Luis Rubio
In the end, the crucial factor lies in the government’s ability and willingness to respond skillfully and quickly to the internal and external challenges that may arise. While López Obrador (AMLO) enjoyed an extremely favorable environment, Claudia Sheimbaum (CS) faces a much more uncertain outlook, mainly due to the complex legacy that AMLO left both economically and in the constitutional structure, but also because of Trump. Her recent responses have been more geared toward wrapping herself in the flag to satisfy her base and ideology than responding to a changing reality. But the future depends on how she responds.
Perhaps there is no greater factor of dissonance in national political life than the confrontation of visions, interpretations, and expectations that characterize the ongoing political debate and public opinion: for some, everything is fine, and for others, everything is bad. Part of the explanation undoubtedly originates in an ideological clash that leads to extreme perceptions, and part in an idealization of the present or the past, respectively, and its consequent extrapolation. Is there a way to elucidate what is behind the clash of visions?
The conflicting narratives are very clear: For those who perceive that everything is bad, democracy is dead, and the future can only worsen, everything is fine. For others, people are happy, the government is popular, and, therefore, the future is promising. Are both equally valid? The answer is key for the future, the economy, and the government itself.
Two “hard” facts allow us to analyze the phenomenon: one is that AMLO’s popularity was almost never below 60%, and that of CS is above 70%. The other fact, which is repeated regularly in the polls, is that the country is divided into two blocks: the 60% who are happy and the 40% who are not. The first ones live mostly from day to day, and their circumstances have recently improved thanks to remittances, cash transfers, and the minimum wage. For their part, the 40% have a reliable economic situation (a job or a stable income) that allows them to think about the future, and they see with concern the dislocation of some key variables (such as the lack of counterweights, the debt, deficit, productivity).
Two things seem unquestionable: one is that popularity does not guarantee the permanence of the status quo or economic and financial viability. The other is that, as a consequence of recent constitutional changes, the political reality that today many see as catastrophic was not as popular or successful as the detractors of the reforms claim. I do not mean to suggest that the outlook is benign, only that Mexican democracy was weak, that AMLO violated electoral legislation with impunity, and that as soon as the Supreme Court challenged presidential power, it was overthrown. In other words, the supposed supports and counterweights of democracy were more mythical than real.
For the majority of the population (60% who voted for Morena), the “democratization” of corruption, the inequality AMLO skillfully exploited, and the deterioration of real income in recent decades weighed more heavily. Democracy, plurality, and its structures were never popular.
It is not that today’s pessimists are blind to everyday reality. They simply tend to see what is happening benignly or as problems to be solved. Thus, much of their current pessimism stems from the fact that constitutional formalization makes those potential solutions impossible, which undoubtedly constitutes a profound political change.
My point is not to justify either narrative, but to understand that reality was much less favorable than what those who today denounce political deterioration argue, while recognizing that the government (AMLO and CS) has been much more skillful in responding to the daily concerns of the majority of the population. This does not imply that their strategy is good or sustainable but that it has been extraordinarily effective and popular.
I have no doubt that part of the explanation for the contradictory narratives lies in the fact that the population has normalized (or taken for granted) things that would be unacceptable in other latitudes, such as insecurity, corruption, low growth, or poor public services. But, in contrast to that, real income and the consequent increase in consumption have had an obvious political benefit. It remains to be seen whether popularity responds to a new legitimacy or if it is a mere reflection of economic improvement, which are key factors in electoral terms.
All of which does not mean that the most thoughtful and worrying analyses regarding the future are wrong, only that they are out of sync with current reality. Analytically, it is obvious that the government strategy works only so long as the factors or vectors that support it do not change. If, at any time, the variables (exchange rate, public finances, CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC, rating agencies) that make the government strategy possible and viable are altered, everything would change. Also, the absence of counterweights will inexorably affect investment decisions, with their consequent impact on the rate of economic growth.
@lrubiof
Further Reading: