Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
Claudia Sheinbaum’s presidential campaign kick-off event in the Zócalo was, in reality, a bow to Andrés Manuel López Obrador. And it was also an act of submission of the candidate to the real leader of the movement. And a maneuver to avoid talking about her true intentions.
The candidate said that it was necessary to decide between transformation or regression. Including her slip of the unconscious when, instead of saying, “Continue with the transformation,” she said, “Continue with corruption.” Freud theorized about lapses, saying that they are an essential part of psychological analysis because they unveil what the patient really wants to say but dares not say or is unable to recognize his true feelings.
The one hundred points she exposes is almost a copy-paste of what López Obrador has been doing. More trains, Pemex, CFE, highways, social subsidies, revocation of mandate, non-reelection of legislators and mayors, the plan against INE, and austerity understood as the elimination of constitutional bodies.
She did not say anything about three controversial issues: the reform to the Judiciary, which is in the President’s proposed reform package. She did not mention, not by any stretch of the imagination, how she would face the challenge of violence and drug cartels. Nor did she talk about Mexico’s relationship with the world.
Three elephants were in the room, and the candidate did not want to define herself on crucial issues for the country’s future. But the fact that she did not touch those issues is also a recovery of Lopez Obrador’s governing style. That is to say, never disclose in the campaign what she really intends to do, once in power.
López Obrador’s examples abound. During his campaign to win the Mexico City governorship, he never said he was going to provoke an urban reorganization as he did with Bando Dos, which profoundly modified the urban development of the city, increasing the value of the land and provoking the emigration of millions of poor people from the city. He created the Real Estate Cartel. But he never said so in his campaign.
Likewise, during his presidential campaign, he spoke of peace and love among all and of returning the Armed Forces to their barracks. He never spoke of removing the leashes from the Armed Forces to be their controlling dog of the population and much less of governing from polarization and hatred. But that is how it has been.
The most important thing to observe is how the similarity between AMLO and Sheinbaum lies in what they do NOT say in their campaigns and not what they offer. Offering in campaigning is a feast of good wishes. It is a game of guessing what people want to hear and saying it. There is no room for lapses. The promises of the earthly paradise fit into 100 proposals. There are some crumbs for everyone, of course.
But, once again, what is important are the issues they do not touch. In the case of Sheinbaum’s speech in the Zócalo, she did not mention the Judiciary, drug trafficking, or foreign relations.
Sheinbaum’s advisor on Judicial Branch issues, Arturo Zaldívar, has defended the popular election of judges and ministers. That’s how he is; one day, he says it, and the next day, he insinuates another position, but he is unclear. That is why he is a paid man. But the valuable thing about having a guy like Zaldívar in her team is to allow the candidate to evade the issue and not seek to define herself in the campaign. She will do so after she wins the presidential scepter if she wins. And her policies will respond to the wishes of the former President.
Xóchitl has defended, in the Senate and her campaign, the strict and absolute independence of the country’s judges and magistrates against the President’s interventionism. And, in general, the independence with an equal hierarchy among the three Powers of the Union.
On drug trafficking, insecurity, and violence, her silence resounded throughout the entire Zócalo. Of course, it echoed in the ears of those who stayed there because thousands took the many or few pesos they were given for attending and going for a walk in the center of the capital.
This was the biggest mistake of the speech: to say absolutely nothing about the black cloud of violence that overshadows the lives of the vast majority of Mexicans. If AMLO says there is no problem with violence, who is a candidate to contradict him? She does not dare. And what does it mean that the candidate, in her campaign kick-off, is not capable of saying anything about the issue? It means that if she wins, she will pull a surprise out of her hat. But we are neither for surprises nor for jokes on the subject of violence (primarily against women and girls, but not only), drug trafficking, pacts with crime, and the Armed Forces. I am talking about the fact that her proposal is “peace”. Saying that is equivalent to saying nothing.
The discredit of the Mexican Armed Forces (the Mexican Army and the Mexican Navy) grows day by day. Are they soldiers, workers, engineers, business people, hoteliers, or what are they? No matter how many dramatic announcements are in the media, the elements feel more and more used every day for the avaricious purposes of the political interests of the Commander in Chief.
The healthy and helpful thing for the country would be to say how she intends to address the issue of violence that plagues the country. Xochitl already took the first step before a fearful but determined public in Fresnillo, Zacatecas, in the first minute of her campaign. She proposed to withdraw the military from construction work so that they could dedicate their time to their constitutional function, expand the National Guard under civilian command, strengthen state and municipal police in equipment and salaries, and build new high-security prisons, ending the policy of “hugs, not bullets”.
Xóchitl went straight to the problem that most afflicts and hurts Mexicans. Sheinbaum completely avoided the issue.
Regarding foreign policy, it is imperative to define which side Mexico is on: with the democracies or the autocracies of the world. The problem is not a minor one. It has both internal and external implications. Internally, for example, Mexico expels the DEA from the national territory while it allows dozens of elements of the Russian intelligence services to operate without restrictions in our country. Is that Sheinbaum’s foreign policy?
Xóchitl traveled to the United States and met with universities, think tanks, unions, social leaders, members of the State Department, the OAS, investors, and members of the American press. She outlined her proposals for improving bilateral relations and ensuring frank and lasting communication between the countries. She re-established communication and fraternity with Spain and visited the Pope.
Sheinbaum cannot do the same, especially when her leader refuses to meet with the Presidents of the United States and Canada, accusing them of being “interventionist” in the internal electoral process. AMLO forgets that he has been Trump’s number-one cheerleader. But, well, he forgets things when he gets angry with others.
The greatest danger emanating from Sheinbaum’s speech comes from the things she did NOT say, not from her 100 points, which are a disguise so that no one notices what is essential. But the important stuff is unforgettable, present, and threatening. By not making explicit the policies she is actually planning to implement, Sheinbaum becomes a danger to Mexico.
[email protected]
@rpascoep
Further Reading: