Luis Rubio

Before, in the good times, Easter was a time to keep. Now that keeping has become a semi-permanent state, I set about gathering some ideas, explanations and comments on the current moment, aiming to better understand the situation or, at least, to laugh (or cry) at it.

“I have no idea what’s awaiting me, or what will happen when this all ends. For the moment I know this: there are sick people and they need curing.”Camus, The Plague

“It is obvious that human (and non-human) diseases are evolving with an unusual rapidity simply because changes in our behavior facilitate cross-fertilization of different strains of germs as never before, while an unending flow of new medicines (and pesticides) also present infectious organisms with rigorous, changing challenges to their survival.”William H. McNeill, Plagues and Peoples(1975)

“In the last two weeks, the world economic situation has changed dramatically and for the worse. All the countries of the world are experiencing the repercussions of the Coronavirus. It is too early to provide numbers, but it is certain that there will be a world recession, deeper than the one observed in 2008-2009. The same will happen in Mexico. We must prepare for a severe recession of uncertain duration.” Santiago Levy

“As a candidate, López Obrador told Jon Lee Anderson in an interview: “I always think the same, but I act differently depending on the circumstances.” He has lost that touch: now he thinks the same and acts the same, regardless of the circumstances.”Hector Aguilar Camin

“The President who does not govern himself is unable to command in the emergency. I confess myself surprised by the total lack of leadership in this circumstance.”Jesús Silva Herzog Marquez

“When decision-making is slow in public-health matters, the consequences are grave and serious.” Renowned physician of the National Health System

“The belated reaction to equip and prepare for the Covid-19 is directly associated with López Obrador’s denial of the reality of the pandemic and his resistance to prepare.” Raymundo Riva Palacio

“Mexico quickly went from a punishment vote to being punished for its vote.”Unmissable phrase stolen from Twitter

“The consequences of defunding public-health agencies, losing expertise, and stretching hospitals are no longer manifesting as angry opinion pieces, but as faltering lungs.” Ed Yong, How the Pandemic Will End

“Suppression strategies may work for a while. But there needs to be an exit strategy—be it surveillance, improved treatment, vaccination or whatever. If governments impose huge social and economic costs and the virus cuts a swathe through the population a little later, they will discover that when politicians disappoint the people over something this serious there is hell to pay.” The Economist

“The world changed for the worse, quickly and drastically. We are facing a double emergency, health and economic. Let us act soon and together to avoid further deterioration of expectations and of the environment, which will later be much more difficult to reverse.” Santiago Levy

It is always important in matters of high politics to know what you do not know. Those who think that they know, but are mistaken, and act upon their mistakes, are the most dangerous people to have in charge. Margaret Thatcher

“This crisis came like a godsend to consolidate the objectives of the Transformation.” AMLO

“[The] collapse in presidential popularity has to do… with the poor performance of the government in economic and security matters, and even in the fight against corruption… The collapse is sharp and will not be temporary. There are no improvements in the reality to reverse the fall in support, nor is AMLO changing his way of acting or his decisions, which are generating more and more rejections. On the contrary, theother debacles are coming: the epidemic and the economic recession. It looks very ugly for the country and for the President, if he does not change.” Guillermo Valdés Castellanos

“From now on the presidential term will be different. The President, his team and many of his supporters will find the mourning very difficult. But the fact, whether they digest it or not, is that now they will have to play more defensively. Managing losses, managing splits, dealing with the costs of what they did or didn’t want to do in this contingency. And with the opportunities that all this can represent for the renewal of oppositions.” Carlos Bravo Regidor

“Asking people to choose between privacy and health is, in fact, the very root of the problem. Because this is a false choice. We can and should enjoy both privacy and health. We can choose to protect our health and stop the coronavirus epidemic not by instituting totalitarian surveillance regimes, but rather by empowering citizens.”Yuval Noah Harari: The World After Coronavirus

“We are a democracy. We don’t achieve things by force, but through shared knowledge and co-operation.”Angela Merkel

“But what does it mean, the plague? It’s life, that’s all.” Albert Camus, The Plague

https://mexicotoday.com/2020/04/14/opinion-pests-and-the-pestered/ 

 Twitter: @lrubiof

Luis Rubio

The government and its coterie state that through their election in 2018 they achieved a regime change in Mexico, which explains (and justifies) all the outrages, excesses and problems that characterize the Mexican economy and society today. According to this thesis, the actions taken by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s administration stem from a change in the rules of the game and that they reflect a new governing coalition. Therefore, what is happening in the Mexican national stage comprises a novel political reality accompanied by what all this implies with respect to decisions, criteria and actions.

It seems to me that there are three elements that should be analyzed to evaluate what has in fact been occurring: in the first place, determine whether, in effect, a change in regime has come about; in second place, analyzing what it is that the government put into practice in reality and what the latter implies; and finally, evaluating the result.

There’s no one better than Leonardo Morlino, the dean of the scholars of regime change, to help us determine whether such a change has in fact taken place: “there is change of regime when, in addition to the collapse of the key characteristics of authoritarianism, all the components of the minimalist definition of democracy are set up” (Changes for Democracy: Actors, Structures, Processes, 2011). To ascertain whether these have been complied with, Morlino employs a series of measurements that include: Whether the cabinet is staffed by a single party or a coalition; whether the executive dominates the legislature; whether relations between government institutions and interest groups are pluralist or neo-corporatist in nature; and the degree of centralization of power.

Of course, there is no unique or specific gauge that determines whether a political system is democratic or authoritarian or when a change of regime to democracy has transpired. This is about qualitative factors that are supported quantitatively, but the key point (if Morlino would allow me) is if it can be evaluated according to the old rule: in dictatorships the politicians ridicule the citizens, while in democracies, it is the citizens who poke fun at the politicians. The problems with these measurements, –comical or analytical- is that they do not help us much because the traditional Mexican political system was so powerful that it was able to withstand the mockery without being a democracy.

In practical terms, the post-revolutionary regime underwent diverse adaptations throughout the 20th century, concluding with the creation of a professional, citizen-backed electoral system which allowed the alternation of parties in power. Those rotations created widespread spaces for freedom of expression and political competition, but they did not modify the essence of the regime dominated by a political class with access to privileges and benefits alien to those of the population as a whole even today under President López Obrador’s party, Morena.

What undoubtedly changed with the government of President López Obrador is the composition of the political coalition that sustains it, from which arises its own particular way of allocating resources, budgets and priorities. That change has been very steep above all because it has been accomplished in tandem with the elimination (real or virtual) of institutions constituted to (supposedly) limit the power of the presidency. However, if one analyzes the daily exercise of power that defines the López Obrador administration, it is not very distinct from that of its predecessors: the use of the formerly denominated “meta constitutional” attributions of the presidency is an everyday event (in fact, much larger than in the recent past); the demands of loyalty above that any other value are ubiquitous; discretional decisions (therefore, arbitrariness) in governmental action surpasses anything observed since the 1980’s; and the forging of clienteles with public monies is crucial, as is the absolute impunity of those in close proximity to the administration.

If by regime change one understands not Morlino’s definition but rather the reenactment of governmental practices of half-century ago, Mexicans are experiencing at present a regression in matters of democracy in a country in which democracy never came about beyond in electoral affairs (as fundamental as that is). The unipersonal exercise of power does not constitute a new regime, but instead the reenactment of the old one that, in reality, never left. It is, at the end of the day, the same old wine in a new bottle.

The problem of the attempt to reenact the old political system does not lie in its unviability (as it is evident present by observing the dreadful economic and health policy results, to cite two obvious examples), but in its incompatibility with the 21^st century. The old political system worked because it matched with a worldwide moment during which the governments were almighty; in the digital 21st century, markets, the integration of supply chains and the decisions of individuals are in command. One may like or dislike this, but it is the clash between of these two components –the new/old political system and the way the economy functions in the 21st century- which explains the present economic stagnation. And there is no reason to anticipate that this will change once the current health emergency ends.

 Twitter: @lrubiof

https://mexicotoday.com/2020/04/07/opinion-regime-change/

Luis Rubio

Three expressions sum up the disagreement characterizing the country’s economy at present and that explain the paralysis (stagnation with a strong propensity toward recession), lack of progress and bad prospects. Presidential rhetoric will camouflage the problematic with grandiose phrases such as “this is not a change of government, this is a change of regime,” “the fourth transformation” or “the poor come first” when, in reality, what is taking place is swift deterioration.

Some of the phrases that have become prototypes of the AMLO government are revealing of its world vision, but especially its clinging to a specific era: “hugs not bullets” and “I have other data” reflect a way of conducting politics and confronting the issues that the country is facing, but none is more indicative than the one the President has expressed numerous times: that “the economy should be subordinated to political decisions.” I do not know of, nor have I observed any politician throughout time, who does not desire the latter: not so many decades ago, governments effectively controlled and managed the principal variables that make the economy function, but that scenario disappeared in the last third of the past century not because of the will of someone in particular, but due to technological change and the sudden emergence of instant communications that has overtaken the world. It is not by chance that, since that fact, there is virtually no country on the planet –including Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam- that is not geared to attracting private investment, doing this not for pleasure but because there is no choice.

I see three key issues that explain the paralysis Mexico is experiencing in economic matters that derive from the latter. First, the nature of the economic world in the XXI century and why it clashes with the governmental strategy; second, the importance of procedures and, more so than anything else, of trust; and, third, the cesspool laid bare by the President himself.

In terms of the economic world, the XXI century reality bears no similarity to that of the mid-XX century in that the government maintained a closed and protected economy. In that era, the government subordinated economic decisions to those of politics, but that disappeared because of the way in which the world’s ways of producing evolved (the so-called globalization and supply chains) and, particularly, due to the ubiquity and availability of information outside of governmental control. Once the economic world was liberalized, it was no longer under the control of governments and there’s no going back, unless there’s a disposition to generate a depression.

From the latter, there derives another fundamental change in the political relations surrounding the economy: from the moment that controls in matters of investment, exports and imports disappeared, the government -all governments- had no greater alternative than that of dedicating itself to convincing their citizens as well as the community of investors, businesses and financiers, both domestic as well as international, of the good of their projects. Once the world became the prime space of economic action, all governments competed for the same investment and the only way to capture it is to create conditions that will make it attractive, together with sources of certainty that generate trust in them. The decision to save and invest passed from the governments to the citizens and investors and there is nothing in this world, and even less so the pretension of a “change in regime,” that will change that. Exactly the same transformation took place in the political arena, i.e., the INE (National Electoral Institute) and the Electoral Tribunal and the Supreme Court.

Finally, the President opened a sewer of which he is not yet aware but that radically affects the present moment. For many years, one government after another constructed institutional mechanisms designed to confer certainty on economic agents and on the society in general. Thus were born the autonomous institutions, each in pursuit of a specific objective: access to information (National Transparency Institute, INAI); regulation of the energy market (CRE), and the National Hydrocarbon Commission, (CNH); the Human Rights Commission (CNDH); trust in the electoral process and regulation of political parties (INE and the Electoral Tribunal); and the resolution of disputes among the branches of government (the Supreme Court).

Today we know, in retrospect, that the validity and transcendence of these institutions was due not to the legitimacy that they enjoyed, but instead to the respect that successive presidents and administrations allocated to them. The easiness with which the President has neutralized or eliminated these institutions illustrates their intrinsic weakness. What the President does not recognize is that, on implicitly declaring “the king has no clothes on,” he did away with key wellsprings of certainty for the citizenry and for investors and savers. Once exposed, that sewer has become Pandora’s Box.

The problem now is to regain the trust that those entities engendered, a task complex in itself, but impossible for a government whose raison d’être is to deny that the problem exists or that it is a valid one. The economic-growth crisis and the way in which the COVID-19 will likely deepen it will force the government to act. The question is whether he’ll act in a constructive or in an authoritarian mode.

Twitter: @lrubiof
https://mexicotoday.com/2020/03/31/opinion-an-unknown-world/

Luis Rubio

Professor Huntington* caused a scandal when, in the middle of the Cold War, he wrote that what is important in a government does not lie in its ideological characteristics, but in its effectiveness. What gave rise to the uproar was his affirmation that the U.S., the U.K. and the Soviet Union had systems of government that worked, while many nations within the American sphere of influence lacked that capacity. Pairing the USSR with the U.S. was pure apostasy, but the argument was well sustained: the three nations, penned Huntington, have strong, adaptable and coherent political institutions, with effective bureaucracies and mechanisms to resolve political conflicts. The key point, and therein lies its relevance for Mexico, was that despite their differences, in none of the three nations was there impunity.

Impunity has become the main characteristic of present-day Mexico: there is literally no space in public life where there is compliance with the rules, procedures or laws. Although this statement may seem excessive, the evidence is overwhelming: there are criminals because there are no sanctions nor the capacity (nor the interest) to restrict or impose limits on them; murders, extortion and abductions go unnoticed, as if they did not exist; the administration juggles budgetary items, rigs public consultations, commissions public works without calling for bids, does away with the purchase of medicines and reduces salaries, all in order to transfer funds to the government’s electoral projects, with no impediment; the government cancels contracts without compliance with the law or established rules; organized crime terrorizes the population and levies protection money without the authority ever showing up; the police are corrupted (and use the laws to abuse them in their favor), without punishment; the functionaries of previous administration, just to cite one example, stole without compunction, but are only persecuted when it is politically convenient for the current government. The point is clear: impunity is the prevailing law.

The matter is not partisan, ideological or political. Impunity banishes all vestige of organized society because it implies, by its very nature, the inexistence of rules, laws or contracts. When a society descends into the realm of impunity, civility disappears as does civilization, because the only thing that counts is the power of the most powerful, formerly known as the law of the jungle. The paradoxical part is that each administration claims that its officials are pristine, unpolluted and untouchable, permitting it to penalize its predecessors, with no limit. However, those who boast of power and victimize their enemies, sooner or later find themselves on the other side of the fence. The pretense that today, in contrast with the past, there’s no impunity is sheer fantasy.

The trademark distinguishing the present administration resides in the construction of an entire legal scaffolding, beginning with the fiscal and, presumably, being followed by the judicial, whose true purpose is intimidation and threat. With powerful -and abusive- laws in their hands, the government today has the possibility of jailing citizens without a judicial order, expropriating their property (eminent domain) without there being a trial, and freezing their bank accounts with a simple administrative order. Hard to imagine a clearer and more patent definition of impunity.

Impunity is what explains that Mexicans live under the threat of permanent insecurity, bureaucratic abuse, corruption, sale of government positions, the President’s “purification” of corrupt civil servants, scamming investors who buy clean-energy bonds, refusal to authorize the mega-investment of a brewery in Mexicali and, the crown jewel of impunity, the pretension of Pemex and of the Ministry of Energy to keep the Zama oil field developed by the Talos enterprise, violating the contracts and rules and regulations in force.

Impunity is an old malady of the Mexican political system because the laws confer upon its functionaries enormous discretionary, in fact arbitrary, powers, which render possible any action on the part of whoever holds the power at any given moment.

There is no evil worse than that of impunity because it implies the total absence of rules, thus, of certainty, the mother of development and civility. Worse yet when it becomes the raison d’être of a government.

While impunity comprises part of Mexico’s DNA, the governments from 1982 onwards attempted to erect institutional scaffolding that would check or diminish its reach. The real tragedy of the present government is that, on doing away with this entire platform, it became evident that the only thing that interests it is imposing itself by force or intimidation. The long-term cost of this is indescribable, regardless of whether the government functionaries of today and their acolytes can understand it.

The expropriation of the banks in 1982 threw open Pandora’s Box because it flaunted force and impunity. What the current government has done is to appropriate that torch and take to its ultimate consequences. The result of last time was the lost decade of the eighties; the impact of the present one will not be identical, but it surely will not be better.

*Political Order in Changing Societies

https://mexicotoday.com/2020/03/24/opinion-impunity/
. Twitter: @lrubiof

Luis Rubio

 “The history of Mexico, says a well-known analyst, is first and foremost the history of personalized power -of the concentration of all the levers of power and resources- in the hands of a leader standing above society, of a succession of leaders and their regimes. Breaking away from the post-PRI era required a leader who could act as a battering ram to destroy the old order. That person had to be an outstanding and charismatic politician with the courage to break with the past and force the political class and state authorities to leave the past behind. That person needed a strong personality and the ability to lead. However, to introduce a system based on political rivalry and competition requires quite a different kind of leader, one prepared to ’abdicate the throne’ and transfer at least some executive power to other institutions.”

Even when a new society and new institutions began to emerge –continues the author-, the government played by the old rules. If the fundamental principle of democratic elections is that “the rules are clear, but the results uncertain,” the elite was determined that the rules should be uncertain and a result favorable to itself guaranteed. Rather than make provisions for an alternative regime and rotation, the elite stressed continuity. Samuel Huntington’s observation that two election cycles are sufficient for a country to become democratic proved not to apply to Mexico, where regular elections provided a smokescreen for backsliding from political liberalization.

Society was too inexperienced to develop independently into a civil society. The new occupants of the presidency had come to power on a wave of democratic enthusiasm, but not only had they no intention of promoting the development of civil rights and liberties, they systematically obstructed the process, turning their backs on the democratic forces that had helped their rise to power.

The technocrats supposed that introducing a capitalist economy would be enough, and they ignored the need for new institutions and the crucial importance of subordinating the state to the rule of law. As a result, they reconfirmed Adam Przeworski’s conclusion that without stable liberal institutions, a sustainable liberal economy is impossible. Indeed, in the absence of viable independent institutions and the rule of law, economic reforms can become a destabilizing factor that pushes the ruling class toward authoritarianism in order to defend its interests and its property.

Could this leader and this elite, given their origins and ignorance of anything other than the old political system, have behaved differently? The reforming governments did not foresee the consequences of their endeavor, but all reformers start by shaking the foundations of the status quo without knowing where their actions will lead. If they could see into the future, no doubt any would have second thoughts.

In truth, all Western leaders made a double mistake, first, by relying on the local reformers and believing that they would guarantee a successful transition, and, second, by emphasizing the economy and neglecting the role of political reform.

Mexico’s present or future? Or is it its recent past? The analysis is revealing and looks impeccable. However, none of it is about Mexico, even if it appears to have been written recently by an expert well versed in its reality. In fact, the author, Lila Shevtsova, is talking about the failed transition in her own country, Russia,* in a book about the first two decades of post-Soviet Russia. All I did was pick a few fragments and replace Mexico where it said Russia (or Kremlin) and “a leader” or president, where the author wrote the name of one of Russia’s presidents.

What’s remarkable is that the similarities, but also the differences, of a process of profound political and economic change as that that has characterized both societies, reflects the complexity of the challenge that the reformers undertook in each nation without really understanding the difficulties which would have to be faced down the road and, particularly, the forces they were unleashing.

It’s clear that both nations had to break away with the past because the status quo ante proved unviable and unsustainable. Neither the USSR nor Mexico launched their process of reform on ideological grounds; rather, they did so due to the paralysis and series of crises that each had experienced. The result was, as the title of the book says, a lost transition that, while having advanced, did not reach the promised port of landing. The new status quo has proven uncertain and remains far removed from a liberal and competitive economy, characterized by development, stability and democracy.

*Lost in Transition

 Twitter: @lrubiof
https://mexicotoday.com/2020/03/17/opinion-similarities-and-differences/

Luis Rubio

The big question is how Mexicans are going to get out of this one. Aside from the President’s popularity, all indicators are pointing the wrong way: the economy stagnates, employment does not grow, the government continues to amass legal and fiscal instruments to persecute the citizenry and there is not a single topic –from security to childhood, passing health on the way- in which the government can exhibit any improvement.

Conflict, whether social or political, has become the raison d’être of Mexican reality because therein are summed up the expectations, resentments, envies and aspirations of Mexican society as a great collective. Some perceive the government as good, others reprove it; some trust that things will improve, others are sure that the only possibility lies in things worsening.  Independent of affiliations, phobias or preferences, the contradictory rhetoric of the quotidian declarations does not contribute to creating a future in which all citizens can partake.

A clear majority of those who voted did so for today’s Mexican President López Obrador. I entertain not the least doubt that much of the anger and many of the grievances that encouraged that vote are absolutely legitimate because, despite the advances, a competitive economy was never consolidated, one sufficiently broad in scope for all Mexicans to benefit from. The vote of tedium reflected a clash between reality discerned with decades of rhetoric that oversold the future, but delivered poor results.

If one brings this situation into focus as a problem requiring a solution,  it is that the country urgently needs new institutions, a term that has acquired a bad name in the current government’s morning discourses,  but one that is nonetheless transcendent. The problem is that, in the existing chain of events, it is nearly impossible to build institutions that satisfy its sine qua non condition of success: having widespread support and recognition. The environment of conflict and polarization renders it highly difficult to create and consolidate new institutions: at present, the country is encountering two great currents running against the flow: those that want to break with the status quo at any cost and those who demand certainty that can only derive from solid and non-contentious institutions. Beyond the side on which one finds himself in this antinomy, what is certain is that it is impossible to achieve stability and predictability in a society that lacks institutions that are credible for the majority of its citizens.

The milieu is so vice-ridden that anything the government proposes ends up being conceived as an abuse by one part of the population and as a given by the other. The opposite is equally true: the Morena majority automatically condemns, and is ready to dismantle, everything in existence prior to its advent, although many of the best things existing today –and that, doubtlessly, its base appreciates- are the product of the reforms of the recent decades.

The advances of the last decades are not few nor are they small: freedom of speech; free elections; a perhaps primitive health system, but infinitely superior to the madness into which the current government has incurred; access to innumerable first-rate goods and services at infinitely lower prices (after inflation) than those that existed before. At the same time, it is evident that there is a myriad of things, in terms of the conditions of daily life as well as the functioning of the governmental system, that are unacceptable, bad, corrupt and exceedingly inefficient. I do not doubt that, soon, we will find that the stalwarts of Morena, now at various levels of government, will be found immersed in problems of corruption, as occurred with PAN party members, the Puritans of those times. The problem does not lie in persons or parties, as much as the President absolves them, but rather in structures and incentives. That is the reason that the country will not get ahead unless it adopts a new legal and institutional structure. In contrast with the past, the latter would have to be legitimate to achieve its objective.

The dispute with respect to the INE was born in 1996 and reinforced in 2006 because the PRD party, many of whose constituents now espouse Morena, did not participate in decided fashion, and was in fact excluded, for good or bad reasons. Legitimacy was not achieved because there was no consensus, at least once, for this crucial institution.

There’s an additional phenomenon: much of public life consists of negotiating and a serious negotiation cannot be conducted in public. Mexicans have made theirs the myth of transparency, which is obviously necessary, but not everything has to be transparent. In Congress or in the Supreme Court, for example, transparency is indispensable but not in discussions and negotiations among the actors because it is there that, as Bismarck noted regarding sausages, the future is constructed. What is public ends up being merely a show and spectacles do not lead to good government.

Conflict can only come to an end with negotiation leading to legitimacy. The question is whether the government is in the business of promoting and deepening the conflict or building legitimacy. The women’s march of March 8 will be a bellwether of where Mexico stands today.

Twitter: @lrubiof

 https://mexicotoday.com/2020/03/10/opinion-conflictand-institutions/  

Luis Rubio

The master of the house unequivocally, maybe unbearably, threatened his wife: bring me a little girl as a “gift” or I will rape our daughters. The woman responded by bringing him a little girl.  Perhaps the dilemma was existential, but the woman complied, condemning as she did an innocent child. We all know what followed: the little girl was called Fatima.

The true pandemic that has all of Mexico awestruck is not the coronavirus but the impunity, and in no matter is this greater than in that which afflicts girls, boys and women. Rampant impunity has made possible not only for violence to misappropriate the life of Mexican society but, worse yet, this does not seem at all strange anymore to anyone.

In which country is violence tolerated such as that which oppresses Mexican society without anything happening? In what country is it possible for what is intolerable to become an everyday happening without anyone saying, or being able to say, anything? In what country does the government feel aggrieved because the society protests the femicides and the infanticides, in other words, the impunity? What country discredits whosoever calls attention to crimes that should not exist? In what country does the governing party and its acolytes accuse the victims of the impunity? What country denies a right so very elemental, that of indignation? That can only happen in a country that has lost all bearings of civility and civilization.

The information revolution, what distinguishes the XIX century, has transformed all public activity, but especially the relations between the government and the society, because it has conferred upon them novel instruments never before available. The ubiquity of information obligates everyone -citizens and governments- to act distinctly: the society is informed, it communicates and it acts, all this without governmental mediation, the latter the stamp of the XX century. The government possesses the same capacity, but particularly the opportunity, to transmit almost personalized messages, and it now confronts the challenge of not only communicating, but above all of convincing. The once monopoly of information alters the relations among all the actors of a society, but the Mexican government refuses to adapt to the new reality.

In this XXI century, crises are key moments that imply transformation or bust. Transformation when those that govern and the society come together to build a new constellation. Bust when each of these components only looks out for number one, on occasion meeting head on. In today’s Mexico the government confronts, by design, in a systematic way and cannot conceive of a society working in harmony. This vision impedes it from understanding the summons-to-arms that the femicides have placed at the Palace gate.

In the XXI century, an earnest and realistic government would head up the movement against femicides and infanticides, it would make them a common cause for transforming the country. In AMLO’s Fourth Transformation (4T), in which everything has to be different from what went on before, the government plays the victim and disqualifies anything that dares to present a distinct manner of thinking or acting, beginning with the First Lady, who was required to recant her words.

In the Mexico of the XXI century the victims are guilty; those who denounce assaults, rapes, homicides and other social wrongdoings (regarding whose termination the responsible party is evidently the government, all government) are conservative; and those who disagree with the official truth are traitors, i.e. neoliberals. The sole fact that there continues to exist the pretention of there being an official truth betrays the absurdity –the ahistorical nature- of this nineteenth-century view in the heart of the information era.  Back to the authoritarianism of the XX century.

Femicide is an ill created and tolerated by Mexican society because it has lost the compass of what is acceptable and what is intolerable. The sole fact that it would even occur to the head of a family to demand a “gift” in the form of a little girl and bully his own family into procuring one for him is incontrovertible evidence of the destruction of the essence of civility.

Just to put things into perspective: if the ill that afflicts Mexico were the coronavirus, we would have disappeared from the map due to this absolute incapacity to organize ourselves and act in response to the obstacles confronting us through the day-to-day reality. An epidemic that is not contained turns into a pandemic and pandemics –in matters of health and of politics- kill off societies and their governments.

Thus, femicide and infanticide should not only be condemned, but they also should be assumed to revise the dogmas of how to conduct public affairs so that these ills would cease to be once and for all. This lack of moral compass that would allow to distinguish what is –and should be- acceptable and intolerable, or if one prefers, differentiate the good from the bad, have led us to view with naturality what is not natural, what cannot be tolerated.

This “damned reality” has fallen into the hands of the government and it has not known how to respond. Rather than obligate it to assume its responsibility, its reaction has been phantasmagoric: how dare the damned reality sabotage the 4T.

 Twitter: @lrubiof

https://mexicotoday.com/2020/03/03/opinion-pandemic/

Luis Rubio

The book of anecdotes relates that Mexican President Adolfo Ruiz Cortines (1952-1958) kept a completely tidy desk, with the exception of two bins: the first said “Problems that resolve themselves” and the second, “Problems that time takes care of”. That political philosophy, carried over time, allowed successive administrations back in the middle of the 20^th century to keep the peace during a time, but did not avoid collapse. Like so many moments in Mexico’s history –and that of the world-, things work until they don’t.

The epoch of Porfirio Díaz (1876-1910) functioned for a time, but later collapsed; stabilizing development (1940s-1970s) afforded the country some decades of accelerated growth until its inherent limitations ended it on rendering it unviable. The diverse French Republics encountered a similar fate, precisely akin to that which took place in the era of the reforms during Mexico’s most recent decades. Each of these examples dawned with great expectations but arrived at its destination exhausted, in good measure due to the complacency generated.

A great initiative is launched, whatever necessary is done for it to work effectively but, some years later, it wears out and no one does anything to correct its errors, insufficiencies or negative byproducts. The much-heralded process yields decreasing benefits until it collapses; that is what happened from the forties and until the beginning of the eighties of the last century. Instead of resolving the problems, updating the model, introducing novel elements and components, paving the way forward, Mexico’s history has been one of steering clear of difficult decisions, preserving predatory interests, protecting politically favored groups and, in a word, coddling the status quo. The outcome should surprise nobody: insufficient or incomplete results, unsatisfied expectations and, at the end of the day, collapse in the form of electoral rejection of the reformer project.

If something is clear about the reforming process of the eighties to date it is that the reforms were not sufficiently ambitious or, at least, they were not imbued with the integral drive required to be successful. It was claimed that it was possible to liberalize the importation of goods, but not to do so with services, leaving the industrialists facing top-notch competition without access to credit, insurance and diverse services (communications, infrastructure, etc.) similar to those typifying the producers of other countries. It was claimed that it was possible to transform education and provide Mexican children with the tools and opportunities that would be required for them in the future to compete with their Japanese, French or Brazilian peers, without modifying the petty tyrannical control characterizing the Teachers Union (SNTE) or its radical appendages like the CNTE. It was claimed that some could be submitted to competition while others were protected. Under conditions such as these, it is impossible to envisage the success of a project. The evidence is the reality.

Each of the decisions to impede the reforms can be explained analytically in terms of the actors and the specific correlation of forces  at each particular juncture, a circumstance that is neither exceptional nor exclusive to Mexico, but it is also evident that there was enormous complacency in all of the ambits of political, economic, and union power. In contrast to countries that had no alternative other than to keep working to make possible a substantial improvement in their populations’ life levels,   in Mexico migration to the United States and NAFTA let everyone rest on their laurels: migration diminished the social pressure and NAFTA created a state of exception within the country that attracted investment. Rather than extending that space in order to generalize it and for the exception to be what was not working, which would have required affecting diverse interests close to the “system,” all of the key actors became complacent and engendered an environment that rendered inevitable, in retrospect, the excess and consequent popular rejection of the status quo.

It is fortunate that the country enjoys the privilege of having an increasingly wealthy population residing outside of Mexico that sustains a huge part of the citizenry, above all in rural areas, through its ongoing remittances. Also implicit in this are the exports, which permit maintaining stability in the balance of payments and contributing decisively to the growth of vast regions of the country. However, these are exceptions and, given the current American context, overly precarious situations.  Like its predecessors, the government of AMLO benefits from these elements but cannot rely on them, because both are in the sights of Trump.

Whichever way the President adopts in matters of development, there are two circumstances that he will be unable to avoid: on the one hand, he must procure a high growth rate: the notion that development can be achieved without growth is mere fantasy. On its part, growth requires private investment, which will only be attained when the uncertainty emanating from the government ceases. On the other hand, the only way to achieve growth that is likely to advance toward development is with an inclusive strategy that promotes social mobility, something natural in the XX century but nearly nonexistent at present.

Twitter: @lrubiof

https://mexicotoday.com/2020/02/25/opinion-the-costs-of-doing-nothing/

Luis Rubio

The future is built, whether consciously or unconsciously. The president, through his actions, decisions and rhetoric, shapes it, like it or not. Nearly a year and a half after the initiation of President López Obrador’s administration, there are two things that are very clear: first, his objective is to change the future that was under construction throughout the previous four or five prior decades. And, second, he holds a series of very fixed and clear-cut ideas with respect to the future that he intends to build on and that are incompatible with the XXI century. Therein lies the problem.

The President’s vision arises from an era very distinct from that of the present. The country began to change –what he demonizes as “neoliberalism”- because the development strategy deriving from the substitution of imports in a closed and protected economy had delivered all it could muster. During these decades the world changed due to the revolution of communications, the ubiquity of information, and, above all, the realities that those elements engendered at the global level: the internationalization of production; the threats from the environment and the potential pandemics; the rules imposed by the importing nations; the exploitation of information -Big Data- by the technological behemoths; and the magnification of the expectations of an increasingly knowledgeable and in general worldly wise population. Rebuilding an idyllic past is simply not possible. 

Despite the truism of our circumstance as a country embedded in the global context, the Mexican tradition of reinventing the government every six years continues to be as operative as ever. In terms of what distinguishes the current government is the enormity of its ambition: it wants to not only reinvent the government, but also to recreate the country. The steps it has been taking in that direction are revealing: it has been making mincemeat of all the structures and institutional organisms constructed to confer certainty on the population in its diverse aspects: the human rights commissions to protect the citizenry from the actions of the State; and the regulatory commissions in matters of energy, communications and competition to provide certainty for the actors in the economy.

The result of its performance is two-fold: on the one hand, it has increasingly concentrated power; on the other hand, it has generated an exceedingly elevated degree of uncertainty. The gap between the President’s popularity‒ as a person vis-à-vis his government –of around 40%- illustrates the phenomenon: the citizenry trusts the President but does not see eye to eye with the actions of his government nor with its policies. We are at the let’s-see stage as to whether the National Electoral Institute (INE), an institution much more transcendent and well known to the ordinary citizen, is being similarly set upon. The evident question is: At what moment will the straw that breaks the camel’s back appears to topple the president’s popularity?

In fact, the easiness with which the institutional framework was dismantled reveals the lack of deep rootedness of those entities and the absence of credibility regarding their importance for daily life. At the same time, it exhibits the enormous weakness of the government itself because no country can bear up under the jolts between administrations that characterize the Mexican political system, and even less so in the period during which the well-being of almost all Mexicans depends on the mightily entrenched supply chains traversing the three nations of the subcontinent. The contradiction between the President’s objectives and the requirements for progress surpasses flagrancy.

The President undoubtedly wishes to attract private investment, but is unwilling to accept that, in the XXI century, his sole possibility of producing this rests in creating the proper conditions for it to flow of its own free volition. It has been decades since there has been the possibility of a government to force people modest or lofty- to save or invest without their leave. Investment will pour forth only to the extent that the uncertainty stemming from the very government itself and its carryings-on dematerializes.

The point of departure for the group in power resides in its belief that democracy was inaugurated in Mexico in 2018. Therefore, everything that existed prior to that should be eradicated and, simultaneously, the legitimacy that the government enjoys allows it to do whatever it pleases not only with the past, but even with the future. That type of arrogance has already plummeted more than one government in our recent past and there is no reason to think that things would be distinct for the present one. The president’s alternative lies in convening the construction of a common future, something that is plainly contrary to his nature and strategy but that, in the long term, will come to be recognized as its sole possibility of success.

Democracy, says David Runciman,* lives in the moment and displays its strengths over time. This mismatch produces confusion and uncertainty. We can’t wait out the confusion and uncertainty because waiting them out gives them the room to grow, damaging both democracy and the economy. The question is whether the intention is to create or to destroy because the current milieu provides no alternatives. It is in this sense that it is worthwhile to think about the warning of the historian Mary Renault: “There is only one type of shock worse than the totally unexpected: the expected for which one has refused to prepare.”

*The Confidence Trap

Twitter: @lrubiof
https://mexicotoday.com/2020/02/18/opinion-building-the-future/

Luis Rubio
Americas Quarterly – February 13, 2020

To build a better economy, Mexico needs to focus on the future – not the past.

MEXICO CITY – Nostalgia may be a natural human trait, but nostalgic Mexicans today are facing a dilemma: choosing between different, and dueling, views of the past. On the one hand, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, or AMLO, wants to recreate a distant era that few living Mexicans even knew. On the other side, we find many Mexicans that assume that the AMLO administration is a passing phenomenon—a dream or a nightmare depending on one’s perspective—so that things will go back to where they were when he took over. Neither is possible, and therein lies the ongoing fight for the future.

Many Mexicans, perhaps a majority, expect normalcy to resume once the current administration ends. The problem with that view is that AMLO’s election was not the result of chance, but of a society tired with the status quo and endless promises of improvement in daily life that failed to materialize. If one puts together the circumstances that led to the 2018 election and the nature of the AMLO coalition and his actions, returning to the past is all but inconceivable.

The question then becomes what kind of future awaits Mexicans after AMLO. The fight for the future is ongoing at several levels. On the one hand, harsh reality has meant that the economy is not growing and the government’s frame of reference—“the State is in charge and everybody follows”—is incompatible with the kind of competition for investment that is the trait of the 21st century. Although the government would like to attract private investment, both domestic and foreign, it fails to accept the rationale that it must create conditions for it to materialize and that, ultimately, it cannot force anyone to save or invest.

The government’s actions and rhetoric, particularly by cancelling the new Mexico City airport and, above all, by eliminating or neutralizing key regulatory agencies, have frightened off investors. Investment has kept flowing to maintain existing lines of production, and there have been several acquisitions of Mexican companies by foreign entities. “Carry trade”, given the beneficial interest rate differentials, has continued to attract portfolio investment in government securities, but there’s not a single new direct investment project in the works.

The president’s perspective was shaped during the 1960s and 1970s, an era of fast economic growth, high social mobility and, at least until the beginning of the 1970s, order and relative peace. In his hometown of Macuspana, in the oil-rich state of Tabasco, PEMEX would provide for the community and there was no need to attract private investments or create jobs. That very basic reality from the 1960s seems to animate his bigger plans for dominating Mexican politics in the 21st century, a contradiction that has been overshadowed by the president’s enduring popularity and skill at evading harsh questions in his daily early morning encounters with the media.

The issue at heart is the radical contrast in perspectives that the various constituencies around the president and AMLO himself harbor vis-à-vis Mexican politics and democracy. For all of them, Mexican democracy was born in 2018 and everything that existed before must be eradicated while, at the same time, it confers upon the government full legitimacy not only to do as they please with the past, particularly the reforms of the past few decades, but also to shape the future. But what about the next presidential election?

From 2000 on, Mexicans grew accustomed to competitive elections and the alternation of political parties in power, and the 2018 election was different only in that it brought the left into government for the first time. But the issue is far more relevant than it might appear at first sight. The question percolating inside the president’s Morena “movement” is whether to attempt to stay in power by winning elections (the old-fashioned way) or whether to stick to power at any cost. There are plenty of constituents for both perspectives within the party. The next issue looming as part of this divide dwells on the National Electoral Institute’s looming new appointments: Will Morena impose itself and nominate members of its own or will it open the game for all political parties to participate as a Congress is supposed to do?

Sooner or later, the obvious contradictions between the government’s actions and lack of economic delivery will erode the president’s popularity and force him to confront the need to take a different approach. The key factor that determines the nature of the coming challenge is the president’s deeply-felt commitment to a zero, or close to zero, fiscal deficit. Avoiding a financial crisis is crucial to his political perspective. Hence, his actions have not brought high levels of inflation that, in the past, quickly delegitimized several administrations. The flip side of the equation, stagnation, takes longer to bite into people’s livelihoods, but is gradually ever more visible in the difficulty of finding jobs, lower consumption of some non-key services and the like.

At some point, the president will be forced to radicalize, accept reality or change to make a series of reforms that Mexico does need to attack corruption, reduce poverty and increase social mobility, three key components of his electoral program that previous administrations refused to countenance. Unfortunately, the latter is almost inconceivable and, thus, the question is whether Mexico’s future will be another failed and mediocre administration (the best one can hope for at the moment) or a radicalization of the administration. Much rides on what happens on the midterms of 2021.

https://www.americasquarterly.org/content/mexican-dilemma