Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
Uncertainty has taken possession of the electoral process and its possible outcomes.
Many factors, some noisy and others more intangible, are interacting to generate new tones of confusion and bewilderment in citizens’ evaluations of the development of the electoral process, of the contenders, and of the degree of credibility of their proposals and their persons.
There are growing doubts about the credibility of different actors involved. There are many doubts about the purpose of illegal presidential interventionism in the public debate, the usefulness of the parties, and the role of civil society organizations.
There are also fears about what it means for the life and property of citizens, the violence that threatens both peace and the credibility of the results due to the intervention of organized crime, added to the noise of the international environment and the conflicts in which our country is involved.
These factors, taken separately and together, are having a profound impact on the social mood of voters. They are leading to an uncommon phenomenon in electoral processes. Instead of decreasing the number of undecided voters, they are growing.
The normal thing in an electoral process is that, as the election date approaches, more potential voters tend to start defining themselves with certainty for their option or preference on the ballot. In 2018, it was estimated that 18% of voters made their decision on who to vote for by the time they got to the ballot box.
Today, the undecided (including those who declare themselves undecided and those who refuse to answer the pollster’s questions, i.e., the hidden vote) represent almost 50% of the likely electorate three weeks before the election.
What these trends mean, in political terms, is that as the political debate and the polarization promoted by the President of the Republic intensify, fewer and fewer voters are sure of which candidate they will vote for. Instead of the campaigns clarifying positions and alternatives for the country’s future, they are clouding the environment of options and awakening a reluctance to define the vote in an increasingly larger swath of citizens.
This growing trend of undecided voters goes against the logic of a traditional election anywhere in the world. But it is also further proof that there is nothing normal about Mexico’s 2024 election. It is part of the list of electoral processes where a very important part of the electorate considers that it is important to hide its electoral preference, considers that it is not convenient to express its opinion openly due to the conditions in which it operates, or, feeling pressured, chooses to lie.
The government exerts enormous pressure on the beneficiaries of social programs to vote for Morena. The servants of the Nation, now reconverted into Morena militants, threaten, blackmail, and demand that this population vote for Morena. These Morenistas are the “Big Brother” of George Orwell’s novel 1984. On election day, they will watch, as if they were conscience police, that all of them vote for Morena, under penalty of losing their scholarship, support, or whatever if they do not do as ordered. They are the slavers of the 21st Century who can dictate the death sentence to those who do not obey their orders. Whip in hand, they watch over their flock of lambs to be led to a supposed “democratic feast”.
This control over the beneficiaries of social programs is tyrannical. And it generates an unreliable response from the beneficiaries themselves. Who likes to be enslaved in this despotic way? It is one thing to receive support, which is legal, and quite another to be threatened with losing it if one does not vote as the government instructs. The traditional form of passive resistance to these political pressures is arms down. It is not to vote. This resistance was clearly seen in the low turnout at the polls for the recall vote in 2022. There, the contest was AMLO against AMLO, and AMLO lost. The numbers resulting from that constitutional exercise were meager, with no opposing competition. It was his free field to reach 40% of the electoral roll, but not even 20% was reached—an unforgettable defeat.
The experience of the recall vote is an objective demonstration that it is almost impossible to project a reliable number of votes from the beneficiaries of programs.
The furious tone of the President is another factor that pushes part of the electorate to indecision. Indeed, he thinks that his offenses help voters decide for him or his candidate. But the actual data says otherwise. Every day, the President is less relevant in voting decisions. He is relevant to his fans but not to the electorate at large. Voters look closely at his candidate, and frankly, she is not convincing. She is weak in presence, speech, and tone. There is no clear match between the President and the candidate.
The President may polarize, but the candidate has no justification for it. So her campaign looks like a pantomime, trying to project something she does not legitimately represent. It is grotesque. The President shouts, offends, and humiliates. She does the same, and it looks like the theater of the absurd—or simply absurd.
With this pantomime, they managed to alienate voters and arouse suspicions. What will be the tone of the next government: fanaticism or tolerance? Doubt is firmly sown and has the effect of turning voters into undecided.
The political class, in general, is showing signs of generational and intellectual exhaustion. No party is spared from this characterization. Politicians without new ideas are leading all the parties in the race. The citizenry is aware of this fact. It is inescapable. The debate between contenders is often based on old-school premises, between PEMEX and sovereignty. Between the State as savior and the State as regulator. Handing out money to the poor without solutions to poverty. Health and education in the dustbin of history. Sovereigntists versus globalists. And all were accused of corruption. These discussions have been ongoing for decades and have not received lucid and forceful answers. There is only rhetoric and deafness.
Given this, the number of undecided is growing, partly out of boredom and desperation.
Three weeks before the elections, society despairs its political leaders with their struggles, hatreds, and accusations. And many voters are moving towards indecision.
The danger is encouraging abstention because what is needed is more, not less, participation at the polls.
Civil society has a great responsibility to resist the uncertainty that looms over the electoral process. It has to be the adult in the house. It has to set clear priorities and not let up on its route to achieve significant citizenry participation in complete freedom. Neither the presidential anger, nor the slavery of the 21st Century, nor the insular dialogue of the candidacies should stop promoting electoral participation of 70% to listen to the authentic and forceful voice of Mexico, of its majorities and minorities, to come out of the electoral process with a new Mexico. With a new hope of a plural Mexican society, tolerant and on the way to a meeting with itself in the future.
[email protected]
@rpascoep
Further Reading: