Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
No matter how much a ruler may announce his unlimited longevity in power, in reality, none can ensure anything. None is forever. Political processes take time to consolidate, flourish and then disappear. From the Chinese dynasties to the Roman Empire and through the proclaimed “thousand years” of the Third Reich in Germany, politicians feast on announcing their eternal permanence in power, only to have to give way to the inevitable: their disappearance.
Latin America is not far behind in its trove of rulers who have sought to “eternalize” themselves in power. The Cuban example is priceless. There are the autocratic examples of Somoza, Pinochet, and Stroessner prolonging their stays in control with a shameless use of repressive power. More recently, it is customary in the region to hold “constitutional referendums” to extend a ruler’s stay in power. Some cases combine the “new law” with military force, such as Hugo Chavez-Maduro in Venezuela, Evo Morales-Luis Arce in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and Correa in Ecuador. The Bolivarian feast is in full swing.
Mexico is not left behind in its list of rulers who sought to prolong their stay in power. There are the examples of Porfirio Diaz, Plutarco Elias Calles through the so-called “maximato” and then the PRI, through the figure of the six-year transfer of power among themselves, albeit with a different face. As individuals or as a political institute, prolonging the stay in power carries the same seal of guarantee that threatens numerous abuses, vexations, corruptness, and heresies.
When President López Obrador proposed the reform to the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States to consecrate the figure of the “revocation of mandate,” he was thinking of an instrument to be able to justify the prolongation of his stay in power. AMLO was influenced by Hugo Chávez, who carried out a recall referendum at the beginning of his presidency in Venezuela, in which almost 70% of the electorate participated. Chavez, at the peak of his popularity, overwhelmingly won that election. Now we may think that the novelty of the instrument contributed to his success. In any case, the next step taken by Chavez after his victory in the recall vote was to change the Venezuelan Constitution to allow his indefinite reelection.
When AMLO proposed the recall vote in his first months in office, he thought that by 2022 he would sweep the recall election and, thus, open the option for his reelection. But, contrary to his expectations and assumptions, by 2022, his government had shipwrecked with an accumulation of severe management errors, ineffectiveness by his non-existent cabinet team, cornered by corruption, and the perception, of his people that his days in office were numbered. And therefore, they behave like pirates boarding a ship full of gold.
The day of the recall vote arrived, resulting in disaster for the reelectionist intentions. Unlike Chavez, not even 20% of possible voters voted, and the result for Lopez Obrador was to demonstrate the weakness and setback in his electoral appeal. The opposition openly called for a boycott of the election. It could boast that more than 80% of the electoral roll preferred not to vote for him due to political decisions, apathy, or other reasons. With this result, it became clear that there would be no reelection and that López Obrador’s government would not last beyond September 30, 2024. The President’s desire for reelection was bitterly buried.
But the President, smug and forward-looking, refuses to acknowledge reality. Surrounded by an obscuring cloud of “other data”, he considers that the country is doing wonderfully well. He cannot assimilate that he has placed Mexico on a collision course with the country’s need for peace, stability, and economic growth. Instead, he prefers to continue setting more fires and provoking more conflicts.
His economic strategy of dedicating all of the country’s budgetary resources to his pharaonic works (Dos Bocas, Tren Maya, AIFA, gasoline subsidies, and social programs) is placing the government in a situation of severe stress and, possibly, technical bankruptcy. Hence, its Secretary of Finance and Public Credit, Rogelio Ramírez de la O, prefers to resign in September instead of going to the Congress of the Union to defend a budget for 2023 that he considers unfeasible and against the country’s interests.
The economic problem does not only lie in the question of the wrong budgetary priorities. Apparently, the President is also determined to face the possibility of extracting Mexico from the USMCA because of the economy’s energy sector. He thinks that sovereignty is defined by the government’s control over the generation of electricity and the sole and indivisible management of oil, so he intends to invest all public budgetary resources in saving two inefficient companies, over-indebted and mired in corruption. Ahh, the President would say, but it is our corruption! Sovereignty is safe!
And this is at the cost of destroying the country’s health and education systems, abandoning the environment and nature, and sacrificing generations of Mexicans for a policy of negligence in the face of the advance of organized crime. He must think that even if violence advances, national sovereignty will also advance.
Along with the economic decomposition, political decomposition is advancing, inside and outside its own ranks. The war of the presidential pre-candidates in Morena is overflowing. As happens in all struggles between political mafias, the fight for power and control of the budget is a priority. They will kill to control the budget and hold political power. It is not just any conflict; it is not an Olympic competition. For them, it is life or death, freedom or jail. This is the size of the confrontation.
The internal election in Morena to define which of the pre-candidates will control the internal process of selection of the finalist in the presidential candidacy competition takes place this weekend and the following one. The accusations of dishonesty and illegality between the teams of the presidential contenders have reached the point that they could cease to be opponents in good standing to become frontal enemies, with threats of imprisonment in between. I am referring, for example, to the case of how Sheinbaum’s political team is shoring up the accusation of homicide against members of Ebrard’s team for Subway Line 12, accusing them of being responsible for 26 deaths in last year’s accident. In this case, those responsible for death are threatened with jail. That accusation could be escalated to Mario Delgado, National President of Morena, and Marcel Ebrard, Secretary of Foreign Affairs. The competition does not sound very friendly, to say the least.
This internal discord, both in the government and in the official party, together with the loss of social consensus, indicates that the process of decomposition and disappearance of the movement initiated by López Obrador has not only begun but is accelerating. Will it even reach the end of the natural cycle of this six-year term? The coin is in the air.
[email protected]
@rpascoep