Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
Tomorrow, in precisely one week, all citizens of voting age can leave their homes and go to the polls. To vote or not to vote: that is the question. Voting is the first decision we will face on June 2. How many citizens will vote that day? Will the turnout be high, medium, or low? That will be the first piece of information that will give much to comment on.
According to electoral analysts, this data will be critical for a first analysis of results, especially in an election where the electorate is apparently very polarized. There are different scenarios depending on the levels of participation. The lower the turnout, the more the results favor the government because it is the one that can force more voters to vote for its acronym. As the percentage of participation rises, the results will begin to balance, with the eventuality that a vote of 63% or more may favor the opposition.
Since the polls do not clearly make a firm figure for the eventual turnout levels and the percentage of undecided or those who prefer not to give their opinion, their results have created a credibility gap in their forecasts. Thus, there is a disparity of results among polls because some provide a 30-point advantage for the official candidate over the opposition. In contrast, others register a technical tie and even a slight advantage to the opposition. Confusion reigns and, therefore, uncertainty when talking about solid results.
Several factors deliberately feed this uncertainty. Without pretending to be an exhaustive list, the following nine aspects will, to some extent, mediate the electoral results, affecting their credibility and/or legitimacy.
First, the President of the Republic’s systematic, permanent, and illegal intervention has impacted the electoral process. He has attacked the opponents, insulting and criticizing their proposals. He has intended to turn the election into a referendum on his administration and not the election to define his successor. He said that June 2 is a “plebiscite” to his government. And it is all about him: if the child died in Tabasco, the real victim is the President. To that degree, egolatry has reached his conviction about the magnificence of his government’s “deed.” And he does not tolerate the idea that his presidential candidate could lose, not because of her, but because of him. If she fails, he is the loser, not her. She is simply a mere anecdote.
Secondly, he has turned the polls into weapons of war to build the narrative about the inevitability of his “plebiscite” victory. I can’t imagine what he has paid certain pollsters to do the dirty work for him, but they have undoubtedly succeeded. The general narrative in respectable publications is that the distance between first and second place in the polls leaves no doubt about who will win the election.
The problem is that there are a bunch of polls that say otherwise. They say the candidates are basically tied, and some even recognize the opposition with a slight advantage. On June 2, the unknown will be cleared, and some will have to explain their results credibly.
Thirdly, the massive deployment of public money and the thousands of Servidores de la Nación, now disguised as Morena militants, have created a situation of absolute inequity in the election. In the face of such an unequal contest, there is not the slightest balance among the political forces. The fiscal imbalance of the federal government has been generated by the massive investment of public funds channeled to the official party and its candidates.
The same Servants of the Nation are dedicated to creating a vote of fear by instilling in the beneficiaries of social programs the idea that they will supposedly lose their support if the opposition wins. It is State terrorism exercised towards the most vulnerable population of Mexican society to create fear and uncertainty and force them to vote for Morena.
Fourth, and most recently, the President, his candidate, and her party have propagated the crazy notion that the opposition is preparing an electoral fraud and possibly even a coup d’état. Any sane Mexican knows that frauds if they occur, come from State agencies. The opposition does not have the slightest intention or possibility of such an adventure. Then, why do they suggest such an absurd fantasy? It is part of the project to create hysteria and fear around the elections. Apparently, AMLO feels that this has not been enough to create polarization in Mexican society. Now, he wants to sow fear and terror of unimaginable things. He is the creator of terrifying fantasies.
Fifth, the activity and influence of drug trafficking has been deployed as never before in the electoral process. It intends to become a significant player at the table of the next government, with decision-making capacity. And AMLO is allowing it to do so. But, to do so, he has to show his bloodiest face possible, killing as many candidates as possible. The election is already the most violent in Mexico’s history. Meanwhile, the military is doing business.
Sixth, attacks on the media and its journalists are an easy way to tame them and force their submission to the dictates of power. The recent round of interviews between Sheinbaum and Gálvez in the program Tercer Grado could not be more eloquent about the current state of journalists’ submission to power. It is deplorable. And, more than sad, it is very worrying because of the unequal treatment given to the two candidates.
Seventh, the electoral bodies-INE and TEPJF-are in a semi-castrated condition. Perhaps not totally castrated, AMLO’s six-year campaign against them has severely dented their autonomy and effectiveness as regulatory bodies of the electoral processes. INE has in Taddei an unconditional supporter of the President. The TEPJF is poorly integrated and lacks members to make its decisions effective.
In eighth place, the Movimiento Ciudadano party appeared as a scab in the elections and was appointed for a single gesture. It will be Movimiento Ciudadano’s turn to raise the hand of victory to the official candidate, no matter what happens with the election results. That is why Movimiento Ciudadano was allowed to participate in the race. In time, this deliberate and unworthy role of its presidential candidate, Alvarez, will be seen.
Finally, the Pink Tide’s role is the missing link between the struggles of the country’s political bureaucracy and the free and non-partisan citizenry. Nothing like this has ever happened in an election in Mexico. The Pink Tide is an evident counterweight to the overwhelming presence and control of the party system over the electoral processes. It is the first time there is a citizen’s warning to the parties: without us, you are nothing! It is not yet clear what specific weight their voting bloc will represent. Still, considering their fundamentally urban origin and the fact that cities concentrate the most significant portion of voters, their electoral inclination may determine, in a fundamental way, the final result.
These nine factors will be mixed to determine the final result of the electoral process. The ruling party is betting on the abstention of important sectors of the population so that the results favor it. The opposition is betting millions of new voters will leave abstention behind and come out that day to express themselves with their vote.
Despite the complexity of all these factors, everything boils down to the essential dilemma: to vote or not to vote: that is the question.
[email protected]
@rpascoep
Further Reading: