In a time where “blast from the past” has become the perfect catchphrase to describe the national spirit – at least on behalf the large amount of soccer fans in Mexico – a resurgence of loathing towards soccer club América has become a way of going against the system without really doing so. On the other hand, América club’s supporters can have a sigh of relief since past stigmas associating the company that owns the club with a total control over Mexican soccer industry have almost disappeared. This is due to a diversification – not democratization – of power behind the profitable industry, not just in financial terms, but also in a social influence in large sectors of the population. A similar thing has occurred with our political system. Nowadays we can no longer talk about an hegemonic party that overwhelms its opponents. For worse, instead of better, political parties have shared the “power cake” among a larger number of participants (not in the same proportion, by all means), but this isn’t necessarily beneficial when building a democratic regime.
1- The productivity´s “democracy”. On May 27th, President Peña inaugurated the National Committee of Productivity, which would be focused in extending benefits of a higher productivity towards all economic agents. The President announced that education and labor reforms would be highlights of this project. However, some critics are pointing out that legal modifications such as the homologation of formulas when calculating income tax (ISR) with social security contributions have left workers defenseless against employers. At the same time, there are some individuals who argue that the expansion of credit established in the financial reform could be a deathtrap instead of an advantage for people with lower incomes. After all, will the employees be the real beneficiaries of this “productivity’s democracy” rather than the employers?
2- Legislators with a cause or infatuated politicians. The appointment of José Luis Preciado as the Coordinator of PAN Senators continues to provoke major disagreements within that party. On Monday, his dismissed predecessor, Ernesto Cordero, presented, along with other PAN and PRD Senators, a “critical path” towards a political reform, which would be designed outside the Ruling Council of the Pact for Mexico. At the same time, Cordero didn’t hesitate to mention that Senator Preciado was not notified of his decision of launching this proposal. Without a doubt, every Legislator has the Constitutional faculty to launch an initiative on his own. However, according to the Organic Law of Congress, the coordinator is the one who expresses the will of his respective parliamentary group. How will PAN deal with this dilemma? What would be the consequences of an eventual rebelliousness of a majority of PAN Senators against their former leader?
3- The “appearances” of the disappeared. On Monday, the Attorney General Murillo Karam announced the creation of the Research Unit for Missing Persons, in an effort to eliminate the bureaucratic labyrinth that affected families go through when trying to deal with authorities. A few days earlier, Secretary Osorio Chong claimed that a large majority of the approximately 26 thousand cases of persons reported as missing and recognized as such by the Calderón administration should no longer hold that status. The logic behind the public server’s reasoning is that many individuals only migrated from their homes or have already been found, but haven’t “withdrawn” from the disappeared list. Osorio claimed to be working alongside state and local governments to “correct” that number. Will the government clearly reveal what happened in each of these 26 thousand cases? How many of these “willing migrants” are actually displaced individuals by violence? How many disappeared individuals will turn out to have been executed?
4- Shared mistakes in Mexican “democracy”. On May 25th, Andrés Manuel López Obrador claimed that an eventual Presidential victory for the Mexican left is too complicated since “the dice are loaded”. This affirmation was complemented a day later from the other side of the political spectrum, when PAN leader, Gustavo Madero, while presenting another series of complaints against PRI for alleged electoral crimes, claimed that PRI still wants to win “the bad way”. It is true that both sides of the institutional opposition to PRI have already been in government positions on many occasions and have too manipulated on their favor all political means available. This does not take away the historical struggle of several persons in support of Mexico’s democratization. However, will the “opposition” turn out to have lost legitimacy in an effort to eliminate all harmful practices for a truly democratic electoral system?
The end of the “honeymoon” between federal government and international press? On a New York Times article published on May 24th, its correspondent in Mexico, Randal C. Archibold, described how Interior Secretary, Osorio Chong, showed discomfort when asked by foreign journalists whether the government was more focused in controlling its messages instead of saying the truth about figures regarding crime rates. Several international media have expressed their surprise since the government is not willing to formalize its numbers on violence in Mexico, always claiming that they only have preliminary reports or general figures not necessarily linked with crime organizations. Is the media control fading away, not only in Mexico, but is the government’s credibility on security issues also beginning to quickly vanish in the eyes of international media?
Antonio De la Cuesta
Comments