In the first week of April the results of a survey published in Mexican newspaper Reforma regarding the approval ratings of President Peña Nieto attracted controversy due to a notable discrepancy between the opinions of whom the journal labeled as “leaders” – supposedly reflecting some of the country`s intellectuals (known as the “red circle”) – and the “citizens” – general population (known as “green circle” in Vicente Fox´s language). According to the study, 78% of the “leaders” approved Peña’s current administration. On the contrary, only 50% of “citizens” gave the President a positive rating, a number lower than their predecessors on their first days as Heads of State (Calderón had a 57% approval rating, while Fox reached as much as 70%). What could explain these (apparent) differences between the public interviewed by Reforma? Some of the factors that could lead us to an answer are discussed below.
The high approval coming from intellectuals is not surprising when several points are considered. For instance, this government has successfully laid a reform agenda that specialists consider crucial to enhance the country’s development; it has taken notable actions in order to restore the image of an effective administration; and lastly, it has consolidated control over public discussion (removing some issues from it altogether). On the other hand, deciphering the general population’s voice and why, after four months in charge, are the government’s approval ratings so low is a harder task.
It could be argued that Reforma’s results are not fully in line with similar surveys carried out more or less at the same time. If the five available surveys on the matter (Buendía y Laredo, Parametría, Mitofsky, GEA-ISA and Reforma) are compared, it is the latter who has the lowest approval ratings recorded. However, beyond their differences, as can be seen in the graph below, in the best case scenario (the Parametría survey, plus its respective error margin represented with the yellow line), Peña Nieto’s approval wouldn’t go over 62.5%.
There are two elements that could be helpful in explaining why the government hasn’t the same perception between intellectuals and the general public: 1) messages about reforms and their consequential promises or projections have not yet impacted everyday citizen’s lives; and 2) there is a general sense of distrust on the government’s line of communication – specially official publicity, whose effectivity should be re-evaluated. Another fact that cannot be overseen is deception of citizens about the government’s actions. It is not a trivial matter that only 52% of the people surveyed by Reforma support the Pact for Mexico. Neither is irrelevant that language used by the government has struck a note with the more educated sector instead of the general population. There is no doubt that Mexico is going through a process that is exactly opposed to the one that ocurred in the 90s.
So, just how much should the government worry about this survey? So far, communication strategy appears to focus on winning back the high degree of trust and approval of entrepeneurs and opinion makers, both in Mexico and abroad to, among other things, restore the image of the country as an attractive source of investment. Nevertheless, if the general population remains with the low rating approvals, this discourse could appear to lack congruence. Even if PRI managed to get convincing victories – as envisioned – in most of the local elections to be held in July this year in about half of Mexican states, it could not necessarily mean an increase in the government’s rating approvals – although, its correct management could translate in a revivalisation for Peña. The truth is that the only certain and sustainable to gain the general population’s approval is to positively transfrom their reality. Currently, what have changed are the perceptions, not the reality: previously, perceptions were negative, today they are positive, however the reality is still the same. That will be the ultimate measure of the current government’s results.
CIDAC
Comments