Luis Rubio
At the heart of the electoral dispute that is about to end dwells the central actor: the citizenry. Next Sunday is the day on which, with their vote, the citizens will express their views about the government and their expectations concerning the future. In contrast with other stellar moments of Mexican politics, this election day undoubtedly constitutes a watershed, the situation in which the outgoing president has placed the country through his strategy of confrontation and erosion of democratic institutions. Beyond the individuals contending now, the citizenry has a choice of two very distinct types of government and perspectives of the future. The big question is whether the country can navigate with tranquility, certainty, and harmony toward a new stadium of development starting next October.
In the year 2000, Mexicans confronted a similar tessitura. Still, the contrast is dramatic with that moment during which the country was undergoing a species of honeymoon: a recently inaugurated National Electoral Institute (INE), an economy in healthy conditions, institutions avowing the consecration of a new era of peace and development, and candidates who conducted themselves like Statesmen. The country was plunged into a wave of optimism due to the milestone of breaking with a partisan tradition that lasted for seven decades. Today, that idyllic moment seems remote, but it is not so the opportunity to confront the voters.
In recent decades, the country has moved from a political system in which the president ruled (with the only limit of the negotiations that took place within the old political system) towards an imperfect democratic structure to which several presidents more or less adhered, to now end up in a virtually imperial presidency which is even housed in a palace. Clearly, the country did not consolidate democracy, and it is equally clear that the more distant past that the outgoing president idealized was far from paradisiacal. But it is also obvious (and any reasonable follower of the president should acknowledge) that the achievements of the now-concluding administration are rather modest. Regardless of the intended objectives, Mexico today entails more significant conflict, greater violence, and less certainty regarding the future.
Throughout the past year, the two candidates have presented themselves before the electorate; they have shown their personalities, preferences, abilities, and ideas regarding the future. In a frank break with the outgoing president, both candidates concur in the imperious need to accelerate the rhythm of the economy’s growth because both recognize that the latter is the only way to break the vicious cycles of poverty and inequality.
They disagree on how each of them would confront the ills that the country is undergoing. While the campaigns are supposed to be the time to propose new ideas and policies, the truth is that in a country so prone to jolting back and forth, to sudden changes, and to depend on a sole individual for everything -a savior or an exterminator- the campaigns only serve to allow the individuals seeking the presidency to be known and for the citizenry to decide on whom to place their wagers.
And that is the core problem: instead of being able to count on an institutional framework that guarantees the stability necessary for the functioning of everyday life, the Mexicans live in the hope of a better future, relegating the person occupying the presidential seat to the prerogative of conducting the national affairs to the best of their understanding. It is not by chance that Karl Popper’s relevant question concerning democracy should be: “How is the state to be constituted so that bad rulers can be got rid of without bloodshed, without violence?” Something like that seemed to have begun to emerge in that direction, but the current government has made it evident that this was a mere fantasy, thus rendering that option inexistent, and therein lies the inherent risk in today’s election.
Claudia Sheinbaum has laid her cards on the table when stating that two governmental projects are confronting each other in today’s election. She seasons this with more qualifiers than necessary but puts her finger right on the issue at hand: a country controlled from above with a government that imposes controls and decides based on its preferences and the interests of its acolytes or a government that dedicates itself to creating conditions for development to be possible, letting the people decide how to carry this out. The Morena candidate proposes to concentrate power, and Xóchitl Gálvez advocates for power to be dispersed. The difference is radical, and that is what the citizenry must assess.
The country’s problems are so obvious that they do not require further discussion. Still, the manner of confronting them entails vast differences and consequences. This requires a conscientious analysis and a far-reaching socialization both within the formal organs of the State (especially the Congress) and society. Labeling these two perspectives of the future (which inevitably simplifies them), the question is whether the country should advance towards sort of a Chinese model of development, obviously in the Mexican cultural context, with an economy driven by the government and a subjugated society, or a liberal schema in which legislation is worked out so that laws and regulations make possible the development of the country as well as the freedom of the citizens.
@lrubiof
Further Reading: