Luis Rubio
It was to be a government that would transform Mexico; the government would stave off the ills that characterized the country and that had impeded it from acquiring the grandeur corresponding to it. The ambition was great: it would be a transformation of the size of the Mexican Independence or the Madero Revolution (1910): why limit oneself to the development of the country, the growth of the economy, or the well-being of the population when one could aspire to THE Fourth Transformation. In the end, what remains is no more than another of the many mediocre governments that have distinguished Mexico: another anecdote in a long history of pain and little glory.
President López Obrador assumed the presidency of Mexico on his third try. He arrived once the citizenry had run out of alternatives: the PAN and the PRI. In 2018, an exhausted electorate opted to give the benefit of the doubt to the candidate who persisted in his attempt to win with the promise to correct the course and set the foundation for a great transformation. On repeated occasions, AMLO proffered that he would not alter the institutional order, that he would maintain basic projects such as the airport, and that he would be the president of all Mexicans.
In truth, Mexico needed (and continues to need) a disruptive president who attacks the groups and interests that have hindered the country from developing in a balanced way. Due to the biased way the reformer project initiated in the eighties came to unfold, and whose logic was not to alter the prevailing political order, the country was saturated with the political, union, and business groups (and now organized crime) devoted to preserving their special preserves. Given that many of these were significant pillars of the old PRI order, the reforms had protected, tolerated, or worked around them. In many cases, because of their capacity for mobilization, especially in the case of certain unions, there existed a relation of dependence (and a love/hate relationship) for those interests. Only a shrewd and dedicated politician, and one not committed to the “old” order, could unravel that framework to truly free up the forces, resources, and capacities in a society that, in many domains, continued to be dominated by petty fiefdoms, as illustrated by the states of Oaxaca and Chiapas.
A disruptive president such as López Obrador could have been the great reformer of Mexico, the person free of ties with those local caciques and, therefore, exceptionally capable of acting in a decided fashion. But it was not to be thus. PRIist to the bone, although of the old, dominant ancestral party that had long ago ceased to exist, the President not only did not act against those groups but instead took them under his wing and made them part of his own strategy. A strategy earmarked for a personality cult, for the concentration of power, and, well, not too much more.
Regarding the President, it must be recognized that having been able to wreak monumental damage, his most significant effect has been to divide and polarize the Mexican society to a still greater degree. However, he is now threatening to destroy even his few accomplishments with the package of reforms he is pushing for. He exposed many of the fallacies that had become the “mantra” of the feeble Mexican democracy -especially of the regulatory entities and the autonomous organs- he promoted long-term projects of dubious viability and assailed deep-rooted dogmas that deserved to be challenged. That is, a checkered record in which the greys dominate. His thrust limited itself to generating popularity, but not to creating conditions for more significant economic growth, increased productivity, or, worst of all, a greater probability for the less-favored Mexican to have a better opportunity in the future, mainly due to his unwillingness to transform the educational system that Mexicans need so badly. He further gravely undermined access of most Mexicans to the health system. Mediocrity was not long in showing its face, even though the President was very popular. The problem is that there is nothing more ephemeral than popularity.
Up to some decades ago, Mexico had been a focus of attention. During a certain era, this was due to its courageous stances in foreign policy matters and its having undertaken important economic reforms. The attention earned Mexico respect and access; despite this, it facilitated the transformation of its economy and, above all, its manufacturing base. Indeed, the reforms of the past decades led to the export drive that, together with foreign investment, sustains the economy today. In one of those paradoxes of history, the primary beneficiary of the economic reforms of the last decades was, at the end of the day, its principal detractor.
Along the way, Mexico practically disappeared from the map. The uncertainty concerning the rules of the game, criminality, lack of infrastructure, and systemic attack on those who are indispensable for the country’s development (such as the electricity generators) have given rise to the silent leave-taking of innumerable investors and, with them, future opportunities.
The current administration, already lacking in distinction, is nearing its end, but not without consequences. Many of these are negative and could prove to be lethal by next September. Let us hope that the next President will learn from these experiences, ensuring a promising start to her term and avoiding the fate of becoming just another footnote in history—or worse, a major crisis.
@lrubiof
Further Reading: