.

This trend has prompted debate over the direction and quality of global aid, especially at a time when ODA is more crucial than ever in addressing global crises.

In France, with the campaign #StopàlabaisseAPD (#StoptheODACuts), NGOs are mobilising against further reductions in the 2025 budget, warning that such cuts could undermine international solidarity efforts and hit hardest those who are already left behind.

Coordination SUD, a coalition of 180 French NGOs, is raising the alarm over the potential impact of these cuts, which follow a 13% reduction in 2024, and which is seeing ODA funds slashed again by over 20% in 2025, as per the finance bill presented this Thursday

The first victims of this measure will be the most vulnerable populations. “ODA enables local and international NGOs to work daily with and alongside the most fragile communities,” reminds Olivier Bruyeron, President of Coordination SUD.

“Official development assistance has been used as a political football over recent years,” says Bond, the national platform of NGOs in the UK.

As a national civil society platform, they work to ensure UK aid reaches the communities “that need it most”.

“ODA is being used as a geopolitical tool with national interests in focus, when it should be a mechanism for redistributive justice,” said Alex Farley of Bond in a recent global event during the Summit of the Future hosted by the global civil society network Forus.

This debate is part of a larger global conversation on the future of ODA.

While the traditional 0.7% Gross National Income (GNI) target remains a key benchmark for donor countries, experts argue that ODA must evolve to better address the real needs of recipient communities, particularly in the Global South. As Oyebisi Oluseyi of the Nigerian Network of NGOs (NNNGO) points out, “While this target remains important, it’s no longer enough.”

Critics are calling for a redefinition of ODA that shifts powers toward recipient countries and communities. Zia ur Rehman, Coordinator of the Asia Development Alliance – a regional platform of NGOs, emphasizes the need for local actors to have more say in how funds are used.

Providing a perspective from the Pacific Islands, Emeline Siale from the civil society regional coalition PIANGO, echoes the need for local actors to play a leading role in ODA decision-making, “not merely as participants but as leaders”.

“Community participation itself is a healing process, and it’s become a central topic in many civil society discussions,” Siale explains.

As key international summits on development financing approach, the future of ODA—and its ability to meet the needs of the most vulnerable—hangs in the balance.

“The upcoming Fourth United Nations International Conference on Financing for Development presents a key opportunity for the development community to align with development effectiveness principles, rather than allowing them to be further diluted. Now, more than ever, civil society must play its role, shifting power and pushing for a new global governance of international aid that is more representative, democratic, inclusive, and transparent,” says civil society leader in Burkina Faso Mavalow Christelle Kalhoule and President of Forus, a global civil society network representing over 24,000 NGOs across the globe.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Kenya’s Protests: More than a Question of Tax

Posted on by admin

Africa, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Economy & Trade, Energy, Featured, Financial Crisis, Headlines, Labour, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Kabir Dhanji/AFPvia Getty Images

LONDON, Jul 23 2024 (IPS) – Kenya’s President William Ruto has withdrawn the tax-increasing Finance Bill that sparked mass protests. He has sacked his cabinet and the head of the police has resigned. But the anger many feel hasn’t gone away, and protests continue.

The protests have brought Kenya’s Gen Z onto the political stage, with young people – over 65 per cent of the population – at the forefront. Since the protests began, they’ve made full use of social media to share views, explain the impact of proposed changes, organise protests and raise funds to help those injured or arrested.

These protests have been different to those in the past, much more organic than previous opposition-organised demonstrations. The movement has brought people together across the ethnic lines politicians have so often exploited in the past.

People have protested even in the knowledge that security force violence is guaranteed. At least 50 people have died so far. As protests have continued, people have increasingly demanded accountability for the killings and the many other acts of state violence.

Out-of-touch elite

The Finance Bill would have imposed a levy on a range of everyday essentials such as bread, and taxes on internet use, mobile phones and money transfer services. Women would have been further hit by an increase in tax on menstrual products. For many, this was simply too much to bear in a context of high youth unemployment and rising costs.

The tax increases were among conditions demanded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in return for a US$3.9 billion package, along with the IMF’s usual prescription of spending cuts and privatisation that generally hit the poorest people hardest.

Ruto has continued to blame his predecessor, Uhuru Kenyatta, for lavish spending on grand projects. But Ruto was Kenyatta’s vice president, and only broke with his long-time ally after he wasn’t chosen as his party’s next presidential candidate.

To protesters, Ruto is as out of touch as the presidents before him. Opponents accuse him of trying to boost his presence on the world stage, including by offering to have Kenya lead an international policing mission to violence-torn Haiti, rather than addressing domestic problems. They see him as too willing to meet the demands of US-dominated financial institutions such as the IMF rather than stand up for Kenyans.

Problems such as corruption and patronage have run through multiple governments. Politicians are accused of enjoying lavish lifestyles insulated from people’s everyday problems. Kenya’s members of parliament are proportionally the second-highest paid in the world, earning 76 times average per capita GDP. Even so, corruption allegations are rife.

Ruto’s administration attempted to create another layer of government jobs a court ruled the move unconstitutional. He created new staffed offices for the first lady, deputy first lady and prime ministerial spouse, a decision dropped due to the protests. The proposed budget was filled with such examples of the government planning to spend more on itself.

Broken promises and state violence

For many, the sense of betrayal is heightened because when Ruto won an unexpected and narrow election victory in 2022, it was on a platform of being the champion of struggling people, promising to tackle the high cost of living. But costs kept increasing, and Ruto quickly reneged on promises to stop electricity price rises. He axed subsidies on energy, fuel and maize flour. The government’s 2023 Finance Act included a raft of new taxes and levies.

These measures sparked opposition-organised protests, and the reaction was state violence that left six people dead. The pattern is consistent. Kenyan security forces seem to know no response to protest other than violence.

On 25 June, the worst day of violence in the 2024 protests, security forces fired live ammunition at protesters, killing several, including some reportedly targeted by police snipers perched atop buildings. They’ve also used rubber bullets, teargas and water cannon, including against media and medical personnel. Protest leaders and social media influencers have been targeted for abduction and arrest.

On 25 June, some protesters briefly attempted to storm parliament and started fires, but there have been accusations that politicians have paid people to infiltrate the protest movement and instigate acts of violence to try to justify security force brutality. Media providing live coverage of protests have reported receiving threats from the authorities telling them to shut down and internet access has been disrupted. Influencers have had their accounts suspended.

Although Ruto eventually pledged to take action where there is video evidence of police violence, he’s also been criticised for saying little about protest deaths and previously praised police actions. He accused ‘organised criminals’ of hijacking the protests and called the attempt to storm parliament ‘treasonous’.

Politicians have repeatedly smeared civil society organisations, claiming they’re being used by foreign powers to fund protests. Ruto, without any evidence, has accused the US-based Ford Foundation of helping finance unrest.

Demands for change

Over a month on, protests demanding Ruto’s resignation continue. It’s not just about the economy, and it’s not just about Ruto. It’s about the rejection of a whole political class and its way of governing. Trust in the institutions of government is very low.

Dialogue has been promised, but many feel it will be superficial. The government’s response to the protests should be to listen and consult deeply – and then change. People have shown they have power. They’ve shown that a system where they elect a political elite every few years to make decisions for them isn’t enough. They’ve shown they want something better.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

  Source

Rich Nations, IMF Deepen World Stagnation

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, COVID-19, Economy & Trade, Environment, Financial Crisis, Global, Headlines, Labour, Poverty & SDGs, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Dec 13 2023 (IPS) – With the US Fed raising interest rates, the world economy is slowing as debt distress spreads across the global South, increasing poverty worldwide to pre-pandemic levels, with the poorest countries faring worst.

Extreme poverty continues to be high and is now worse than before the pandemic in low-income countries (LICs) and among those affected by fragility, violence and conflict. The promise of eradicating poverty worldwide by 2030 has become unachievable.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

The Bretton Woods institutions’ (BWIs) annual meetings in Marrakech in October were only the second-ever in Africa. But the rich nations-dominated BWIs failed yet again to rise to the challenges of our times, setting Africa and the global South even further back.

Instead of fostering cooperation to address the causes and effects of the contemporary catastrophe, neither the International Monetary Fund nor the World Bank governors could agree on joint communiques due to the greater politicisation of multilateral fora.

Indebtedness immobilises governments
Indebtedness and restrictive creditor rules prevent governments from spending more counter-cyclically to overcome the many contractionary tendencies of recent times, besides preventing them from addressing looming social and environmental crises.

The G20’s largest twenty economies have urged strengthening “multilateral coordination by official bilateral and private creditors … to address the deteriorating debt situation and facilitate coordinated debt treatment for debt-distressed countries”.

But its Common Framework to restructure debt has been roundly criticised by civil society, think tanks and even the World Bank on many grounds, including the paltry concessional credit relief offered to a few of the very poorest countries.

In contrast, the G24 caucus of developing countries at the BWIs has emphasised the need for “durable debt resolution measures while collaborating on resolving the structural issues leading to such vulnerabilities.”

But all those advocating purported solutions are not even trying to ensure fiscal space and public spending capacity for counter-cyclical efforts, let alone achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and national development objectives.

Surcharges
The IMF currently imposes additional charges on countries that do not quickly clear their debts to the Fund. Besides the usual fees and interest, borrowing countries paid over $4 billion in such surcharges in 2020-22, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Surcharges will cost debt-distressed countries about $7.9 billion over six years. The G24 has emphasised that surcharges are pro-cyclical and regressive, especially with monetary tightening.

Governments have undertaken contractionary policies and cut imports for lack of foreign exchange. This deepens the problems of heavily indebted poor countries who cannot but count on the Fund for relief and solutions.

At Marrakech, the governing International Monetary and Financial Committee decided to “consider a review of surcharge policies”. The G24 called for “a suspension of surcharges while the review – which we hope will lead to substantial permanent reduction or complete elimination – is being conducted.”

Rich nations have been divided over surcharges. With Ukraine now among the top surcharge payers, following civil society criticisms, the Biden administration’s refusal to review surcharges in 2022 was heavily criticised by the US Congress.

Deepening austerity
IMF fiscal austerity measures of the 1980s returned with a vengeance after the 2008 global financial crisis, and then again during the Covid-19 pandemic from 2020. Most Fund loans require cutting the public sector wage bill (PSWB), the budget line to pay employees.

Most wage earners in many LICs, including nurses, teachers and other social service workers, work for the state, directly or indirectly. Although much needed, these employees have been more likely to be targeted by such budget cuts.

PSWB cuts may involve hiring or wage freezes, or limiting, or even cutting wages. These inevitably undermine government capacities and services. Fiscal consolidation has also involved raising more indirect, consumption taxes, and tax exemptions, e.g., for essential goods such as food.

In 38 countries with over a billion people, loan conditionalities during 2020-22, the three years of the Covid-19 pandemic, meant regressive tax reforms and public spending cuts. PSWB and fuel or electricity subsidy cuts are also common demands worsening economic contractions.

Austerity bound to fail
But the IMF’s own research suggests such austerity policies are generally ineffective in reducing debt, their ostensible purpose. The April 2023 IMF World Economic Outlook acknowledged austerity programmes and fiscal consolidations “do not reduce debt ratios, on average”. Yet, its Fiscal Monitor still demands “fiscal tightening” of most developing countries.

The new IMF-World Bank debt sustainability framework sets the LICs’ external debt-to-GDP ratio limit at 30% or 40%. It insists debt-distressed economies must have lower ratios than ‘strong’ countries, effectively further penalising the weak and vulnerable.

Instead of enabling consistently counter-cyclical macroeconomic frameworks, the IMF’s current short-termist approach is mainly preoccupied with annual, or worse, quarterly balances, mimicking corporate reporting practices.

Such short-termism further limits fiscal space, effectively preventing or deterring public sector investments requiring longer-term macroeconomic frameworks to realise benefits. This discourages ‘patient’ medium- to long-term investments required for national economic planning and transformation, essential for sustainable development.

Restrictive debt and fiscal targets have meant even less public investment. This is typically required of borrowing countries as a credit conditionality. Annual IMF Article IV consultations cause other countries to also accept similar constraints to avoid Fund disapproval.

While a few better-off economies enjoy full employment, most countries face further economic contraction, not least due to interest rate hikes led by the US Fed and their many effects. Instead of being part of the problem, the IMF should be part of the solution.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Argentina: Unpalatable Choices in Election Plagued with Uncertainty

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Economy & Trade, Featured, Financial Crisis, Gender, Gender Identity, Headlines, Latin America & the Caribbean, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Tomás Cuesta/Getty Images

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Nov 3 2023 (IPS) – For many of Argentina’s voters the choice in the 19 November presidential runoff is between the lesser of two evils: Sergio Massa, economy minister of a government that’s presiding over a once-in-a-generation economic meltdown with a whopping 140-per cent inflation rate, or Javier Milei, a far-right libertarian who admires Donald Trump, wants to shut down the Central Bank and wields a chainsaw in public as a symbol of his willingness to slash the state. Many will rue that it ever came to this.

A peculiar outsider

A post-modern media celebrity, Milei’s performance style is a perfect fit for social media. He’s easily angered, reacts violently and insults copiously. He’s unapologetically sexist and mocks identity politics.

Milei bangs the drum for ‘anarcho-capitalism’, an ultra-individualistic ideology in which the market has absolute pre-eminence: earlier this year, he described the sale of human organs as ‘just another market’.

To expand his appeal beyond this extreme economic niche he forged an alliance with the culturally conservative right. His running mate, Victoria Villarruel, represents the backlash against abortion – legalised after decades of civil society campaigning in 2020 – and sexual diversity and gender equality policies, along with reappraisal of the murderous military dictatorship that ruled Argentina between 1976 and 1983.

In the run-up to primary elections in August, the two mainstream coalitions – the centre-left incumbent Union for the Homeland (UP) and the centre-right opposition Together for Change (JxC) – displayed a notable lack of leadership and indulged in internal squabbles that showed very little empathy for people’s daily struggles. All they had to offer in the face of widespread concerns about inflation and insecurity were the candidacies of the current minister of the economy and a former minister of security. They made it easy for Milei to hold them responsible for decades of corruption, ineffectiveness and failure.

In Milei’s discourse, the hardworking, productive majority is being bled dry by taxation to maintain the privileges of a parasitic and corrupt political ‘caste’. His proposal is deceptively simple: shrink the state to a minimum to destroy the caste that lives off it, clearing their way for individual progress.

Milei gained traction among young voters, particularly young men, via TikTok. He found fertile ground among a generation that no longer expect to be better off than their parents. While many of his followers concede that his ideas may be a little crazy, they appear to be willing to take the risk of embracing the unknown on the basis that the really crazy plan would be to allow those long in control to retain their power and expect things to turn out differently. Milei has capitalised on the despair, hopelessness and accumulated anger so many rightfully feel.

Surprise after surprise

The first surprise came on 13 August, when Milei won the most votes of any candidate in the primaries.

Milei only entered politics in 2021, when the 17 per cent vote he amassed in the capital, Buenos Aires, sent him and two other libertarians to the National Congress. In the 2023 primaries he went much further, winning 30 per cent of the vote. He placed ahead of JxC, whose two candidates received a joint 28 per cent, and UP, the current incarnation of the Peronist Party, which took 27 per cent. The bulk of the UP vote, 21 per cent, went to Massa. That Peronism, once the dominant force, came third was a historic first.

The second surprise came on 22 October. Following the primaries, all talk was of Milei winning the presidency. He trumpeted his intent to win the first round outright. Measured against these expectations, his second place looks like an underperformance. But the fact that a candidate who wasn’t on the radar before the primaries has made the runoff shows how quickly the political landscape can shift.

In the October vote Milei took almost the exact share he’d received in the primaries. Massa finished above him with almost 37 per cent, displacing JxC, which lost four points on its second-place performance in the primaries.

The fact that the economy minister was able to distance himself from the government he’s part of – one often described as the worst in 40 years – to come first was viewed as a notable victory, even though his share was just about the lowest Peronism has ever received.

One explanation for Massa’s improved performance was turnout, which increased by eight points to almost 78 per cent – still low for a country with compulsory voting, but enough to make a difference. Much of the increase could be credited to the political machinery that mobilised voters on election day, aided by the minister-candidate pulling as many levers as he could to improve his chances. This included putting lots of instant cash into voters’ pockets, including through tax breaks benefiting targeted groups of workers and consumers.

An unpalatable decision

There’s still much uncertainty ahead. Economic failure is Milei’s best propaganda, so much will depend on how the economy behaves over the next couple of weeks. Milei and the destruction he represents can’t be written off.

Neither those currently in power nor those in the mainstream opposition recognise the obvious: Milei is their fault. They’ve held power for the best part of the past 40 years without effectively tackling any of the issues that concern people the most.

Many voters now feel they face an unpalatable choice between a corrupt and failing government and a dangerous disruptor. They fear that if they choose to keep Milei out, their votes may be misinterpreted as a show of active support for a continuity they also reject. What’s at stake here is more than one election. If Milei is kept at bay, the political dynamics leading to the current economic dysfunction will still need to be addressed – or the far-right threat to democracy won’t end with Milei.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

  Source