Luis Rubio
All presidents begin their six-year term confident that they will transform the country (or, in this case, continue an alleged transformation) and lay the foundations for a great future. Sooner or later, almost all of them end up facing the sad reality that their mistakes outweigh their achievements and that their ambitions did not align with the programs they actually implemented. Still, not all end badly: when they confront the inevitable challenges that arise inexorably, some recognize the risk and act decisively and meaningfully. Long before facing the judgment of history —which usually comes in the seventh year or even much later— they all have the opportunity to change course and build something entirely different. It is those moments that define their legacy.
Looking back, some presidents faced social protests, while others faced financial crises; some realized that existing conditions no longer allowed for progress and had to pivot; one came face-to-face with hyperinflation and changed direction on the spot. Circumstances change, but the principle remains. Today, the President is beginning to glimpse such a moment.
The country is experiencing a time of growing tension and uncertainty. So far, the president has managed to skillfully sidestep the problems that have arisen, mainly by isolating each situation from the others. However, when problems begin to converge, it becomes difficult—if not impossible—to avoid them. That is why Mexicans find themselves amid a “dead calm.”
According to the dictionary, “dead calm” is a nautical term that describes a frustrating stillness, with no wind and blistering heat. It originated in sailors’ slang to refer to that sense of inactivity and frustration. Today, Mexico seems to be immersed in such a situation. The underlying issue is the belief that it’s possible to “coast along,” as a former president once put it, when the deeper demand is for effective leadership.
In recent months—and years—all sorts of challenges and dilemmas have arisen, but it is the confluence of some particularly sharp ones that has changed the social mood. I don’t know which specific one began the shift, but there has been no shortage: the discovery of the ranch in Jalisco; the murder of Mexico City officials; the CNTE sit-ins (and, above all, the government’s utter disregard for the affected citizens); the evident economic slowdown; the cancellation of US visas; the “huachicol” or illegal importation of gasoline; the dismissive way in which government officials treat the economy as a minor issue “because people have savings;” the systematic disqualification of “adversaries;” threats against journalists; and the looming changes in the judiciary.
Some of this is directly the responsibility of the federal government, and much of it is a result of the broader breakdown that the country has been experiencing for some time. The only possible response is a major display of leadership, but what we are seeing, in the words of Alberto Capello, is “the claw of organized crime: a challenge to Mexico’s governability.” In other words, there appears to be no issue significant enough to move or compel the government to act—not in the rhetoric of the morning press briefings, but in the actual exercise of power for the benefit of all Mexicans.
The point of all this is that the country appears to be at a standstill. The government is neither acting nor moving. The President seems satisfied with her popularity, and although her administration is more professional and better structured than her predecessor’s, there are no functioning initiatives, and nothing is happening, which raises the obvious question of whether this can be sustained. The sense of paralysis and the uncertainty it breeds affect all levels of society.
The dilemma for the president is clear: her administration has been devoted to following a predetermined script, and given her high popularity, the last thing she wants is to jeopardize it. However, the government is only a few months into its term, and there is no guarantee that paralysis will lead to a safe outcome. In fact, the most successful governments in recent decades were those that opted for difficult decisions, rather than taking the easy way out. Of course, future popularity is never guaranteed, but the same skills that have made her navigate dealings with President Trump could help her transform her presidency.
The experience of the last decades of the previous century suggests that things can unravel very quickly. At first, everything seems manageable, without significant difficulties, but soon the landscape begins to shift, to the point where the cost of inaction increases dramatically. The examples from 1968 to 1997 are numerous. On the other hand, the issue is not just about acting, but also about how to act. In those decades, there are clear examples of both failed and successful actions.
In one of his novels, a Hemingway character is asked, “How did you go bankrupt?” “Two ways,” he replies, “Gradually, then suddenly.” That’s the situation: recognizing the moment and acting to prevent everything from collapsing all at once.
“Uncertainty, wrote Andy Stanley, is not an indication of poor leadership; it underscores the need for leadership.”
@lrubiof
Further Reading: