Luis Rubio

 I ended the year reading a book nearly unique in its genre, and extraordinary in its transcendence: the history of two revolutionaries as seen by their daughter. Daughter of Revolutionaries, by Laurence Debray, tells the story of her parents prior to her birth and throughout her life, and what she relates is not something about which her progenitors would be proud. When the priorities are war and lust, personal prestige and political influence, the daughter always remains marginalized. There is no more brutal, direct and indisputable –and agonizing – indictment than that of a daughter and the Debrays end up in a bad way. That said, the book imparts exceptional details of two extraordinary lives, from the incarceration of her father Regis in Bolivia when Che Guevara attempted to ignite the revolution, to the majesty of her grandparents and the equally fantastic story of her mother, Elizabeth Burgos, with glimpses into Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez and the goings-on of the French government.

One of the best books that I read this year was “The Conservative Sensibility,” by George F. Will, a commentator who has for decades written in newspapers and provided commentary for television. Historically conservative, this volume would appear to be his intellectual legacy in which he abandons a great part of the premises of U.S  conservatism to confirm himself as an integral liberal, but not one, in the North-American libertarian fashion, in which one decides to distance oneself from civilization but rather, contrariwise, as one convinced of the importance of functioning in the real world, diagnosing problems, proposing solutions, criticizing governmental acts and being active in the central disputes of the ideas that characterize a society.

In Institutions, Inequity and Systems of Privilege in Mexico, Cuauhtémoc López Guzmán, an academician at the Autonomous University of Baja California, pens a splendid essay on the incomplete transition in which Mexico became mired. One paragraph sums up his argument:  “Corrupt government, rent-seeking entrepreneurs, and violations of the Rule of Law in Mexico are the result of a predatory institutional order instituted from Colonial times for pillage. The existence today of rival substitutes for the leader should have ended the corruption, but everything seems to indicate that substitution of those in government (alternation of parties in the presidency) has not changed dishonest conduct, in that the opportunities for enrichment and privileges remain unaltered.” The book is especially relevant now that the three main political forces have occupied the presidency without it changing the system of privileges an iota. The problem lies elsewhere.

Christopher Caldwell* writes one of the best analyses that I have read on the political change that has portrayed the U.S. in recent decades. The heart of his line of reasoning is that the so duly celebrated legislation in matters of Civil Rights of 1964, which freed the Black people and opened a new era toward the equalities of opportunities, also planted the seeds of division and alienation that took place some decades later and that exerted an effect on marginalizing the White male in particular. A very sophisticated historical explanation of the gap thrown open by that legislation and that, half a century later, materialized in the form of Trump. A doubtlessly controversial analysis, but highly interesting and enlivened in the manner in which the politics of identity and the consecration of the rights of and budgets for the minorities created a new minority that ultimately rebelled in 2016 with the election of Trump.

Nadia Urbinati** asserts that populism is a new species of representative government, founded on a direct relationship between leaders and those who they define as good. In contrast with traditional representative democracy, where the winner of an election  represented everyone across the board, the populist kingpin exists to ignore those they considered their adversaries, thus pressuring the entire existing constitutional structure, which opened the door to authoritarianism.  The populism resulted from the growth of inequality, as well as the existence of a “rapacious oligarchy” that becomes an easy target in electoral terms. Its strength is that it breaks with the time-honored partitioning of social and ideological classes, but its weakness resides in that they end up plundering the same system that they attacked and that sustained them in power. Powerful polemic.

The New Class War*** by Michael Lind summarizes the perspective of the “forgotten” in the battle that has come to distinguish a good part of the world during the last decade. For Lind, the dispute is about the power of decision that has been concentrated in recent decades in a sector of society typified by their formal credentials (academic, bureaucratic or professional), which confers on their members an immoderate influence on the decisions. The solution lies in a pluralistic democracy, presumably one not impacted by professionals of any strain. A sentence sums up his practical proposal: the “four neoliberal freedoms” (the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital) should be replaced by the “four regulations.”

*The Age of Entitlement, ** Me the People, ***The New Class War

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

There is no issue more critical for Mexico than the poverty that characterizes the country’s South. It is an issue that impacts Mexico’s entire national life. Southern Mexico is home to vast natural and human resources that cannot display the best of themselves. It is the place from where much of Mexico’s historic migration to the United States originates. The Mexican South is also the origin of a good part of the resentment that dominates national politics. There is not the slightest doubt that creating conditions for the development of the country’s South is a domestic priority. It is not just a matter of basic justice. Accelerated economic growth in the Mexican southern region would result in widespread benefits for the country especially in the context of the current economic recession. The paradox is that a successful strategy for the Mexican South would also be a source of certainty and of development for all Mexicans.

Mexico’s northern half (starting somewhere north of Mexico City) along with the Yucatan Peninsula, have grown at an average annual GDP rate above 5 percent and some cities in the region been growing above 7 percent for decades. In contrast, the states that form the Mexican South (Chiapas, Oaxaca, Guerrero, and some parts of Veracruz, Puebla, Morelos, and State of Mexico) have hardly changed from where they were forty years ago. Not only has the South not made progress: in relative terms, it has fallen behind dramatically. While the economy of  a state like Aguascalientes in the North has more than quadrupled in size during this period, the states in the South have remained nearly unchanged.

The López Obrador administration is not the first to be concerned with how to rescue the Mexican South, nor is it the first to design ambitious government programs to induce higher growth rates in that region. Since at least the 1970s, administration after administration have produced countless government programs aimed at generating higher growth rates. Nonetheless, the region has grown very little. Some of these past programs sought to create infrastructure. Others provided subsidies to the poorest families. Some administrations devised the idea of special development zones with tax incentives while other were just devoted to   strengthening electoral clientelistic networks. Unfortunately, there’s no reason to expect a better outcome with the current administration’s dogmatic line.

The López Obrador administration’s plan includes massive projects such as the Mayan Train and the Dos Bocas oil refinery. The most serious critics of the Mayan Train argue the lack of business rationale from the conception of the project. Specifically, they point that the train does not connect key points to make it not only a viable infrastructure project, but to turn it into a potential detonator of other investments. In addition, the train does communicate with tourist centers, the region’s main source of income. Meanwhile, the Dos Bocas refinery in Tabasco is being built at the worst moment when demand for gasoline is beginning to decline and when the state-owned oil company (PEMEX) is virtually bankrupt. Both the Mayan Train and the Dos Bocas oil refinery exemplify the problem with the López Obrador administration: they not only ignore the economic context but also there is no solid diagnosis behind them. They rather stem from the desire to do good but anchored in an idea of a Mexico that is long gone. But wishes are not realities. The economic recession and PEMEX’s dire situation threaten to further impoverish a region like southern Mexico that with good projects, could easily see much greater economic growth, especially if it industrializes agriculture, for which the area appears uniquely endowed. As the success of people from Oaxaca in Chicago shows, there is plenty creative capacity in that state. However, there is also an abundance of political, bureaucratic and social hindrances to development.

The case of Oaxacans in Chicago is crucial because it confirms that the problem is not one of capabilities or potential, but rather of realities at the local level. Put in simple terms, perhaps the most obvious difference between Aguascalientes and the southern Mexican states lies in the presence of myriad political bosses in the South who thwart development of people and companies. The realities of the Mexican South has also inhibited investment in infrastructure, making it impossible to attract, even under the best of circumstances, productive investment. The vicious circle of insecurity along with the presence of political, union, and teacher chiefdoms have held back not only progress but even actions by the Mexican government to develop adequate infrastructure as in other parts of the country.

People from southern Mexico are not different from the rest of Mexicans. We all need certainty to prosper. For decades, the North has enjoyed both legal and functional schemes, beginning with NAFTA, which generated huge opportunities. The North also could count with the government’s willingness to eliminate political obstacles to development, not only strengthening the but systematically raising average incomes. None of those elements has been present in southern Mexico, not even the most basic transportation infrastructure.

Instead of continuing to erode the sources of success of the northern Mexican states, the López Obrador government should learn from them and create sources of certainty and stability in the South.

* Luis Rubio is chairman of the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI) and of México Evalúa-CIDAC. A Spanish version of this Op-Ed appeared first in Reforma’s newspaper print edition.
 Twitter: @lrubiof
https://mexicotoday.com/2020/12/16/opinion-south-vs-north/
www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

It comes as no surprise to anyone that the world is fast becoming dramatically complex. This is nothing new. During the past decade, all the world’s reference points of the last half century were eroded, called into question, or erased. What Mexicans are witnessing in their domestic politics has been taking place in the world at large. Just look at Brexit in Great Britain, the 2016 election of Donald Trump in the US, the far-right governments in several European nations, the attacks against the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the sudden rise of migration throughout the world and its repercussions for developed countries. All this happened even before the Covid-19 pandemic hit. Furthermore, sources of conflict have multiplied and many of the balancing agents -which at one point in time were numerous and also widely credible- have now practically disappeared. The context, one could say, has been altered or, to paraphrase Albert Einstein, “everything has changed except our way of thinking” .

Change affects all countries, but each responds to it according to its own set of circumstances, capabilities, and conditions. In some cases, their capacity of response depends on internal factors, in others on external circumstances. Electorates in many countries have tended to grow more polarized and to choose leaders previously unthinkable. Political systems that once produced weak governments, now make possible the emergence of “strong men,” even in countries with long and deep democratic roots and with solid systems of checks and balances. What seemed impossible not long ago is an everyday thing now.

In Mexico, we currently have a government with huge capacity for action that, however, has responded in contrasting ways to external phenomena. This was evident during the negotiation of the new USMCA trade agreement when it yielded to U.S. pressure very much like the previous administration did when talks started. Meanwhile, the Mexican government behaved with renewed activism when dealing with the crises in Venezuela and Bolivia. The administration has also being firm in its ludicrous reluctance to congratulate Joe Biden on his victory in the US presidential election. Countries act according to internal and external circumstances. The Mexican government has recognized its vulnerability vis-à-vis the North (the U.S.) while at the same time displaying rare confidence when dealing with the South (even enjoying domestic support despite political division).

However, one thing is how a country reacts to a particular situation and, a very different one, is to set a course of action. During the recent presentation of a policy paper (“Mexico and Central America: A Delayed Encounter”), the internationally-renowned migration expert Demetrios Papademetriou made two comments that are especially relevant for the present moment.

First, referring to migration but applicable to the entire world’s complexity, Papademetriou said that the problems the world is facing have a solution but that it requires cooperation among governments.  Thus, it is necessary for the parties to share a minimum of mutual trust. The problem, Papademetriou went on to say, is that no national government can currently count on the trust of its population and there is even less trust among national governments themselves.

It is not a surprise to say that the current Mexican government subordinated Mexico’s old foreign policy principles and practices (some praiseworthy, others less so) in order to preserve superior objectives like economic viability.  This was evident in 2019 when President Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Mexican exports to the U.S. if Mexico did not stopped the irregular flows of Central American migrants through its territory. Despite the criticisms, the López Obrador administration acted in the only way possible: ceding to Trump’s threats. The Mexican government did this less based on the asymmetry of power vis-à-vis the U.S., but rather thinking on the potential consequences for Mexican exports and on the peso exchange market, which would have destroyed Mexico’s economic stability in a flash.

Papademetriou’s second comment was about how  problems need to be addressed following a carefully conceived, developed and proactive strategy because, in his words, “when you play catch-up, you never catch up.” Solutions are the result of an action plan that responds to the specific nature of the problems. As much as migrant source countries might would want it (or for that matter the U.S. and Europe), altering demographic trends is something that by definition can only be measured not in years but in generations. I can only be altered in the long run. To put it simply: irregular migration cannot be eliminated altogether in the short run even if President Trump wanted it.

This is also true for Mexico. The problems that the country faces can certainly become even more acute if a belic conflict flares up in the Middle East, if Central America’s insecurity expels more migrants, if the China-U.S. tension continues endlessly or a myriad other factors beyond Mexico’s control. Some of these factors could be turned into opportunities like in the case of the U.S. trade tensions with China. But it could also be in the case of a new conflict in the oil-rich Middle East. This of course, as long as the current Mexican administration stops putting into doubt the country’s landmark 2013’s energy reform. Otherwise, Mexicans would end up just watching without being able to take action.

Crises are always sources of opportunity. However, in order to seize opportunity it is needed a clear willingness to change criteria, obsessions and dogmas. Today’s government deficit in Mexico is not fiscal, but rather political.

* Luis Rubio is chairman of the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI) and of México Evalúa-CIDAC. A Spanish version of this Op-Ed appeared first in Reforma’s newspaper print edition. Twitter: @lrubiof

https://mexicotoday.com/2020/12/10/opinion-political-deficit/

Luis Rubio

The saying goes that one defies nature at his own expense and risk. In economics, there is ample evidence of the risks involved in challenging the most basic principles of human behavior. The idea that government should devote its actions to reconstruct a bygone era cannot lead to anything other than failure. In plain terms, no government can survive if it disregards the context within which it attempts to conduct public affairs. 

Three moments changed the history of the world in a radical fashion: the invention of the Gutenberg printing press, the Industrial Revolution and, more recently, the Digital Revolution. Each of those moments transformed humanity and altered all patterns and ways of life. Just as there were people making whips for horse-drawn carriages when the automobile appeared, the desire to reconstruct the lost fatherland of the past is absurd given the Digital Revolution we live in.

Each of these transformative moments in history was accompanied by dislocations. The most conspicuous and well known is the effect that the arrival of the steam engine had on production  at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Previously depending on people assisted by pack animals, production was revolutionized in a matter of years. This change left behind a trail of suffering in the form of poverty, unemployment and uneasiness. Anyone who has read the harrowing chronicles of Charles Dickens can understand the enormous human cost that these processes of change entail. The memories of such processes explain the reluctance to accept their inevitability and, above all, the impotence -of both individuals and governments- in the face of the unstoppable force of such Revolution.

The time we are living in presupposes exactly the opposite of what the current Mexican administration of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) intends to do. To begin with: tomorrow was yesterday. Everything is interdependent, and nothing waits for you. What happens in China or France affects everyone in the planet and can unleash actions that seemed unimaginable a minute prior. Just as Brexit practically annihilated the traditional British political parties, Mexico’s ruling party (MORENA) emerged as a movement that, in just a few years, displaced all existing political forces. Nothing is permanent anymore. The only constant certainty is that nothing is constant.

Second, the traditional educational system is no longer relevant in a world in which the skills demanded by the economy change inexorably. Mexico’s old teachers’ unions will continue to protect the interests of small groups or of the most extreme elements in the current Mexican government. However, they are nothing more than obstacles to the adjustments that today’s education needs in order to make children successful in a world they will have to faces sooner than anyone could have imagined.

In the same way, the once all-powerful Mexican government has no choice today but to manage its weakness if it wants to remain relevant. This structural weakness has nothing to do with the immediate political moment we are living in. It has to do with the way that communications, markets and citizen demands work now. The key lies in government strengthening and rendering efficient its primary functions such as security and basic services. The ambition to control everything is just a chimerical idea that defies the basic laws of nature, this is, reality. López Obrador’s predecessor in the Mexican Presidency, Enrique Peña Nieto, attempt it and one can see where he is today.

The challenge for the Mexican government today is flexibility and adaptability, not control and dogmatism. Certainly, wealth in Mexico is poorly distributed and everyday life leaves much to be desired. All this manifests itself in a nearly total shutdown of social mobility, the factor that provided Mexico decades of progress and stability during the past century. The solution is not to be found in more government spending, greater austerity or in an always elusive tax reform that solves everything. It is rather to be found in a very different use of Mexico’s public resources. If the key component for economic success is adding value through knowledge, it is  impossible not to conclude that what is urgent is a radical change of direction in the nature of the Mexican education system. Needless to say what this change could imply for the functioning of Mexico’s justice and security system as well as for the markets.

The changes that Mexico requires to build an accelerated development platform are many and undoubtedly complex. However, to achieve their objective, these changes must be compatible with the Digital Age. Authoritarianism, government control, contempt for education and rejecting the nature of the 21st century’s economy are reactionary recipes that will only impoverish Mexico. The series of reforms that the current Mexican government has undertaken, and those that it proposes to carry out in the upcoming months, are the product of nothing more than nostalgia for the past and resentment.

However one wants to measure it, all these actions will impede progress, and will provoke the opposite of  what was sought because they imply ignoring and challenging reality. It is not a good starting point to say the least.

As commendable as it might be to seek to return to a less convulsive and accelerated time, it is a futile effort that in itself defies the force of nature and that involves incommensurable risks.

* Luis Rubio is chairman of the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI) and of México Evalúa-CIDAC. A Spanish version of this Op-Ed appeared first in Reforma’s newspaper print edition. 

Twitter: @lrubiof

https://mexicotoday.com/2020/11/25/opinion-against-nature/

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

One key question in Mexico these days is understanding whether corruption is a tool for the government to advance a political project or an evil that should be eradicated. What is certain is that both things cannot coexist given an evident flagrant contradiction: corruption is either something government makes use of or something it fights to erase from sight. Available evidence shows that corruption is an instrument in the hands of the current Mexican government to consolidate its political base and power at large.

Government corruption is an ancient vice in Mexico, but not an inexplicable one. In historical terms, there are two factors that have fostered and allowed corruption to take root. In the first place, Mexico’s post-revolutionary political system transformed corruption into an instrument of power. The political regime that emerged from Mexico’s revolutionary era required the creation of a mechanism to satisfy the ambitions of the many leaders on the winning side and that could consolidate its hegemonic nature at the same time.

The key to solve this post-revolutionary Mexican dilemma laid in creating a system of political loyalties nourished by two components: on the one hand, access to corruption and, on the other, interrelated complicities. The former would allow the existence of a verbal arrangement to justify any act and to excuse anyone stealing as some sort of service to the nation. People would often say: “the Revolution did justice to them”. Government and party jobs were assigned following one rule: reward loyalty. This can be summed up in another revelatory popular dictum of Mexico’s authoritarian era: “Don’t give me anything, just put me where there is”. People appointed to become purchasing managers at the different Mexican government Ministries (or even better, at a government-owned company like Pemex) knew that they have been sent there not to improve productivity, but rather as a reward for their loyalty.

Another factor that fosters and that renders corruption possible in Mexico, is the nature of the legal system. For example, construction inspectors in Mexico know that their function is not ensuring that the authorized blueprints of buildings are complied with. They know that their job is rather one of negotiation between what has been authorized and what the builders are actually doing. Under-the-table arrangements allow buildings to have 15 floors when they were originally authorized to have 10. Still, the responsibility does not lie with the inspector or the builder, but in the Mexican legal system that confers such vast discretionary power upon the inspector.

Discretionary power becomes in the end arbitrary power because it does not have to comply with any previously established and duly published code, regulation or rule (the basic condition for an effective Rule of Law). The discretionary power that a government official has in Mexico grows as he ascends through the bureaucratic hierarchy. One example is the law of foreign investment that the administration of president Luis Echeverría (1970-1976) advanced. The bill’s title did not leave any doubt of its goal: Law to Promote Domestic Investment and Regulate Foreign Investment. One might agree or not with the objectives or specific limits to investment established in it but the wording of the law was clear and it intended to give certainty to potential investors. However, the law also included one clause granting all-encompassing powers to one single Minister in the Mexican government who was able to redefine limits to investment following his or her own judgement. With this ability, the foreign investment law ceased to have any relevance given that this discretionary power superseded the law itself. The point is that discretionary power easily becomes arbitrary and, thus, a wellspring of corruption within the government, between citizens and the government, and also among private actors themselves.

Corruption in Mexico assumes many forms and not all of these necessarily involve money: taking advantage of public resources, profiting from the government’s budget and buying land through which a future highway will pass are just some of the many means of illegal enrichment. They have become an intrinsic component of what is Mexico and no political party is untainted, including the current López Obrador administration. The diversion of public funds to nurture political clienteles is corruption no matter how it is disguised.

In addition to time-honored modes of corruption, Mexico is witnessing the growth of other phenomena not entirely new: the pardoning of corrupt officials or businesspeople close to the government, the destruction of government institutions, the elimination of key services like daycare for working mothers and the scarcity of medications in public hospitals. All of these are forms of corruption that prevail in Mexico given the country’s full impunity.

The two crucial sources of corruption in Mexico –the nature of the country’s legal system and the informal system to repay loyalty- can be eradicated in that both arise are from factors that are known and, at least in principle, modifiable. But none of that is being done. The decision to send to jail the former Social Development Minister Rosario Robles and the President’s use of the bully pulpit to attacks his alleged opponents are in no way different from the arbitrary actions of any previous Mexican administration. The idea behind these actions is not to expunge corruption but the derision of people. The president is applying a pliable standard and not acting following the law.

Thus, political rhetoric changes but corruption persists. As it has happened in other times in post-revolutionary Mexico, what we are seeing today is a process that has to do with consolidation of power, nothing more.

* Luis Rubio is chairman of the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI) and of México Evalúa-CIDAC. A Spanish version of this Op-Ed appeared first in Reforma’s newspaper print edition.
Twitter: @lrubiof

Opinion | Corruption and Impunity

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Council on Foreign Relation, November 10, 2020
Luis Rubio,
Chairman, Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (Mexico)

The U.S. founding fathers clearly stated that the United States would be a republic, not a democracy. This distinction has become one of the most contentious elements in American elections and the cause of mockery the world over, particularly in fragile democracies and in countries led by authoritarians close to Trump. Although the media has declared Biden the winner, Trump has not conceded, creating dangerous uncertainty. The election has proved much closer than expected and the primary long-term consequence will be the further erosion of America’s greatest asset abroad: soft power. Over the past decade, the United States—promoter of democracy, liberal values, and market economics—has squandered its image and institutions as its politicians abused them and Trump undermined them.

Few nations have been hit as hard by Trump’s rhetoric and actions as Mexico. Starting in 2016 with his campaign strategy of blaming “Mexican rapists” for American ills, Trump went on to force changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a vital factor of Mexico’s economic growth. He produced a new agreement that, despite establishing rules for economic interaction, undermines the value of NAFTA: legal and political certainty for investors. Forgoing geopolitical considerations critical to its security and even with its closest of neighbors, the United States under Trump has been inward-looking and incapable of understanding long-term trends and consequences. The prospect of four more years of similar policies was not enticing.

How much damage is done between now and Biden’s inauguration on January 20 will be crucial to the future of the United States. At stake will be the strength of American institutions, which will almost certainly be tested by Trump’s refusal to abide by tradition. “A republic, if you can keep it,” Benjamin Franklin said. The world will be watching, from some places with malicious intent, but most with the hope that the United States will once again prove to be a shining light of democracy and institutional strength.

https://www.cfr.org/article/biden-and-world-what-us-presidential-transition-means

Luis Rubio

Sir Winston Churchill is often quoted as saying: “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted”. And boy have Americans tried their best! As US presidents, both Barack Obama and Donald Trump stretched the limits of their mandate to the utmost in opposite directions: they polarized US society, accentuated the fault lines that already existed fueling hatred and other passions. While media projections have declared Joe Biden as the winner of last week’s presidential election, Trump has not recognized him leaving the process in limbo.

 Trump has not been a typical president. His opening act during the 2016 presidential campaign was that of a rebel who would not adhere to any rule. Instead of building, Trump dedicated himself to tearing down things and instead of trying to fix things, Trump devoted himself to lash out. As president he has been disgraceful, but no one can deny Trump’s merit of having advanced the agenda he promised in fiscal, regulatory, environmental, and trade matters. One may or may not agree with Trump’s view of the world, but he was been consistent with what he promised to his electorate. As for the rest of the US public, Trump has responded: to hell with your institutions.

Biden was not the most attractive or dynamic presidential candidate out there, but he was the only one who was able to unify the Democratic Party. Despite his obvious limitations, circumstances could not have been better for Biden’s rise: the Covid-19 crisis undermined Trump’s main advantage -the accelerated growth of the US economy, employment and wages- and the press could not have been kinder to him. As president, Biden will have to deal with a complex political landscape, starting with his own party, which has shifted to the left in a way that frightened much of the US electorate, including his own.

The Democratic Party has not only moved to the left, but in recent months, it produced violent and destructive movements on the streets of multiple cities. Biden was unable to dissociate himself from these movements, something that undoubtedly influenced the result. In the face of this scenario, many key independent voters ran back to Trump. In addition, the incipient recovery of the economy and of employment after the Covid-19 downturn, allowed Trump to argue that his strategy was still a winner. Although the polls continued to show a high probability of a win for Biden, the margin kept closing in the last days of the campaign.

Biden was not the natural candidate for the Democratic Party. He won the presidential nomination precisely because he did not threaten any of its components. Biden emerged as a candidate because, Democratic Party’s establishment recognized that Bernie Sanders, the favorite of progressives, had no chance of winning because most of the party remains moderate. Still, it is now clear that all that was insufficient for the Democrats to achieve a decisive victory. Trump continues to have a solid base and, despite his bad manners, many Democrats and independents fear the advancement of progressives’ initiatives more than the intemperance of the current president.

Biden’s main strength is very simple and obvious: he is not Trump. The huge pushback against Trump was enough for Biden to navigate calmly through the campaign. If he wins, Biden will have to contend with the reality of a very divided nation, characterized by extreme positions and contempt among voters with opposing party preferences. And that without counting the huge differences within his own coalition regarding governing agendas and expectations

What is fascinating about the US is the insularity of the two worlds that comprise it. People in the East and West Coasts tend to have an optimistic view of the world, a jobs and income structure increasingly tied to the information economy and a propensity to Europeanize their health care, pensions and other services. On the other hand, the inhabitants of the Midwest (particularly the so-called Rust Belt) live amid precariousness, pessimism and lack of opportunities that the world’s economic and technological transformation has denied them. The contrast in the quality of education between the two regions is staggering. Obama gave precedence to the former, while Trump to the latter. Both Presidents were polarizing forces in the eyes of the opposite side, leading to the tensions expressed in last week’s election.

What is striking about this US presidential election is not the immediate result but its dynamics. What was forecasted as a safe, and even overwhelming, victory by Biden ended in a virtual draw. The new president’s margin to maneuver will be limited, largely determined by the final outcome of the elections in the US Senate. Trump would have no problem with a scenario like this given that his only goal will be to persevere on a divisive governing agenda. For his part, Biden will have to find a way to work with his Republican counterparts to build common ground to restore a semblance of order, repair key institutions, and achieve domestic peace. The good thing about this challenge is that it matches Biden’s personality neatly and will allow him to leave aside the progressive base that did so much damage to him in this election.

* Luis Rubio is chairman of the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI) and of México Evalúa-CIDAC. A Spanish version of this Op-Ed appeared first in Reforma’s newspaper print edition.
 Twitter: @lrubiof

Opinion | Hangover

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

The popularity of the President of Mexico, while lower than before and of some of his predecessors, continues to be high. Many ask themselves how this is possible given the complex, uncertain and remarkably deteriorated situation of the country and of the economy. The President has devoted himself to undermining all the foundations of development, to debilitating the factors that make economic growth possible, and to eliminating the mechanisms built to confer stability and predictability of governmental actions. Despite all that, his popularity does not appear to be affected by his decision-making style nor its consequences. This is not an esoteric question nor is it difficult to elucidate.

The President’s popularity sustains itself on various elements, not all of which are found under his control. First, the extraordinary propagandistic strategy of his early-morning briefs exerts the effect of keeping his social base captive. This component is key to his popularity and has been proven over time: the connection of the President to the population is real and transcends readings of it based on reason. As in all quasi-religious couplings, it is sustainable while the ingredients that feed it, above all the president’s credibility, endure. The President exploits a profound and ancestral resentment of a broad segment of the populace that has felt betrayed for decades or centuries due to unmet promises. The hate that he promotes toward persons, institutions and groups falls on, and indeed fits the population that begrudges many aspects of the national reality like a glove. In its extreme, it has achieved the creation of fanatics among constituents who consider him a savior.

The second feature of his popularity lies in the most tangible of errors of the traditional political parties in recent years, particularly the so-called “Pact for Mexico” organized by former President Peña Nieto. The PAN and the PRD a-critically joined the now infamous Pact, thus making them fully dependent on the PRI’s success of failure on the project, and it also made them inherit the full historical baggage the PRI came along with. There are surely explanations of why they were willingly yoked together, but, in strategic terms, the two “opposition” political parties sold their souls to a president whose objectives were not the transformation of the country through the reforms pledged, but the enrichment of his small coterie of allies. The PAN and the PRD de facto accepted an absurdity: any upside would have accrued to PRI, while all the downside would be ascribed to all three. This meant that, for the average Mexican, the differences among the parties became blurred, a circumstance that today translates into one thing on which President López Obrador has capitalized with singular ability: the citizenry can harbor doubts regarding the management of the current government, but it does not perceive any alternative among the established political parties.

The great flaw of the reforms of recent decades resides in their partiality, in that not everything was subject to modification. The central, implicit, condition of the reformer project rested on protecting the “system” and its beneficiaries: like the Teachers’ Union (SNTE and CNTE) as well as the political class or particular interests –private, union, political- of any ilk. That guaranteed that the benefits would not be disseminated equitably, which can be appreciated as otherwise obvious in the regional contrasts that linger. This comprises a third mainstay of this presidential popularity: he has been able to convince a segment of the population that the system does not work for them, profiting as it does from their accumulated feelings and resentments.

Ultimately, however, popularity is sustained in the use that López Obrador makes of the population and that the latter makes of him. It is a society of convenience that is solely sustainable as long as its pillars are not overly worn down. Thus the enormous impact of the evidence of corruption against the President’s brother, the thefts within the institution supposedly created “to return to the people what had been stolen,” and other cases that are certain to continue accumulating. To this, one must add the mistakes in the matter of health, the lack of medications and the clear-cut incompetence of the government. The Morena party is undergoing what happened to PAN in its time: once in office, it is falling into the Mexican government’s time-honored practices because nothing at the core of its functioning has changed.

The results of Coahuila and Hidalgo states demonstrate that there is something artificial in the percentages of popularity and that, in any case, it is not transferable to the candidates of Morena.

What has definitely changed and that should not be held up to scorn is the solidity and strength of key persons in distinct instances and that have also accumulated. The Supreme Court gave the President carte blanche in his consultations, but the five ministers who voted against this swayed the country with solid and powerful arguments. The minority that blocks constitutional excesses makes a dent in the Senate every day. Public discussion does not desist despite daily threats.

In contrast to the Mexico of a half century ago, there are factors now that limit the worst excesses and there are citizens willing to exert their rights,  providing assurances that although some battles are lost, the pillars of support of the President’s popularity are to a great degree weaker than they might seem.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

One feature that defines the current Mexican government is its emphasis on the past. In stark contrast with its predecessors, who always promised a better future, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) appears to fervently believe that one can find in the past the foundation for the future. In reality, the Mexican President battle is a battle to define the country’s future and above all public perception. English writer George Orwell said it best: “He who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” Therefore, political power resides in the capacity to forge the way in which people perceive the world.

What George Orwell was referring to was “ideological hegemony”, an idea also posed by Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci. Today, campaign and political strategists call it “the narrative.” Everybody tries to shape public discourse as a means to control public life. A political project can only prosper and move forward without limits to the extent that every citizen (or a great majority of them) accepts such public narrative as valid. This also applies on a lesser scale to particular private interests. President López Obrador’s early morning “press conferences” are exactly that: a means to manipulate and discredit his alleged opponents in order to wipe them out.

However, the mere control of the public narrative does not guarantee progress for the country. If such public narrative does not contribute to unite the population comprehensively it accomplishes nothing more than creating an illusion. This will only frustrate all those who share such narrative. A new public narrative can be extraordinarily powerful but pointless if its goals are impossible to reach. The unsolved investigation surrounding the disappearance of the 43 students of the Ayotzinapa Teachers College illustrates this well. When it arrived in power, the AMLO administration changed the public narrative. It vowed a new investigation and it nearly promised the students’ parents that they would see their children again. It is clear that many of the parents understood it this way. At present, many of those parents are coming back with the same demands as in years past. Independently of the soundness and honesty of the previous administration’s investigation, the current government knew well that the eventual return of the students was impossible. The López Obrador government was able to appease the victims’ parents temporarily, but their demands seeking to find their children are resuming with renewed fury. Nothing is free in politics, and the AMLO administration’s response to the Ayotzinapa case exemplifies its entire approach to governing.

A fallacious public narrative based on a biased and prejudiced reading of history magnifies a country’s problems and exacerbates polarization. The public narrative coming out of President López Obrador’s morning press conferences is not capable of moving his own governing agenda forward. It is not unifying the Mexican people around a common goal even if it implies the submission of specific groups or interests. Furthermore, the President’s public narrative also nurtures the rise of alternative narratives including some exceedingly reactionary. For example, the fight to discredit an education model based on merit also erases any incentive to create jobs and improve wages. If the idea of merit ceases to be relevant, violence ends up being a legitimate tool and crime ends up being a reasonable response in face of Mexico’s dominant inequality.

A public narrative designed to polarize is born from the idea that it is not necessary to accept reality as it is. While changing reality is a rightful objective, achieving such change is impossible if it is based on the denial of reality. Talking about Argentinean politics, film director Juan José Campanella wrote on Twitter some years ago: “Let’s not allow the immense (government) corruption to hide the management (of the country). The management was worse”.

Almost two years into López Obrador’s term, Mexico find themselves at what seems as a transition stage. Back in 2018, the current government arrived in power lambasting the corruption of others, only to find itself with that its own corruption is not a lesser one. This took the wind out of the AMLO administration’s sails. Soon, Mexicans will begin to realize the woebegone quality of the government’s management. It is true that the AMLO government is not guilty of emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic but it will inexorably be guilty of the way of it is managing it. The administration will be responsible for what it did, what it did not do and what it does in the coming months. No public narrative can hide a reality like the one that it is starting to take shape in Mexico.

The past is certainly the origin of what we have today but it cannot be the cornerstone of Mexico’s future. It is precisely such past which produced the outcomes and distortions that Mexicans now find unacceptable and that were at the heart of President López Obrador’s campaign promises. Like everything else in life, every age is full of strengths and shortcomings. However, time marches on and alters the conditions that gave birth to both.

Mexico’s so-called era of “stabilizing development” of 1950s and 1960s yielded some 20 years of high growth and stability. This economic model allowed the accelerated growth of an urban middle class but the circumstances rendering it possible disappeared. This outcome was the result of changes in the international arena and especially, of mistaken measures taken by Mexico in the early 1970s. Were it not for the sudden discovery of vast oil fields, Mexico’s drunken spree of the late 1970s and at the early 1980s would not have taken place. Mexico would have been in a better place. However, this runs against President AMLO’s early public narrative. With all their successes, failures and biases, the economic reforms that followed had no other purpose than to solve the same woes that President López Obrador claims to fight: the low pace of economic growth, the inequality among Mexico’s regions along with political instability. Knowing real history matters greatly.

All governments need to build their own public narrative to attest their own legitimacy and to be able to govern. Only those governments accepting reality as it is are successful.

* Luis Rubio is chairman of the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI) and of México Evalúa-CIDAC. A Spanish version of this Op-Ed appeared first in Reforma’s newspaper print edition.
Twitter: @lrubiof

https://mexicotoday.com/2020/10/26/opinion-narratives/

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof