The “deep state” arguably tops the list of horrors which the new right has pledged to erase at a global level and yet “deep state” would seem to be what the snooping tasks in the recently leaked secret document of the SIDE intelligence agency are all about. To make matters worse, this controversial vigilance has emerged as an issue in a week in which the institution that should be sitting in judgement over society has plunged into a new low of disrepute with the scandal of a histrionic judge derailing the high-profile Maradona death trial by seeking to convert it into a reality show.
The pushback against this Orwellian monitoring often takes the form of spluttering facile indignation or declamatory defences of a free press and speech, which is all fair enough but a deeper analysis of the “deep state” is also warranted. The 170-page document also includes among its targets terrorism, organised crime and all the other indisputable enemies of society tracked by intelligence agencies worldwide – the disputed Malvinas Islands also appear with a frequency which seems to reflect Vice-President Victoria Villarruel more than President Javier Milei. Alongside a long overdue updating of intelligence work to the technology of the 21st century (in line with the creation of a Federal Agency for Cybersecurity as one of the four branches into which SIDE was subdivided in its reorganisation last July), the leaked directives even urge surveillance against the undue intrusion of artificial intelligence in elections – to which a critic might retort: “Look who’s talking” after the video only a fortnight ago faking ex-president Mauricio Macri withdrawing his own party’s list in favour of Milei’s in the City midterms. But perhaps it takes a thief to catch a thief.
Unfortunately, these SIDE directives do not only target terrorism, organised crime, etc. like their colleagues around the world but also contain an alarming reversion to its bad old habits of giving priority to domestic snooping – deplorable in itself to all friends of freedom but even worse if neglect of its true tasks led to Argentina being seen as a soft touch for the terrorist atrocities of 1992 and 1994 (with some of the current judicial disrepute stemming from their impunity). The problem is not only that surveillance targets being expanded to include those who “manipulate public opinion” and “erode confidence in economic policies” serves as a declaration of open season against opposition politicians, economists or journalists venturing any critique with placing such vague and ambiguous criteria in the hands of intelligence agents simply asking for trouble. It is also a question of the context of such empowerment and the spirit in which these powers are used, for which the grotesque overkill given the prestigious actor Ricardo Darín’s experience of empanada prices as told in a television chat show (however inaccurate those prices might seem) is a bad sign.
In a word, these instructions against those who merely “erode” (and not attack) “the political and institutional structure of the country” can be carried to the extreme of converting any criticism of the administration into a crime against the state – more to be expected from Communism than anarcho-capitalism. Milei has denied any SIDE persecution of opponents or the press but that would not seem to be necessary, judging from the harassment and insults in the social networks to which the journalist disclosing the secret document has been subjected by libertarian trolls. It goes without saying that perpetuating the SIDE tradition of domestic espionage against enemies of the government rather than the state instead of foreign perils or organised crime is institutionally negative but it could also be politically adverse. When libertarians are so at odds with liberty, this complicates alliances with the centre-right – even if PRO succumbs to Stockholm syndrome, the Radicals pride themselves on their ethics and even their votes could be decisive in Buenos Aires Province. But the midterm elections are this year’s story – the institutional damage is more permanent.
This institutional damage is only compounded by the judge making a travesty of justice by seeking stardom in a Maradona trial documentary – courtroom dramas might have a long tradition going back to Perry Mason and beforehand but should never be made synonymous with the actual trial. Nor is this an isolated scandal in the judicial branch – only five months ago the multi-million 60th birthday celebrations of a federal prosecutor deepened the disrepute. But maybe best not to continue in this critical vein because who knows which Big Brother might be watching us?
Comments