Luis Rubio
A banner hanging from a building during the recent presidential race concisely defined Mexico’s challenge: “Democracy with defects or dictatorship without rights: you decide.” Although democracy is a term frequently employed in Mexican political rhetoric, AMLO, the outgoing president, converted it into an insubstantial phrase that does not enjoy popular consensus. The upcoming government would do well to find a definition that embraces the entire population.
In its most elementary definition, democracy not only consists of electoral processes that determine who will govern but also respect for the opposition, in the broadest sense of the term. However, the two things highlighted most often in the recent manner of conducting politics break with that central principle: the disqualification of the opposition, which it considers illegitimate, and the intimidation of the individuals whom the president considers adversaries, a concept that would include, potentially, everyone. That is, for the outgoing president, the only relevant thing is the monopoly of power that, by definition, excludes all the others, including, of course, his own voters.
The reforms proposed by AMLO last February 5 clearly outline the spirit that animates them. Everything in those bills reflects a purpose of control and the concentration of power in a sole person. Beyond the vindictive and small-minded character embodying the proposals, especially the one on the judiciary, the pertinent question is what is important: development or control. Dr. Sheinbaum has been particularly meticulous in separating those two elements, rendering a panorama of uncertainty as well as one of opportunity for this coming September.
Together, the proposed reforms aim at sanctifying in the constitution elements as central to democracy as the suppression of the opposition in the legislature (by eliminating proportional representation) and the elimination of the Supreme Court of Justice as a counterweight (with the proposal that its members be elected rather than proposed by the executive and then ratified by the Senate); transfer of control of the electoral processes to the government with the elimination of the National Electoral Institute (INE) and the Electoral Tribunal; elimination of legal protection such as habeas corpus (Amparo in Spanish); and the expansion of imprisonment without due process of law, which would confer vast arbitrary powers on the authority. The proposed bills thus constitute an implacable scaffold for the conformation of a constitutional dictatorship, which could significantly alter the balance of power in the Mexican political system.
The question now is where the next government’s team finds itself in all this. Its electoral strategy privileged the figure and proposals of the president, leaving it to the citizenry to interpret where the former presidential candidate stands. One hypothesis is that, in effect, she approves the notion of the “second phase” of the president’s “fourth transformation; the other hypothesis is she is her own person and, thus, that she will give shape to her governmental vision as she advances in taking control of the government. Of course, the difference is critical because, in the former case, the country would find itself at the edge of the abyss. In the latter, the opportunity to restore civility in the public arena would exist, opening the door to a civilized interaction of the presidency with Congress, the Supreme Court, and the citizenry at large. In addition, as the saying goes, the drunk is not the same as the bartender: one thing is the electoral race, and another, quite distinct, is governing, the situation where the winner now finds herself.
Given the election result, the opportunity is immense, but it would imply abandoning the attempt to structure a constitutional dictatorship. Such is the size of the quandary -and the inherent risks- that the next president and the country face.
Bill Hicks, a cantankerous British comedian, dreamt about the creation of a political party for “people who hate people.” The problem was that he did not get them all together in one room: the egotists defeated the central principle. For some reason, every time I heard of or saw the irate morning TV presidential rants, I thought of Hicks. I ask myself whether Claudia Sheinbaum understands the enormous damage that the president generated with his intimidating diatribes; more to the point, I ask myself whether she understands that the role of the government is not to attack or destroy but rather to create, conciliate, and lead.
It is evident that many Mexicans not only appreciate the president’s soon to take his leave but are also loyal and believe in, at least until now, the integrity of his invectives and his supposed achievements in economic and social matters, such as poverty and corruption. It is likely that the oft-resorted-to recourse to “other data” will end up discrediting the alleged accomplishments as reality begins to sink in. For the President-Elect, the dilemma is how to preserve her base and, at the same time, bring the rest of the citizenry on board, which would inevitably entail distancing herself from the manner of conducting public affairs of the outgoing government, beginning with the rhetoric and its excesses.
Once without the personage dominating the outlook, the true question is what the next president wishes to achieve and whether that is feasible. “A king, said Bruce Springsteen, “ain’t satisfied ’til he rules everything.” To impede that is why the great thinkers of the 18th century, such as Montesquieu and Madison, posed the separation of powers, thus contributing to the creation of the world’s most developed and prosperous societies. Isn’t that what is desirable?
@lrubiof
Further Reading: