Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
President López Obrador has invoked the phrase “coup d’état” 167 times, including four instances of “technical coup d’état” and one of “soft coup” until March 16, 2024. His recent use of the term, in the context of the potential rejection of his reform to the Judicial Power and Morena’s over-representation in the Federal Congress, underscores the gravity of the situation.
The former Minister of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Arturo Zaldívar, also recently resorted to the term “technical coup d’état,” referring to the opposition’s demand that the constitutional electoral bodies respect the spirit of the electoral legislation and reject Morena’s overrepresentation in the federal Congress.
What Zaldívar expressed can be seen as a form of echolalia, echoing the leader of his movement. This ‘flattery’, if you will, lacks a particularly deep political conceptualization, as Zaldívar is not known for ‘deep thinking’. However, it’s important to note that López Obrador is influenced by other ‘movement’ leaders in Latin America, which underscores the interconnectedness of Latin American politics.
The recent Bolivian case is particularly relevant, given AMLO’s apparent ideological identification with Evo Morales and, to a lesser degree, with Luis Arce, the President of that semi-Andean country.
Last June 26, President Luis Arce warned about an “unusual” mobilization of army troops in downtown La Paz, the nation’s capital. Indeed, well-armed military elements arrived at the Government Palace, broke down the central door, and entered, ready for combat.
Surprisingly, President Arce came out of the Government Palace to harangue the troops about “loyalty to the homeland” and ordered the arrest of the general who had led the revolt. Peace returned to La Paz.
Evo Morales, former President of the Republic, denounced that the supposed revolt was fabricated by President Arce himself, accusing him of wanting to be reelected and seeking the population’s support through a theatrical action of that order. Of course, Arce denied it and, in turn, accused Evo Morales of illegally running for the Presidency of Bolivia…for the fifth time.
With the concept of “coup d’état” as a backdrop, these two adherents of the Sao Paulo Forum, a political forum of leftist and socialist political parties and organizations from Latin America and the Caribbean, are fighting for the Presidency of Bolivia, seasoned with accusations of corruption and links with drug trafficking, a flourishing business in Bolivia.
The President of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, has accused his country’s opposition of orchestrating a “soft coup d’état” against him. The reason would be that the National Electoral Council announced that it would study a report by two magistrates accusing President Petro of irregular financing and violation of electoral ceilings during his campaign for the Executive in 2022. More at the heart of the issue of irregular financing in Colombia is the issue of the support of funds received by Petro’s son from elements linked to drug trafficking. Petro’s son has acknowledged the veracity of these accusations in the context of a public dispute with his former girlfriend over the amount and final destination of such funds.
What is remarkable about the Colombian episode is how President Petro uses the concept of “coup d’état” to discredit criticisms against him, including accusations of corruption and links to drug trafficking of him and his family. Along with the defense that “they want to remove me with a coup d’état,” he calls for a popular mobilization to defend the “first government of the people” in Colombia.
And what can we say about accusations of rumors or threats of coups d’état and troop movements during sordid political wars between the political classes in countries like Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Haiti? We do not even have to leave Latin America to see the political use and abuse of the concept of “coup d’état” by political actors to put the relationship between politics, the Armed Forces, and corruption on the table.
Mexico is the most recent case where this resource of accusing or trying to scare, with the threat of a rupture of the constitutional order, has been fully used. But, unlike the rest of Latin America, Mexico stands out for being the country where the threat of a rupture of the constitutional order is warned precisely by those who would benefit from such a coup d’état, seeking to consolidate their power.
The only person in Mexican politics who can decide, plan, and execute a coup d’état is the President of the Republic. This being the case, why does he say that there is a plan outside of him with the capacity to make the Armed Forces take power? At first sight, the President apparently wants to scare someone. Who or whom? Does he think it comes from that hopeless opposition he mocks every day? Or malevolent forces from abroad?
The question is important because the President conducts himself as a frightened man. The only things that could affect him and his family are accusations of corruption and links with drug trafficking—similar to the accusations faced by Petro’s family in Colombia or the internal problems faced by Evo and Arce in Bolivia. As for the opposition in Mexico, it may not even be able to keep its own soul. The internal contest in the United States turns that country upside down, where Mexico is an issue, except for rhetorical-electoral purposes.
Many Morenistas express displeasure with how López Obrador handles the transition with Claudia, showing her as his puppet, imposing people, messages, agendas, and unpleasant kisses. It is impossible to know if the future President is comfortable or not with the treatment she receives from López Obrador. Seen from the outside, it seems designed to humiliate her. Many Morenistas privately expressed their desire for López Obrador to disappear and let her govern.
All indications suggest that López Obrador will make his presence felt continuously for the next few years unless something major happens. What awaits Mexico: six more years of López Obrador, Evo Morales style? Those are López Obrador’s teachers: Evo, Maduro, Ortega, Díaz Canel, and even Correa, former president of Ecuador, also guilty of repeating multiple times in the presidency of his country.
Is this coup rhetoric for Claudia? Is he threatening her because he fears she will not comply with all the agreements of protection and continuity and the agreement on the successor in 2030?
What we know about López Obrador is that when he talks about something negative or objectionable, he is preparing public opinion for it to happen. Is that why he frequently mentions the concept of a coup d’état, he being the only person who can order it if he wishes to do so? In his mind, perhaps it would be the only way to avoid being exposed, judged politically and judicially for his ravings in the exercise of power.
Being judged on his legacy by history has López Obrador uneasy, not the fact of leaving the National Palace. It is the same thing that has Maduro, Petro, Arce, Evo, and company restless.
[email protected]
@rpascoep
Further Reading: