Julio María Sanguinetti: “In Uruguay there is neither the hyperliberalism that Milei proposes, nor the socializing populism that other Latin American governments propose”

Twice president of Uruguay by the historic Colorado Party, first with the return of democracy and then between 1995 and 2000, at the age of 88 Julio María Sanguinetti lives in a modest house in Punta Carretas, Montevideo.

He has just launched his new book “Memoirs of a Passion” and three days before the presidential elections and the two plebiscites, in his living room he speaks with Clarion regarding the ways of Javier Milei and its economic policy.

Always in a shirt, tie and shoes, Sanguinetti, senator until 2020, also defines Uruguayan stability as the “threat” of the popular consultation which will decide whether to nationalize pensions, which he compares to Kirchnerism and asks Mercosur to negotiate with China.

-It seems that the plebiscite on the pension issue is more important than the presidential candidates.

-The elections are obviously very relevant as is the entire government election. The other is more than relevant because it represents a qualitative change in the country’s image, its investment capacity and its access to financial markets. That we do here what Kirchnerism did in 2008 is disastrous. As regards the economic dimension of Uruguay, if credibility is valid for any country, it is worth three times as much for us. Uruguay lives on trust, lives on stability. With my colleague (José) Mujica we have preached over the last two, three years in symposiums of all kinds, with Brazilian and Argentine entrepreneurs, the Uruguay of clear rules, predictability, legal security. At the same time as 24 billion dollars are being saved by AFAPS savers (Pension Savings Fund Administrators), Uruguay ends and the dark clouds of Uruguay appear with some Kirchnerist shadows. This gives the plebiscite, therefore, a far-reaching relevance.

-Don’t the elections between presidential candidates change as much as the plebiscite?

-It doesn’t matter, even if today in Uruguay we can talk about some basic consensus. They are what allow us to say that in Uruguay there is not the famous crack that is talked about so much in our Latin America because there is a basic consensus. Today no one discusses liberal democracy, market economics, no one discusses the need for macroeconomic balance, no one discusses the evils of inflation. From there, the different sensitivities in dealing with the topic arise.

-They are the three candidates with the most possibilities from the center but with nuances?

-Basically the candidates represent two center projects. What happens is that in the Frente Amplio, just as there is clearly that definition of president, trade unionism has a very important strength and the Communist Party has an important strength well beyond the electoral sphere. They are the ones who promoted this constitutional plebiscite. They have so much political strength that the Frente Amplio had to declare freedom of action for its members and for its leadership, which, despite not agreeing with the plebiscite, does not make it explicit precisely because it is afraid of dealing with that union leadership. The Frente Amplio has that internal contradiction between a trade unionism with a Marxist tone, even if it then acts according to the rules of the game, but it is a populist Marxist trade unionism of the 1960s.

-How are they different?

-We are not the same because everyone handles it from a different perspective. The republican coalition has demonstrated that it administers the Uruguayan state according to its classic conception, which is progressive, liberal or social democratic. The Uruguayan state is a democratic welfare state, which can be administered by someone more liberal or by someone more social democratic, but the state itself is a democratic welfare state. Here there is neither the hyperliberalism proposed by Milei, nor the more socializing populisms proposed by other Latin American governments.

-What chance does the Coalition have?

-The Republican coalition has the government in its favor. He managed the pandemic well, here the Front supported the policies of Alberto Fernández, and the two models clearly compared. The Government has done well, growth has resumed, today construction is at the highest level in its history with 56,000 workers, 100,000 new jobs have been created, the real salary has recovered compared to the previous period, the fundamental values I am. But in our country the two coalitions are very balanced and will define themselves on the margins. Previous elections had been decided by 1.5%.

-For the last 10 years the Broad Front and the Coalition have governed. Growth was more or less 1%. Is it enough for politicians to get along with “Uruguayan civilization”?

-No, of course that’s not enough. Uruguay in particular is radically sensitive to the foreign market. Our internal market is very small, Uruguay lives on exports and external investments, so what happens in the world is fundamental. Uruguayan governments manage a situation in which the international situation is fundamental. The country must implement structural reforms and is implementing them. For the first time in history, Uruguay’s top export product is neither meat nor wool, but cellulose. Imagining that a product that beats meat existed in Uruguay would have been completely unthinkable, but today it is.

Julio María Sanguinetti and Javier Milei’s definition

-You spoke of Javier Milei as a hyperliberal, you are liberal, can you explain the difference?

-Milei’s ideological conception is one thing, the Argentina-Uruguay relationship is another. In the second aspect I would say that today we have an excellent relationship, the Milei government has been very positive in reasoning with us, especially on port issues and on fundamental issues for Uruguay. As for the Argentine government, I would say that it has, on the one hand, an unachievable utopian proposal and a path that nevertheless takes it in the right direction. And I would like him to try to do it with more education, conceiving it not only as protocol elegance, but as a better means of relating the Government to its own society.

-More dialogues?

-Above all respect. Sometimes there may be no dialogue but there needs to be more respect, it seems to me. That’s what I would like.

-Is this what you cultivate with your rivals from the Frente Amplio?

-It is what fortunately we cultivate here among the entire political leadership. That’s something that I would like to see, as I said, better in the Argentine government.

-And within the region, Milei now changes Uruguay’s relationship in Mercosur?

-In the region we have two visions, one Mercosur and one beyond. The relationship with Mercosur is historic and inalienable because geography dictates the law. It is also true that today our conception of Mercosur is not in tune with that which has prevailed to date. Why? For seeing him too closed. Brazil has a great tendency towards closure, Argentina has had it less today and we are confident that a much more open concept than the one we are experiencing can be created. I believe this is essential for Mercosur. We are not in the golden age of globalization, which has already passed. But that doesn’t mean we’ve returned to the post-World War II protectionist world. Mercosur must understand that it must relate better to the most economically expansive area of ​​the world which is the East, through the Pacific, through agreements with China, through anything. But this navel gazing clearly limits our growth. We must grow more, we must grow more and this applies to all members of Mercosur.

-With Milei getting closer to China, are there more possibilities?

-I would say yes. Now, as we get closer to China, we may have a better chance there. The United States remains a leading power but does not exercise absolute leadership. Russia is no longer and it is assumed that it would be replaced by China in such leadership, but this is not the case. China does not exercise the same leadership that the Soviet Union exercised in its time. It is totally different and for the better, because China does not want to export the political model to us and does not even want to interfere in politics, it is a strictly commercial empire.