Antonio Navalón
Being less than 1,300 days to the end of his administration, there is the possibility that López Obrador will change his dialectic.
June 6, 1944 – also known as D-Day – was the start of the countdown to the culmination of World War II, at least in Europe. The elections of June 6 of this year in Mexico and Peru have something in common: they are also the beginning of the countdown of the models that, during a certain moment, existed as a form of government in our societies. Societies fluctuated from the wildest leftist populism to the false normality of having achieved a constructive balance. This supposed balance apparently occurred between the burgeoning non-growing middle classes in each country. Countries that also had and continue to have their problems and constant unsolved issues, such as poverty, are historically linked to the Spanish-speaking part of the American continent.
In a world in which – due to the depletion of systems and the multiplication of communications – States matter less and less and in which Amazon has increasing importance, a character named Pedro Castillo arrived. With a hat, after having made a teacher strike four years ago and conquering the depths of the heart of the unassimilated system – which has never known paved roads or schools with Wi-Fi access – Castillo arrived. The winner of the Peruvian elections conquered his country in the middle of a populist, leftist, and, in a certain sense, communist scheme. Once again, astonishing Peru has witnessed a bell swing of the same dimension as the first coup led by a general named Juan Velasco Alvarado. And this bell swing was given to produce a leftist revolution precisely based on the same unsolved problems between rural Peru and urban Peru.
In Peru, it was clear that Lima lost the battle in front of the rural, just like what happened in the past when the engineer Alberto Fujimori achieved the unheard of. But above all, Fujimori was someone who managed to beat the impeccable performance of the 2010 Nobel Prize in Literature, Mario Vargas Llosa. Campaigning on top of a tractor, Fujimori spoke the language of his common people, making non-theoretical promises about how he would lead the poor, but managed to convey how he would put more chickens in the soup, which in the end is understood by itself.
Something significant happened in Mexico, which has to do with an adjustment that will affect the entire continent –whether we like it or not. Since July 1, 2018, Mexico has had a political monopoly in the hands of President López Obrador. It is not that he wanted it that way, but rather that –among the losers, the winners, the stupefied, and those who sought to understand the power in that way– there was an unwritten pact. This pact consisted of living without considering how everything might have depended on the will of a single man at the end of the day. However, that is how it happened. And as you will see, after three years, the most important thing on June 6 is that the monopoly ended in Mexico. In other words, a little over a week ago, the competition arose, and the market began. Now, the approval of the Budget – which in itself is a way of doing politics – cannot be done in an automated way. But beyond that, a crucial fact is present. Despite not having a qualified majority in the federal Congress, the current administration has the power of most state congresses, which are one fundamental piece to produce constitutional changes.
In modern times, politics and economics are a state of mind. In a world beyond statistical and numerical references – humans live and fluctuate on what our feelings dictate, it is important to highlight three realities about what has happened in Mexico. In the first place, it is necessary to highlight that the current administration lost the hegemony and dominance of Mexico City, the main axis of the administration. Second, these elections proved that President López Obrador and his fourth transformation are beatable. Third, to carry out his social program budget and impose his thinking, which means that politics is equivalent to money and money is equal to budget, the President will have to dialogue and negotiate.
Being less than 1,300 days to the end of his administration and from his particular perspective and experience, there is the possibility that the Mexican president will change his dialectic. In the alternative of uniting or confront, the Mexican president has chosen to confront. For ancient Greek philosophers, the middle classes would ideally save the cities. However, for the Mexican president, the middle classes are the enemy. Now President López Obrador will have to change the speech guided by the confrontation between one and the other for one in which everything is supported and guided by inclusion.
For the citizen who holds the presidency of Mexico, every day that passes, there is a constant reminder about the fact that in life, everything passes and everything remains, and what remains, in the end, is what is left on the road. The only thing that justifies the price anyone pays to wear the presidential sash or wear the crown is the legacy he leaves behind. In this sense, when the end has a visible deadline and expiration date, I want to assume that the exercise of thinking about what you want to leave becomes less complicated. However, the course of history continues, and the passage of time is an inevitable constant.
From this moment on, what matters is reality, and at present, it is not determined by discussing what economic or political sovereignty is in the 21st century. And it is that when you have in front of you players like Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and all the other relevant actors in the world in which we live, how can you be sovereign or enjoy full economic freedom?
Regardless of the dreams, the jargon, and the waste of time in politics, it is essential to have true interlocutors and defense mechanisms towards those who strengthen economies. Only an efficient and well-structured model will be able to figure survival. Only true change can allow the poor to go first and that the policy objective is oriented so that they actually leave their precarious condition, not to condemn them under an eternal promise.
Political conditions, at least in Mexico and Peru, have changed. And they changed dramatically, as this is the start of the countdown. In one of the cases, what happened represents the constitutional end of the presidency. In the other, this is the end of the reverie and the coexistence between the failures – always permanent – of trying to stop the poor from being so poor and for the rich to stop being so rich. Deep down, another element that both elections share is the enormous failure of social justice. A social justice represented under different faces and that rides like a ghost through the American prairies.
In Peru, Pedro Castillo demonstrated that the leaderships known and inherited from the 20th century, and that had survived at this beginning of the 21st century, have stopped serving, are finished. What happened is proof that, suddenly, everything became old. In the case of Mexico, the true and fundamental task is to rebuild the world of leadership. The past elections are a first step in rebuilding the mechanics, regulations, and legitimacy of political parties. However, there is still a huge desert of faces that have the possibility of resurfacing. And in the end, the enormous question remains, which is that, when the day zero of the end of this mandate arrives, who or what will follow?
In this countdown, the good news also counts. And two good news that can be rescued from the electoral elections that we have just experienced is the behavior that society had in the elections and, fortunately, the survival of the National Electoral Institute. Despite the terrible attacks that this institution suffered, it is worth recognizing what it has become, an exemplary institution from the point of view of guaranteeing electoral fairness and justice.
In recent days, many other things have also happened, such as the fact of what was said or what was omitted in the agreements made between Vice President Kamala Harris and President López Obrador, and that only the translators know. On this, I am sure that there were no hidden messages or warnings, since it was neither the time nor Harris was the right person to do them.
Another thing about which I am sure is something that, no matter how it looks, is a momentous event and has an impact on everything and everyone: Mexico is no longer a failed state. For many analysts who dedicate themselves to follow with the finger from Chiapas to the Sea of Cortez, Mexico is already a narco-state. Their justification? That there are many Mexican states in which drug traffickers have no influence, they have power. If this is so, the concern for those in the north – which is where the results of drug trafficking are directed – is no longer the entry of fentanyl, cocaine, or heroin, but that tomorrow substances or weapons with greater capacity for destruction may enter. The electoral results in the Pacific are an unprecedented qualitative geostrategic change. It is one thing to buy, kill and influence, and quite another thing to win the elections.
In any case, more than 200 thousand years after the start of this festival called humanity, change has been the only constant. With the passing of history, everything has changed, everything except human beings. Now, the countdown starts. For example, a countdown in the case of Mexico has as its main reference the figure of a man. A leader who will have to choose between saying goodbye to history with a kind and constructive memory, with a tearful cry about the fact that injustices are irreparable, or with having laid the foundations for a better future.
On June 6, it was once again demonstrated that there are those who – as the old politicians used to say – never wanted to be statesmen. But the most worrying thing about the situation is that these characters are not worried about the next generations; they are worried about the next elections. However, we all have the right to receive the best from those who govern, in addition to the undeniable right that those who lead us be the best of all. In this sense, I hope that the bet will be on the new generation from here on and not on the next election.
