On September 2nd, President Peña gave a speech in which he recapped all the initiatives and progress made during the first nine months of his administration. Even though it certainly is a short time to demand the eradication of Mexico’s structural problems, one might question him if there has actually been a change of path in the country. In this opportunity we take a brief look into three key sectors: security, education and economy.
According to President Peña, his primary goal was to achieve peace in Mexico through new public policies in justice and security, whose achievements – among others – are the capture of 65 of 122 most wanted criminals, as well as a 13.7% decrease in the murder rate. However, beyond the fact that the murder figure is questionable due to the lack of transparency regarding the methodology used, the President not only mentioned the existence (or absence) of government control on high-risk zones. It’s not only about the recent events that took place in Michoacán and Guerrero between drug lords and self-defense groups, but also states whose calm remains at doubt such as Tamaulipas and Chihuahua. He also didn’t mention how he plans to avoid the famous “cockroach effect”, which happens every time one zone is shielded while at the same time another is neglected. Neither did he say anything about how the seat of federal powers is becoming increasingly vulnerable, not so much by organized crime but by social protests expected by his reform policies. By encompassing all of the aforementioned, the inevitable question is: has really Peña “broken the inertia” linked to his predecessor or has it just been a change in media rhetoric that aims to alleviate the society’s insecurity perception without actually changing its strategy?
Regarding his goal of constructing a country with quality education, Peña argued that he will achieve that purpose with the education reform and the new Law of Professional Service. That way, Mexican boys and youngsters will get the necessary tools to access better opportunities once they start their work lives. But how is this possible if the proposed modification doesn’t take other demons of the education system into account, such as higher education? Are controls being considered in order to not let the assessing system become a new window for corruption? How is a national evaluation pretended to come into force if each state will issue its own? Where is the discussion regarding a change in the education model? Why is a more efficient expenditure in education not even mentioned? If, at the end of the day, the education reform intends to create changes by just modifying the dynamics of the distribution pyramid of education budget, while perpetuating corruption, its outcome might not be flattering at all.
Meanwhile, Peña promises high, sustained and sustainable growth, as well as “democratizing productivity” (whatever that means), for which energy and tax reforms are key elements. Let us analyze step by step. Firstly, the energy reform proposal, though led in the right direction, depends not only of the Constitutional reform (which is the content that is currently on hands of the Legislative Power) but of everything that might be presented within the secondary legislation and, quite oddly, in the ulterior process of instrumentation, a major issue for Pemex. One should concede the benefit of doubt and wait, if the Constitutional reform takes place, for the content of secondary legislation. Secondly, it is not adventurous task to believe like, as other reforms, pressure might wreak havoc within decision-making of fiscal issues and aggressive measures are not taken against informality and tax evasion. This implies the risk of the everlasting formula of placing burden on the captive taxpayer. However, this case will have to wait a few days too – until September 8th, to be exact – when the proposal of the 2014 Economic Pack is known and therefore, its details are analyzed. As of now, Mexico growth expectations for 2013 are in free fall.
The structural problems of Mexico are many and cannot be solved in nine months. True. The trick is not confusing phrases. “Undertaking fundamental changes as to not be carried away by inertia (the latter being assumed as something harmful, of course)” is not the same as “by inertia, pretending to undertake fundamental change”. Be as it may, the Presidential commitment of changing the course of the country in 120 days is quite a daring task.
CIDAC
Comments