Temptations

Luis Rubio

Scarcely two years into the Peña Nieto government, the political ambiance had been upended, and, in retrospect, the electorate had already decided the outcome of the 2018 presidential election. All that today’s president and his retinue had to do was refrain from engaging in any lunacy. However much the diverse Morena-party contingents tried, López Obrador maintained internal discipline, dispatched positive messages to all the power groups, and achieved his purpose. So much so that the electorate granted him virtual control of the entire State apparatus, including the other branches of government.

Now the tables are turned. The political milieu begins to feel hostile for many Morena adherents, starting with themselves, and evidence of corruption is catching up with the presidential family. The opposition acquired a high degree of self-discipline in the mid-term election and prevailed to a greater extent than the pollsters expected. Heretofore, two factors will determine the future: one will be the capacity of the President himself to sustain control of his apparatus, as well as his popularity. The other factor concerns the opposition, its ability to nurture a viable alliance and, eventually, nominate a candidate, male or female, liable to win over the popular vote. Although both sides feel confident, neither will have it easy.

In the President’s corner, the waning of his ability to control events is evident, something inevitable given the moment of the political cycle in which he finds himself. Above and beyond their own circumstances and skills, (nearly) all presidents and leaders worldwide sense being destined to change the world, despite the convincing historical evidence against this. Once in power, they perceive themselves as omnipotent and consider they wield the divine right to change everything, to the extent that the institutions permit this. Recent years have revealed the enormous contrasts between strongly institutionalized societies and those only claiming to be: there’s Trump, who fought tooth and nail, accomplishing little change, at least in institutional terms, while Erdogan in Turkey and López Obrador in Mexico addressed themselves to undermining the existing order without building a sustainable and sound alternative.

On its part, all that the opposition had to do was understand how the lay of the land had changed and organize itself to deal with the new political reality. Notwithstanding this, as Oscar Wilde wrote, its leaders “could resist anything except but temptation” on believing themselves to be all-powerful, as in the old times. Instead of dedicating themselves to the construction of a functional alliance, according to the conditions created by an overpowering governing party and after a successful showing in 2021, they committed themselves to preserve petty fiefdoms that are not central to their own objectives nor much less to the possibility, seemingly small at this moment in time, of winning the 2024 election. As the old Anglo-Saxon witticism goes, their three main priorities should be a common candidacy, a common candidacy, and a common candidacy. A candidacy that can carry the day.

The concentration of power in Mexico is so great and tempting -whether they are presidents or political leaders- that they easily lose their footing: soon, they come to perceive themselves as almighty. Although those found at the zenith of power -wheresoever they align on that pyramid- never have the adeptness to see it, time erodes the mainstays of that power and reduces their control capacity. In the last analysis, it is enough to observe the fate of most Mexican ex-presidents to recognize that there is nothing more futile, nothing more ephemeral, than presidential power. The institutional weakness that characterizes Mexico has its counterpart in the political reality of those who leave power: they had everything, and then they lose everything.

Presidents and opposition leaders, each in their stead, want the same: impose themselves, do as they please, exercise their power -whether little or much- as if there were no tomorrow. In the summer of 1812, Napoleon commandeered an army of more than one million men headed for the gates of Moscow. Three years later, he was wasting his life away on the island of Elba. The same happened to the Egyptian pharaohs, to Hitler, and to Mao. No one can save themselves from the twilight of power and, still worse, in a society as institutionally fragile as Mexico’s.

The greatness of power is not found in symbols, appearances, or popularity but rather in the results of its exercise. As the saying goes, the most difficult year of the Mexican presidency is the seventh (of a six-year term) because this is when reality gets underway. It is at that instant that the president recently leaving office, makes a start at viewing the world as it is and not how he had imagined it to be.

For the opposition, the opportunity is real, but equally ephemeral. An alliance of the size and robustness necessary to defeat a party in good measure hegemonic is not built in a day, nor can it be limited to a sole election. It is carefully sculpted into shape or is, in the end, impossible.

Both sides face a great challenge. Those on the outside should be able to recognize that their smallness can only be surmounted by an effective union, transitory or not, in terms of the transcendental objective such as that offered by the upcoming mother of all battles, that of 2024.

www.mexicoevalua.org

@lrubiof