Union members and activists in Argentina descended on the capital in late December to protest President Javier Milei’s latest emergency decree imposing sweeping austerity measures and deregulation aimed at reviving the country’s floundering economy, the Associated Press reported.
Milei can bypass the legislature to impose his reforms through the use of emergency decrees.
Since taking office last month, Milei has cut subsidies for energy and transportation, announced that the government would not renew the contracts for over 5,000 state employees, and proposed modifying or repealing around 300 laws.
The self-described anarcho-capitalist said he seeks to transform the Argentinian economy and reduce the size of government to address its economic woes, increasing poverty, and ballooning inflation that was expected to reach 200 percent by the new year.
However, labor activists question whether the president can make such sweeping reforms through emergency decrees. Unions sought a court injunction to block measures that would lift some labor protections but it was rejected by a judge since the decree had not got into effect at the time.
In a statement read at the protest, the General Labor Confederation accused Milei of introducing “a ferocious, regressive labor reform” designed to “hamstring union activity” and punish union members for the benefit of business interests.
While the Milei government said it would permit protests, it threatened to cut off public aid to anyone who blocks the roads. Protesters were also prohibited from carrying sticks or covering their faces, and children were forbidden from attending.
The former television pundit, who won the election in a landslide with the support of voters disillusioned by Argentina’s economic crisis, said in an interview before the December 27 protest that those who oppose his reforms fail to recognize “the seriousness of the situation.”
Milei’s reforms are supported by Argentina’s Business Association, which has described them as a “historic opportunity” to address the consequences of decades of deficit spending and the “excessive size of the state.”
