Luis Rubio
The Mexican electorate today faces a fundamental dilemma. However, regardless of how many citizens vote, it is impossible to minimize the transcendence of the citizens’ ballot. In the elections, the future of the country is at stake, and the central question is how to elevate the probability of the result being benign while simultaneously minimizing the risk of it not being so.
The tense present political climate characterizing the country is half due to the polarization strategy that has driven the President, who is now concluding his mandate, and half due to the lack of practical results for the majority of the population despite many years of promises, but above all the perception of few lasting and sustainable achievements. This is the crucial factor for the voter to bear in mind in this election: how to avoid the prodigious fluctuations and ups and downs that have been the characteristic more than the exception for too long.
In Greek mythology, Ulisses, the prominent personage of The Odyssey, faced a similar dilemma when he returned after his defeat of Troy. While navigating his ship, he encountered immense danger, having to transit between two sizeable threats: Scylla and Charybdis, a six-headed sea monster and a monumental whirlwind, respectively, both posing menacingly.
The threat that we Mexicans face is, before anything else, that of an excess of power concentrated in a single person. Mexican history is rich with examples that illustrate this point, and the citizens, little by little, will realize the enormous cost that the outgoing President has incurred, for which all Mexicans will be asked to foot the bill. Thus, beyond the preferences that each of us entertains concerning the two candidates in the presidential race, the first objective that the citizenry should advance is that of reducing the risk entailed in the fact that a sole individual or group concentrates so much power and the grave damage that this situation represents for the country.
A philosopher in the 20th century, Karl Popper, argued that what is crucial is the following: “How can we best avoid situations in which a bad governor causes too much harm?” In electoral terms, Popper would have recommended a divided government (one in which the Executive Branch and The Congress are not controlled by the same person or party) so that the propensity for abuse diminishes in the case of the governor turning out to be bad.
This would imply voting for different political parties for the presidency and Congress to procure an equilibrium between the two branches of government, which is precisely the purpose of being able to count on distinct entities that require each other mutually. Hopefully, the next Congress must come to understand the absurdity of the years of opposition at any cost (1997-2012), those of unrestrainable corruption (2012-2018), and those of denigrating submission (2018-2024) to build a co-governmental schema, in the best sense of the word. The worst scenario by far, the same for a President C as for a President X, but above all for the citizenry, would be a majority in the hands of the party that is victorious in the presidential duel.
After this comes the vote for the presidency. Also here, voters must define their vote. Some have already done so by conviction, experience, association with the President, or rejection of the President or some political party in particular. The truth is that however much the de facto campaigns have been conducted for nearly a year, no one knows the candidates to the core. We have all seen their biographies, have heard them, have seen them make mistakes and pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and we have formed an opinion. However, when one looks back in history, it is more than evident that very few past presidents behaved and made decisions during their mandate as they promised or how it seemed that they would govern when they were candidates. That is normal (the circumstances forge the personage), but it is also the product of everything that they hide, and the electoral rules impede the citizens from fully knowing the individuals who aspire to that job, transcendent as it is.
It is interesting to observe the contrast existing outside and inside Mexico concerning this presidential race. The articles from the international press, rating agencies, or investors suggest that it does not matter who wins the race because both candidates guarantee the viability of the current economic schema. The latter can be true or false, but it reflects structural factors (such as the USMCA) and the candidates’ discourse. However, for Mexicans, the dilemma directly has to do with their political freedoms and the checks and balances within the political system, from which all else derives. The biases are distinct but suggestive: for the citizenry, what is crucial is their physical, judicial, political, and patrimonial certainty, all of these certainties duly ignored and relegated to a lower standing throughout the government now coming to its end.
The current polarization impedes many Mexicans from recognizing that in electing a new government, all that should matter is that whoever wins should do no damage to those voting for another candidate or, above all, not harm the country. Each of us will have our preferences, but the risk of erring is enormous and irreversible. Thus, the certainty bestowed by the existence of effective counterweights is best.
@lrubiof
Further Reading: