Alliances, betrayals and reconciliations. In recent years, the relationship between leaders and their “dolphins” in Latin America has not always been fluid and in some cases has even ended in a resounding breakup. The change in power has never been easy.
Although there have been cases of mutual respect and unfailing political loyalty in the region – such as Lula with Dilma Rousseff – there are other cases where rivalries have been fiercely exposed despite sharing the same ideology, as happened with Cristina Kirchner and Alberto Fernández, and as is happening now with Evo Morales and Luis Arce.
In addition to Argentina and Bolivia, there are other cases that illustrate this conflict: in Colombia the relationship between Álvaro Uribe and Juan Manuel Santos broke down when the latter renounced the “iron fist” policy with the guerrillas that he had had as Minister of Defense. Also in Ecuador, the relationship between Rafael Correa and Lenín Moreno bled after the application of public policies contrary to the Correísta model.
Now, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) and Claudia Sheinbaum will write in Mexico a new chapter of presidential political inheritances in the region, with an uncomfortable question: Will Sheinbaum be just a continuation of the Mexican president or will he run with his own colors? Will López Obrador retire from public life, as he promised? Will the ruling Morena party emerge stronger or end up divided?
Although Sheinbaum’s history with AMLO – both founders of Morena – accumulates more than two decades of political alliances, the changing and complex scenario that the future President could face could alter the tandem. In the pandemic, without going any further, she – with a scientific background – was seen wearing a flowery mask, and López Obrador was seen claiming that he was immune because he had been infected, openly. They even posed for photos like this, side by side. More than one Mexican wondered if there would be a breakup, which was ruled out by the then head of government of Mexico City. “You are not going to find a confrontation between the president and me, ever,” she said.
According to Forbes México, a member of the president-elect’s team assured that both “have a collaborative relationship, not one of submission,” adding that “it is very unfair for them to say that she will be a puppet, because in the five years of government of the City of “Mexico did things very different from the president.”
“I am the one who will govern,” Sheinbaum herself added in response to the doubts that have arisen.
Perhaps the most graphic of the broken presidential relationships is the aforementioned Bolivian case, starring Evo Morales (2006-2019) and Luis Arce (2019-present). It was after 14 years in power and while Morales was in Argentina as a refugee that his party unexpectedly defined his Minister of Economy for more than 11 years as his “dolphin.” Many speculated that it was an attempt to keep the presidential seat while he managed to return to the country, however, a long dispute between the two meant that that door was virtually closed.
Carlos Cordero, a Bolivian political analyst, told La Tercera that the union between the two “lasted from the electoral campaign until the first year of Arce’s government. On the one hand, the image of a shadow president and Arce almost a puppet of Evo Morales was fed.”
There were still two years left in the Arcista government when Evo announced his intention to return to the Presidency. “They have convinced me, I am going to be a candidate, they have forced me, the people want it,” he said a few days before the MAS congress, a meeting to which it was expected that only his followers would attend. The schism within the party had already divided the waters between the “arcistas” and the “evistas”. From then on, the situation only escalated.
Morales even presented his application, which was rejected by the Constitutional Court and, in the process, swept away the possibility of a quick reconciliation.
Among the reasons for such a brawl, Evo’s unheeded request for Arce to change some ministers stands out. This even caused a rebellion among congressmen loyal to Morales, who aligned themselves with the right in some votes.
“At no time did Morales recognize the inevitable and necessary autonomy of the government, but rather the evident authority of the party and Evo. It was President Arce who showed, little by little, in official events, his own style and decisions without consulting Morales’ opinion,” Cordero explained.
In Ecuador the situation was not very different a few years ago. In fact, the jump was from the promise of “socialism of the 21st century”, proposed by Rafael Correa (2007-2017) – today sentenced to 8 years for bribery – to the end of more than 40 years of fuel subsidies, political carried out by his successor and dolphin, Lenín Moreno (2017-2021), and which led to massive protests in October 2019.
Although it was a series of decisions that generated the break, the final break came at the end of 2017, after a court ruling. When Jorge Glas, vice president of the Correa government as in the first year of Moreno’s mandate, was associated with the Odebrecht corruption plot, the latter did not hesitate to remove him from office. And the previous president did not like this at all.
This is the same politician who in April of this year unleashed tension between Mexico and Ecuador, after the police of the latter country forcibly entered the Mexican embassy to take him to prison.
Correa accused his former dolphin of betraying his party, Alianza PAIS, by “agreeing with the partyocracy” and wanting to “return to the policies of the old country.” From then on, “traitor” and “coup plotter” were recurring epithets of the now exiled former president towards his former dolphin.
Another country that knows about “dolphins”, or as they call them, “fingers”, is Argentina. María Lourdes Puente, director of the UCA School of Politics and Government, explained to La Tercera that the culture of delegation of power is a recurring practice: “Cristina was chosen by Néstor Kirchner, and Néstor was also an appointment by Eduardo Duhalde. Except for the competition that existed in Peronism between Santiago Cafiero and Carlos Saúl Menem, where there was a real internal competition, the candidates tend to be chosen by the one who is leading.
And the penultimate Argentine president was no exception. It was Cristina Kirchner (2007-2015) who chose Alberto Fernández (2019-2023) as the official card, and although the break was not so definitive—they criticized each other and became friends from time to time—, there were periods of months in which that the President and vice president did not speak to each other.
In September 2021, when the ruling party suffered a very tough defeat in the mid-term elections, several ministers from the Kirchnerist wing presented their resignation to the Executive. “This is not the time to raise disputes that divert our path,” Fernández wrote on the then Twitter, and his vice president’s reply did not take long to arrive.
Through an extensive letter, the break between the two was evident. The former president assured that in the government there were “officials who do not work” and that “one listened to some officials and it seemed that nothing had happened in this country, pretending normality and, above all, screwing themselves to their chairs.”
In that administration, Puente believes, “neither Alberto Fernández exercised power nor did he want to exercise it with all its magnitude, and Cristina did not want to remain attached to his government. This had many negative effects, because Fernández not only did not have his own base of support, but it was Cristina’s. By denying him support, he ended up being a very weakened president.”
Colombia is a special case. It is enough to look at the last decades of presidential elections in Latin America to notice a particular trend: the pendulum effect, with governments alternating between the right and the left. But in Colombia, for many years that did not happen.
Before the arrival of the current president, Gustavo Petro, a leftist president had never sat in the Casa de Nariño. However, there were two who, despite his succession, clashed due to diametrically opposed views. These are Álvaro Uribe (2002-2010) and Juan Manuel Santos (2010-2018).
At the crux of the dispute is that the second, who served as Minister of Defense of the first with a heavy hand in the battle against the guerrillas, became president and had a position that was the opposite of what he had been developing in the portfolio.
Colombian political scientist Paola Montilla explained to this newspaper that “the designation of former President Santos as a candidate was made within the framework of a convention of the U Party, in which the former president, thanks to his political recognition, obtained the support of the majority. of the delegates. Santos’ candidacy always had the support of Uribe, who in several public spaces classified him as the clearest defender of his democratic security policy.”
What’s more, already during the campaign, Santos assured that he would continue the so-called “democratic security policy” with a “strong hand.” But it did not take him long, once installed in the presidency, for him to normalize relations with Ecuador and Venezuela and reach a controversial agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
“Although many voters voted for Santos to continue Álvaro Uribe’s policies, mainly in his offensive against the FARC, the beginning of the peace talks marked a rupture between the two political leaders,” explained the academic. Along with this, Santos began negotiations with the National Liberation Army (ELN). Although the agreement with the guerrillas was not ratified in a subsequent plebiscite, it earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2016.
With Iván Duque (2018-2022), Santos’ successor, the situation was different. At first, his detractors even called him Uribe’s “puppet.” According to Montilla, “Uribe’s support was a decisive variable in his election, given his short political career and the low level of national recognition that he had.” And although Petro’s predecessor distanced himself on some points from his political godfather, “in successive pronouncements Uribe supported Duque’s positions,” said the political scientist.
Brazil, finally, has one of the calmest succession cases in the region, at least in terms of the relationship between the two. This was the case with Lula (2003-2011 and 2023-present) and Dilma Rousseff (2011-2016), where the current president even defended her on the multiple occasions when Rousseff came under political pressure.
Where he did have friction was with sectors of the Workers’ Party (PT) that wanted to nominate Lula as their candidate for the 2014 presidential elections, which, in the end, did not happen. “Dilma is the most important candidate we have, the best,” the current president even said.
