The constant accusations of Gustavo Madero, PAN leader, about the clientelist use of public resources by PRI, do not show shed any new light on Mexican politics. The same could be said about the everlasting complaints of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, regarding the “loaded dice” within the electoral system. It’s as if we travelled back in time several years, where opposition bitterly whined about the then-hegemonic party for “foul play” in each and every election held in the country. Nevertheless, there is a substantial difference from those years of PRI authoritarianism: the opposing parties were, are and will continue to be part of governments. Unfortunately for Mexican democracy, this did not translate in a substantial shift in patronage and corporate practices whenever a party wanted to gain advantage over its rivals “the bad way” by using resources once they’d reached power. Consequently, the victimization speech used by the opposition may have some solid foundations but its impact and legitimacy are quite withered.
In the start of local elections throughout 14 states in the country, the corruption phenomenon regarding the use of public resources is once again a relevant matter. Within the last two decades, Mexico has created and patched up numerous laws, with the alleged purpose of fighting the practice: from reforming the 41st Constitutional article (where the general election rules in Mexico are established), to the COFIPE legislation, the misnamed IFE citizenship, the creation of an audit-specialized unit, a prosecutor’s office expert on election crimes, an electoral court and the latest, the addendum to the Pact for Mexico. The point is that the problem not only exists but it has now been “democratized”. Every political party has done the same scams in order to keep ascending in their path to power. However, PRI opposition turned out to be more ambitious and clumsier when using a political practice that they criticized when excluded from it but now fervently embrace when access to them was granted. The eradication of these practices from the Mexican political system will not happen as a result of media allegations – an environment that citizens have internally assumed all parties are corrupt – nor by drafting new laws that punish corruption a more severe manner (sanctioning acts such as campaign financing, which none of the legislators nor their parties, will stop doing). In that context, the time for political reforms is coming. Among the new (and not so new) matters found in this debate is the budget ceiling for campaign expenses as a cause for nullifying a candidacy, and eventually, an election, as well as the speeding up of processes of electoral inspection. As usual, everything sounds very nice. The reality, whatever is approved in the coming months, is that as long as there is no cultural consolidation and, thus, a respect for the rule of law, there will always be ways of turning law around or even using it in one’s favor. While political actors from all parties continue to be comfortable with corruption as a tool of hanging on to power, as well as the possibility of negotiating, blackmailing and manipulating the “safeguard of popular will” rhetoric, we will continue to have a “democracy” that will disappoint more and more those who, paradoxically, ought to be their cornerstones and main advocates: everyday citizens.
CIDAC
Comments