Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
Warning: I am writing this article hours before the meeting of the Morenista council, where it will establish the rules to define its presidential candidacy. Therefore, I am writing using foreseeable elements, although projective, as background. I will take into account previous similar events in the PRD and in Morena itself because they share the same culture of internal conflict. Also relevant are recent pronouncements by the various prominent actors, such as the pre-candidates, in addition to AMLO’s “peace offer” to the multiple actors in the now famous dinner on a recent Monday, where “everyone paid for their consumption” (sic), whose motto was “a bone for everyone”.
The first notorious fact is that no “statutory” Morena event has been held with a consensus without impositions. All the events ended in conflict, provoking more internal friction and doubts about their agreements’ statutory and constitutional legality. So much so that even the legal integration of the membership of the National Council that will meet today is in doubt. The party’s leadership never dared to publish the figures of the final results due to the disputes that arose regarding the purchase of votes with public money, voter harassment, and the illegal use of social programs as an instrument of blackmail by some candidates favored by sectors of the nomenklatura to advance their own interests. Some postulate that the National Council of Morena has been “bought” by diverse bidders to promote their particular or group interests.
The starting point of today’s meeting this afternoon -the session of the Morena National Council- is questioning its legitimacy and legality. Even before the event, the President of the Council, the Governor of Sonora, Alfonso Durazo, has already decreed who can enter the event and who will not have access to the premises. This is because there are still challenges about who won or lost the right to be members of the Council since the election itself, an election whose challenges have not been fully resolved according to law. Durazo has already decreed that the current, headed by John Ackerman and Eréndira Sandoval, will not have access to the Council. Who else has been excluded?
To be talking about exclusions at this stage of the game speaks of an organization that is not only immature and imperfect but also of its susceptibility and fragility to tolerate questioning the legitimacy and legality of its decisions.
And this is not a minor issue. In 2012 and 2018, the structure and management of the survey defined, before the poll was taken, who the winner would be. Knowing this, for example, Ricardo Monreal and Marcelo Ebrard want the survey to contain only one question and be open to the public (who should be Morena’s candidate?). On the other hand, both Claudia Sheinbaum and Adan López want several questions to “weigh” the result among several answers (Who will follow the 4th Transformation? Who best interprets López Obrador’s political conception? Which is more loyal to López Obrador? Therefore, who should be the candidate for the 4th Transformation?). Obviously, these are questions closed to Morena sympathizers and are not directed to the open population.
This is the core of the dispute between the Morena pre-candidates. A single question yields a concrete result. Several questions and their results allow us to “weigh” different results valuationally and allow the President the last word, which is probably what he wants.
The combination of an imperfect and contested political organization determined to make transcendental political decisions affecting its various actors makes it possible to foresee an explosive cocktail with no certain prognosis. Even despite the presidential offer of bones for all, trying to silence critics and deactivate protests or ruptures.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: