Antonio Navalón
Since medieval times, before facing battles – especially if they were decisive – it was customary to stand vigil of arms one night before the conflict. One of the most complicated exercises for the human brain is to imagine the possible scenario that will remain after the battle. Above all, many times, some factors modify the concept of victory. That is to say, there are occasions in which winning does not mean obtaining an overwhelming advantage over the opponent or that the victory achieved does not meet the objectives and preconceived ideas of the battle.
In seven days, we will have a president-elect—or less if the system and the parties involved allow it and if an efficient and effective count is carried out. If there are no setbacks and the challenges are not solid enough, by next Sunday night, we will know who will be the woman who will lead our country for the next six years (or two). This Sunday, the polls and speculations will disappear as the ballot boxes open and the votes are counted.
This is a good moment to recover from our memory what has been done in the last years and objectively judge if it was the right thing or if it would be convenient to take action to change the country’s course and fight for what we want and deserve. As it happened to Hansel and Gretel with the crumbs they were leaving on the road, if we do not know where we come from, we can hardly know where we will go.
Almost six years ago, on July 1, 2018, Andrés Manuel López Obrador – with flowers around his neck – drew in the air the sign of peace and love, opening a universal Jordan and pretending to forgive all the sins of politicians. On that day, President López Obrador opened the opportunity and doors to anyone who wanted to get on his boat and reach a safe harbor together. It was as if he was seeking to reach the Promised Land, where corruption would be a thing of the past and where justice and social balance – which he had been selling to the citizens for so long – would be the banners of his administration.
It is impressive to see and analyze the feat achieved by López Obrador in obtaining more than thirty million votes in 2018, a record that, I fear, will last for many years. The popular strength that the still Mexican president has obtained since his start on the road to the presidency is impressive. His perseverance is worthy of analysis since we are talking about a person who, since he lost his first elections in 1988 for the governorship of Tabasco, which he accused of being fraudulent, never rested. Six years later, he was again a candidate for the governorship of Tabasco and lost again; however, he kept fighting until – after having been National President of the PRD, Head of Government of Mexico City for the same party, and presidential candidate in 2006 and 2012 – finally came his third battle, the victory in 2018 when he finally managed to become President of the United Mexican States.
What is striking is the number of citizens converted into votes accompanying the president on his way, trying to establish a social democracy without impunity, without corruption, and with all the promises he was offering along the way. I do not doubt that in 2018, that was the true mission and the genuine desire that nested inside President López Obrador; hence, I consider it essential to make this recount and bring to the present how it is that dreams are built in the castles of power and what is delivered to history as a result of our passage through it.
For Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the most important thing was to end the cycle in which those from below, the poor, could come to power through him. The most important thing was the possibility of equilibrating the very uneven balance of power and social justice in our country, bringing fresh air and political and democratic regeneration to every one of the institutions of the State. We could all fit in. Everything good for the country would be saved. Everything would be done for the good of the majority. At this point in the story, everyone can include their own assessment of this administration in complete freedom.
The new president needs to realize the terms of this electoral battle. Up to this point, the differentiating element has been exclusion, not inclusion. Unlike the confrontation of six years ago, the country is divided. Today, you are either in favor of those in power or simply against them; far from seeking national unity, thinking differently is considered treason, as if you were against the democratic regeneration and reconstruction of the country.
Mexico has consolidated itself as a country without institutions, where only the goodwill of one man rules and prevails. During the last six years, the government has been in the hands of a single man, his particular vision of history, and what he wants to do at any given moment. The president to be elected will have to decide whether to continue on the path of confrontation and conflict or to explore the path of reconciliation and national unity. She must clarify whether it will be possible to exist in the country despite not being recognized as an active and positive member of her regime or whether those against it will be considered enemies of her administration, with its due consequences.
Another pending issue will be to define what she will do about the increasingly present and decisive role that the military is playing in the country’s daily life: Will she continue to increase the social debt by diverting resources and budgets from programs or institutions to attend to her personal pursuits and interests? Will she start by demanding accountability for the handouts given by President López Obrador, and will she continue to play the game of striking first before she gets hit?
She will have to define civil society’s role in the nation’s development and shaping. She will have to be very conscious and decisive in deciding whether civil society will be her ally in achieving her objectives or whether it will be treated as a public enemy because it does not share her ideology or color. One of the most critical issues will be its stance before the world: will it choose to continue on the path of international isolation and remain oblivious to everything that happens beyond its borders, or will it take advantage of the unique opportunity that presents itself on the global horizon, beyond attracting foreign investment?
What will be the starting point of the new regime or, better said, of the old regime on its second floor if it wins? From day one, it will be imperative to define the rules of the game and the playing field on which both citizens and civil society, as well as the institutions and the actors that will occupy the positions in the different governmental bodies, will stand.
History, which is always unjust and ungrateful, predicts terrible times ahead for the theoretically progressive comrades in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and other countries. Basically, it is because, as is well known, all revolutions end when stomachs are empty. Forget about freedoms. Erase from your instinct the freedom to be able to eat, the freedom to stay alive, or the freedom to even have a handful of rice with which you can resist joining the following train of history. Time and again, history has shown that no movement can resist a set of hungry stomachs, as happened to the Vietnamese under Ho Chi Minh or when Mao Zedong led China.
The greatest failure of countries is, in some cases, the lack of capacity to manage wealth, even more so when it is a country full of wealth. It does not matter if you are left-wing, right-wing, communist, capitalist, or whatever the administration in office chooses as its banner; when you have the resources – as is the case – the least you can expect is to have full stomachs and primary and social needs covered.
This is not 1917 or 1960. Martyrology is not an obligatory path to be part of the history to come. That is why, among many other things, our next leader and the administration accompanying her will have to decide whether or not our country will be part of such vital agreements as CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC. Whether we will be a Western country or a country embodied and locked in ideological vindication in the face of the possibility of life, a country that will be identified by putting into practice any confrontation, exclusion, and dialectic with no other purpose than to attack, or whether we will give a new opportunity to build a country in which we are all indispensable participants. It is well known that for a long time, the struggle for truths has cost many deaths, especially in religious and ideological matters, but, above all, it has cost the impossibility of building a common goal for the countries. It is time to join your truth with mine to develop our truth together.
Further Reading: