Antonio Navalón
Unfortunately, fighting with reality only leads to total destruction. Indeed, Mexico has a problem with the media owners. Our country also probably has a problem with its political class. In summary, it could be said that Mexico has many problems, although there is one that is superior to the others, and there is no room for debate about it: the problem of insecurity. Violence has surpassed reality, and the levels of insecurity are at critical and worrying levels. It is not only that, at any moment, we could become part of the statistics and become one more victim of high homicide rates, forced disappearance, or any representation of violence. The most worrisome aspect of the current situation is that – as we go deeper into the electoral process – it seems that we are becoming accustomed to living surrounded by attacks against political aspirants of any color or party. I am not saying that the death of politicians is worth more than our own, but I am trying to highlight the panorama and context under which the supreme act of democracy, which is going to vote, will take place.
What was President López Obrador referring to when he said the Judiciary plotted a technical coup d’état? Probably, with this type of behavior and declarations, what he is looking for – as an act of foresight and self-protection – is to avoid a situation similar to the one that happened in 2006 and simply, in case it is not favorable to him, to disregard the electoral results. I am sure that there is no conceptual evil behind the political attacks – which, by the way, so far, the count amounts to 50 murders related to the upcoming elections, surpassing the 43 homicides of the 2018 elections – although the situation deserves special and thorough analysis.
If by the time June 2 arrives, we can still think and freely go to the polls to vote, tell me what prevents us from thinking or assuming that what we are witnessing is not an accumulation of circumstances that happen to focus on political candidates, but that the desire to impregnate the electoral process with death makes the results so much in doubt that there are even people who simply do not show up to the electoral appointment? Stealing a table, a ballot, a number or thousands of them is one thing. Vote by vote, freedom is won or lost. Although if the scenario starts with the assumption that it is enough to run for elected office to put your safety at risk, how can we live with the certainty that when on June 2, citizens go to vote, we will not be swept away by a machine gun?
The last plot that Mexico recorded in its political life was when, in 1913, the then Mexican president Francisco Madero – together with his brother Gustavo and his vice-president Jose Maria Pino Suarez – was assassinated during the period known as the Tragic Decade, culminating the last coup d’état ever seen in our country. Victoriano Huerta – who later became the president of Mexico – and the then U.S. ambassador, Henry Lane Wilson, were involved in the event. Contrary to what it may seem, considering the various conspiracies and Machiavellian political moves, Mexico does not have much experience in traditional coups d’état. The fact is that if we go to what formally and strictly refers to the perpetration of a coup d’état, it should have been the army that mainly carried out the uprising and took control of the country, contrary to what happened in 1913, which could be considered more as a conspiratorial act than a coup d’état per se. It was more of a coup based on cannon shots – alluding to Alvaro Obregón’s famous phrase that “nobody can withstand a cannon shot of fifty thousand pesos” – than one in which the army sought to impose its sense of order and power in the country. How could we consider the cannon shots that have taken place during the Fourth Transformation? If we were to point out and mention the census of the new millionaires in Mexico, how many of them would be military or involved with the military sector?
I do not believe that our country has an express agreement with the cartels. However, there are realities in life that become implicit agreements. The cartels may also understand and realize that their balance could be at risk, that they could stop giving hugs and limit themselves only to letting loose bullets and, in defense of their interests – which are neither sacred nor legal – they are taking it upon themselves to lighten the payroll and make the electoral process possible.
We run risks. Risks are always taken. When a president alludes to the possibility of perpetrating a technical coup d’état without explaining what it would consist of, it becomes inevitable to add insecurity as the main problem of the country and the idea that it will be announced that there will be no elections. I confess that what I am saying is my speculation. However, I admit that inevitably, in the checkerboard we are building – having insecurity as an immovable factor – in my head, it is foreseen that there is still the possibility that more political candidates could be eliminated.
The people of Mexico demand and require that the president explain what he is referring to or intends when he mentions the possibility that we may witness a technical coup d’état. But, in addition, we want to know if, deep down, this is not a damned strategy to justify that the objectives and desires set out to ensure the continuity of his movement were not achieved. When in any South American, European country, or almost any other region in the world, a technical coup d’état is referred to, it is inevitable to think that it will consolidate an interruption of the constitutional and democratic normality. However, in Mexico, it is not the same case, mainly because in the absence of our memory of the historical experience, we convince ourselves that something like this is impossible in our country. However, in Mexico, everything is always possible.
How is it possible that we have reached such a point of destruction and collective blindness that, instead of celebrating the achievements of an administration, bets and predictions are being made on how much we will surpass or not the more than two hundred thousand homicides committed in this six-year term? It is necessary to look at what it means and represents that in a city as significant as Celaya is – or was – that one of its aspiring mayors is assassinated without any problem, but, above all, with the full guarantee that any assassin in Mexico enjoys that he can kill anyone and will not be prosecuted. Really, what will we be voting for next June 2? Who will propose to us, with credibility and reliability, a solution so that killing us stops being the norm? But, even more terrifying than that, who will guarantee that whoever wants to kill us will stop thinking that they have all the protection or inaction of the State?
If you want, you can use these arguments to the benefit of your inventory; however, what is a fact is that there are questions that demand answers. I want to know what technical coup d’état the president is afraid of. And I also want to know, when will the time come when the State and its inability to act will stop protecting our murderers?
Further Reading: