Luis Rubio
Three truths are indisputable: President López Obrador is unrepeatable; public finances are more vulnerable than they appear; and the election of Mexico’s next president will have of necessity to be the beginning of a great negotiation for building a new future. Whoever wins, man or woman, of whichever party, the country will find itself in a much more delicate and precarious situation than it would appear today. The mixture of structural factors and situational circumstances will evoke the imperious need to muster the will of groups, political parties, and citizens currently found on distinct sides of the fence -the real differences and those artificially driven by the present government- that today divide the population.
Other things are evident, and that do not merit greater discussion: the National Regeneration Movement (Morena Party) has launched an open process for the nomination of its candidate; the opposition is beginning to show muscle; and the electoral law turns out to be more flexible, and at the same time more complex than many supposed. Each of the three elements treads on the heels of its own rationality and will generate results that will affect the other two. What a few weeks ago appeared to be a unidirectional process inside Morena has ceased to be obvious, while the potential for a genuinely competitive race is becoming ever more real.
Despite the incentives that lead the parties of the opposition not to entertain competing for power but looking for federal monies (like the Labor Party (PT) or the Ecological Green Party of Mexico (PVEM) have always done), the reality is railroading them and forcing them to develop a competitive strategy.
Regarding the electoral legislation, there are two contrasting perspectives: on the one hand, the electoral authorities (the National Electoral Institute [INE] and the Electoral Tribunal); and on the other, the revenues that the political parties receive based on their performance in the previous election. Application of the law has resulted in being more flexible than it seemed to be: the contrast between the severity of the way the previous INE board and the volubility of the present one are evident. It is possible that the law permits that malleability, but, ironically, it is the ideological current that Morena represents -the principal source of restrictions in electoral matters from the nineties on- the one that exhibits such a flagrant willingness to violate at least the spirit of the law, now with the formal backing of INE.
On the other hand, the President is indeed correct in that there are things in that same legislation that should be changed, although not necessarily those he demands, which are incompatible with a democratic regime. The lack of opposition-party dynamism suggests that, when conditions are less contentious, a discussion should ensue on the privileges that the 1996 Electoral Reform conferred on the three main parties, which have become de facto business enterprises rather than institutions dedicated to the aggregation of citizen interests for seeking power.
In black and white, the upcoming government, wheresoever it derives from, will find the coffers empty, with a wholly distorted budget (devoted to clienteles at the cost of health, education, and public investment) and in the face of a scenario of polarization that will not cut it much slack. Its circumstances will be easier or more difficult depending on the election’s outcome: how close it was to winning and how the composition of legislative power ends up. That is where the structural problems, the situational circumstances, and the spirits of those responsible will condense. The opportunity to build a new future will be enormous.
I return to the beginning: the President is unrepeatable. Even if his preferred candidate were to triumph, no one on the national scene has AMLO’s history, presence, or skill. His personality has achieved not only dominating Mexican political life but also avoiding the daily reality that affects the citizenry, acquiring unprecedented relevance among the population. His successor will not enjoy those circumstances, thus necessitating the procurement of a method allowing for governing and for the country to find a brand new bedrock for a better future.
The public finances look good, but their fragility is immense, above all due to the disappearance of the contingency funds, which generates an outlook much more uncertain than apparent.
No one can predict what the future holds or the moment the factors will come together that facilitate or render governing difficult. That will be the moment when the great opportunity will present itself, but only if whoever wins has a vision of transcendence and development and if the rest of the political world and the citizenry prove that they can be at the height of the circumstances.
Much of what will have to be negotiated could come to a few percentage points of this or that (taxes, for example). Still, the moment will also permit establishing the foundations of a novel political arrangement that will transform a government dedicated to control into one devoted to development and well-being, and the political system to turn into an environment of respectful competition between a society that has the means to be well and truthfully informed.
Some will recall the 1977 Moncloa Pacts that engendered the Spanish democracy were about salaries and prices, but they achieved much more. Yes, it is possible.
@lrubiof
Further Reading: