Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Lord Acton (1834-1902)
An anti-centralist consensus animated the drafting of the 1917 Constitution. The Mexican Revolution pushed an agenda against centralism, whose public face was the government of Porfirio Díaz. The popular tributaries of the revolution and its armed movement demanded deepening the conception of State and political power based on federalism and municipalism. Hence, the concept of the free municipality was one of the most important cornerstones of the new constitutional edifice. The municipality had the attributions of having its own treasury, an administration resulting from the popular will, tax collection capacity, and representatives that served as a chamber of popular representatives for the supervision of the head of the municipal executive in the form of a city council.
The inclusion of the concept of the free municipality, with tax and fiscal capacities, in the Constitution of 1917 distinguished it from the Constitution of 1857, where there was a significant omission in not including this municipal concept as part of the country’s governmental structure.
However, the debate between centralism and federalism also prevailed in the 1857 Constitution. In general terms, it is considered that the conservatives were inclined to a centralist government and the liberals to federalism as a model of political organization. The debate on centralism and federalism in the Constitution of 1857 was significantly influenced by the presence and role of the Catholic Church in Mexican society at that time. In fact, the discussion between a religious or secular orientation of the constitutional content profoundly impacted the final result. That Constitution concluded by ordering the necessary separation of the Church from the State in public life. The preeminence of the Church in public life practically forced a very high centralization of State power. No hint of federalism was allowed anywhere when it came to the Church and its dogma.
In general, since Mexico’s independent life, conservatism, understood as shared schemes of thought and ideas, has promoted the centralization of power in a single national government, while the currents identified with liberalism, progressivism, labor, trade unionism, and socialism have promoted federalism, or the deconcentration of central power, to give the regions, states or municipalities greater decision-making capacity on issues that concern them directly.
Although Mexico’s historical tendency has been to ideologically favor federalism, at the same time, the political system practices excessive forms of fiscal centralism and, at times, absolutist political hegemony of the national government.
All of which brings us to the present moment in Mexico’s life. The 4T presents itself as a new form of government, breaking with all previous forms and proposals. It assures that it establishes a democratic-popular regime that represents the majority of the population. At all times, it is necessary to remember that, at the federal congressional level, the 4T received 55% of the votes and the opposition 45%. This is so as not to fall into perverse and useless discussions about a non-existent overwhelming majority of the people supposedly against a tiny and starving minority that can hardly represent itself.
The model of government intended by the 4T for today’s Mexico is a replica of the centralism proposed by conservatism and the Catholic Church in the 19th Century in the face of the debate on the Constitution of 1857.
It perfectly combines the inevitable authoritarianism that accompanies dogmas of Faith that are to be imposed on the entire population, whether they want it or not, with the granting of all the powers of the State in obligatory obedience. The laws of the conservatives of that time placed all the State’s resources in the hands of the Faith to be administered according to its dogmas and dictates. Under threat of summary judgment, it was forbidden to question the dogmas and dictates of the era.
Today, there is no difference between the Church (Morena) and the State (with the control of the three Powers). The public treasury is at the Party’s service rather than the other way around, as it should be in favor of the people’s general needs. Proof of this is that the notorious lack of health services, including medicines and education, are sacrificed for the sake of giving away money to keep the people under the yoke of Party oppression. The new revolutionaries who govern in the name of the people care not for the health nor the education of the citizenry but for their definitive subordination to the centralized State and its dogmatizing axis: the Party.
Laws are tightened to imprison citizens under any pretext. The idea is that society knows that it is permanently in danger of losing its freedom if it does not obey the instructions given by the Power or the Party. The Unofficial Preventive Imprisonment is just that: a threat so that citizens are afraid of the State and the Party. The suspicions against private property are between real and threats to scare.
The next step, to put the judges at choice, is for the State and the Party to choose them at their convenience, as will the drug and human traffickers and criminals. The idea is that the Judiciary is at the service of someone or some interest, which is neither the Constitution nor the laws. Citizens and businesses will know when they go before a judge that they are not facing the laws but the political interests of some Party officials.
Militarization is another essential component of the imposing structure that intimidates and frightens a population already defenseless against the harassment of a faltering economy. A military man now turned into part of the control apparatus of the new political bureaucracy, is comfortably included in the Politburo to participate in the decisions on how to manage the well of state wealth, which is the annual budget, without, of course, the need to be accountable for what has been exercised so far.
The decomposition of the new “revolution” is already present. There are the leaders of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies in their unquestionable and permanent parade of corrupt acts in broad daylight. The absolute arrogance of power is a sign that it is rapidly approaching its maximum limit and, then, its end. In addition, it has no real leader to unite the army in power. Each one of its members goes after his own pocket of power and budgetary resources. It is piracy in all its splendor. They are happy with how they live it and, at the same time, totally unaware of the morbid spectacle they are producing.
The conservatism of the 19th Century matches like a match made in heaven with this 4t “neoconservatism” of the 21st Century. The Church-State merger of the 19th is the same as the Party-State merger of the 21st. It has similar purposes despite the nearly 200 years that separate them. The dogma-state-military-authoritarianism combination is impeccable. All attempts at authoritarian rule also stumble over the same stone: the exercise of power is transitory. And, as Lord Acton warned, everything ends in absolute corruption. And, as a corollary, it is the announcement of the end of a regime.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: