Luis Rubio

Years ago, during my student days, I attended a performance of an experimental theatrical work that, I think, was called Chaos in the Scenario. It was a parody of an orchestra conductor who was unable to decide on which work to interpret. Each of the orchestra’s instruments attempted to convince him to select the score that would allow for the greater showing off of its instrument and played small selections of those works to exert pressure for its proposal. Since the conductor would come to a decision, passions flared in parallel to the volume of the music, until the play ended up in absolute scenic and acoustic chaos.

After last Sunday it is crucial to give serious and careful thought to how Mexican politics will advance from next October on, if not before. The election produced a return to the party monopoly, but from a party that is not a party. Morena, a “movement” that responds to a sole individual, its only source of cohesion and contention, will now pass on to a leadership that has never been a relevant political factor, leaving more questions than answers, with respect to both the next president as well as to her predecessor. And many more questions about the future of the country. 

Mexicans will have a presidency legitimized by an overwhelming popular vote, qualified majorities (or close to it) in both legislative chambers and nearly total “control” of the national territory. However, control here is a relative term because no one controls anything in today’s Mexico, starting with Morena itself. López Obrador attained an extraordinary milestone, the product of his personality and political shrewdness, but those elements are not transmittable nor are they repeatable. No one else will achieve the appearance of control garnered by President López Obrador. The question then is how to function?

According to Max Weber, there are three types of authority: the traditional, the charismatic and the legal-rational. The president has been a charismatic figure (which surely explains 80% of the result). Notwithstanding that, charismatic authority is not inheritable, and Mexico does not possess traditional characteristics of leadership. Historically, the non-existence of traditional structures or exceptional charisma was what led to institutionalization. Paradoxically then, the winner in the polls could come to be the great institutional transformer. I cannot imagine any other scenario under which she could be successful within the current political context. 

The typical and traditional manner of acting in Mexico’s government was to fill potholes. I remember the headline of a newspaper during a presidential campaign some decades ago in which a woman from the state of San Luis Potosí told the candidate “Better cover up the ravine instead of pulling the ox out every six years.” What’s facile, what’s typical of Mexican politics, has always been the easy way out: settle the immediate problem to avoid having to engage in a substantive transformation. But this election, and the complex political reality in which the country finds itself, does not lend itself to that. What’s key would be to turn a politically complex scenario into an inclusive and broadly based summons for institutional change that truly transforms the country or that, at least, lays the ground for that to happen. In other words, to cover up the ravine, as in the previous example.

Last Sunday night there were two emblematic speeches: that of the winner of the election and that of the president of Morena. There is no way to hide the contradiction of visions, postures and realities at the interior of Morena that were exhibited there. While the next president was conciliatory and revealed full understanding of her new role as leader of the entire citizenry, her party’s head accentuated the divisions and the polarization, to a degree even infrequent for the outgoing president. The contrast illustrates the exceptional complexity of the political management soon to be required. And of the challenge for the next president.

The country’s situation is increasingly difficult in the fiscal arena, in the relationship with the United States, in the reigning corruption and in security, at least four of the most precarious spaces and ones clamoring for immediate attention. Being able to confront them is going to require an unusual capacity of political articulation because, while these might appear to be technical issues, confronting them will require exceptional political skills to bring together interests in conflict, building complicated alliances and maintaining the control of groups that, in addition to being violent and belligerent, are part of the movement called Morena. And, to fill the plate to overflowing, there is the agenda of constitutional reforms, AMLO’s toy chest, which, were they to be approved, would deepen the divisions and place at risk not only the next government, but also the whole nation. How will the new president do it to contain all these factors so that the country does not come apart in her hands?       

The country is exhausted and each of the rubrics that the next government’s team will soon have to tackle will demand uniting rather than polarizing. Critical decisions regarding crucial appointments (e.g. Defense, Treasury) and criteria that could divert from the current administration will demand exceptional political talent. In addition, the first great challenge lies closer to home: impose limits on President López Obrador and resolve the relationship between the two. Without that there is no future.

The citizenry should come around in support of the victor of this presidential election and trust that she will succeed in this central task.

www.mexicoevalua.org

@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

The Mexican electorate today faces a fundamental dilemma. Howsoever each citizen votes, it is impossible to minimize the transcendence of the casting of the citizen’s ballot. In the elections the future of the country is at stake and the central question is how to elevate the probability of the result’s being benign while simultaneously minimizing the risk of its not being so.

The tense present political climate characterizing the country is half due to the polarization strategy that has driven the President who is now concluding his mandate and half due to the lack of effective results for the majority of the population in spite of many years of promises, but above all the perception of few lasting and sustainable achievements. And this is exactly the factor that is crucial for the voter to bear in mind in this election: how to avoid the prodigious fluctuations and ups and downs that have been the characteristic more than the exception for too long.

In Greek mythology, Ulisses, the prominent personage of The Odyssey, faced a similar dilemma when he returns after his defeat of Troy. While navigating his ship he comes upon immense danger of having to transit between two sizeable threats on the part of Scylla and Charybdis, a six-headed sea monster and a monumental whirlwind, respectively, both posing menacingly. 

The threat that we Mexicans face is, before anything else, that of an excess of power concentrated in a sole person. Mexican history is rich with examples that illustrate this point and the citizens, little by little, will come to realize the huge cost that the outgoing President has incurred and for which all Mexicans will be asked to foot the bill. Thus, beyond the preferences that each of us entertains with respect to the two candidates in the presidential race, the first objective that the citizenry should advance is that of reducing the risk entailed in the fact that a sole individual or group concentrates so much power and the grave damage that this situation represents for the country. 

A philosopher on the 20^th century, Karl Popper argued that what is crucial is the following: “How can we best avoid situations in which a bad governor causes too much harm?” In electoral terms Popper would have recommended a divided government (one in which the Executive Branch and The Congress are not controlled by the same person or party), in such a way that the propensity for abuse diminishes in the case of the governor turning out to be bad.

This would imply voting for different political parties for the presidency and for Congress with the objective of procuring an equilibrium between the two branches of government, which is precisely the purpose of being able to count on distinct entities that require each other mutually. Hopefully, the next Congress must come to understand the absurdity of the years of opposition at any cost (1997-2012), those of unrestrainable corruption (2012-2018) and those of denigrating submission (2018-2024) in order to build a co-governmental schema, in the best sense of the word. The worst scenario by far, the same for a President C as for a President X, but above all for the citizenry, would be a majority in the hands of the party that is victorious in the presidential duel.

After this comes the vote for the presidency. Also here, voters must define their vote. Some have already done so by conviction, by experience, by association with the President or by rejection of the President or of some political party in particular. The truth is that, however much the de facto campaigns have been conducted for nearly a year, no one knows the candidates to the core. We have all seen their biographies, have heard them, have seen them make mistakes and pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and we have formed an opinion.  However, when one looks back in history, it is more than evident that very few presidents of the past behaved and made decisions during their mandate as they promised or how it seemed that they would govern when they were candidates. That is normal (the circumstances forge the personage), but it is also the product of everything that they hide and that the electoral rules impede the citizens from fully knowing the individuals who aspire to that job, transcendent as it is.

It is interesting to observe the contrast existing outside and inside Mexico with respect to this presidential race. The articles emanating from the international press, from the rating agencies or from investors suggest that it does not matter who wins the race because both candidates guarantee the viability of the current economic schema.  The latter can result in being true or false, but it reflects structural factors (such as the USMCA) and the candidates’ discourse. But, for Mexicans, the dilemma has directly to do with their political freedoms and the checks and balances within the political system, from which all else derives. The biases are distinct, but suggestive: for the citizenry, what is crucial is their physical, judicial, political and patrimonial certainty, all of these certainties duly ignored and relegated to a lower standing throughout the government that is now coming to its end.

The polarization existing today impedes many Mexicans from recognizing that in electing a new government all that should matter is that whoever wins should do no damage to those voting for another candidate or, above all, do no damage to the country. Each of us will have their preferences, but the risk of erring is enormous and irreversible. Thus, the certainty bestowed by the existence of effective counterweights is best.

www.mexicoevalua.org

@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

At the heart of the electoral dispute that is about to end dwells the central actor: the citizenry.  Next Sunday is the day on which, with their vote, the citizens will express their view with regard to the government and their expectations with respect to the future. In contrast with other stellar moments of Mexican politics, this election day undoubtedly constitutes a watershed, the situation in which the outgoing president has placed the country through his strategy of confrontation and erosion of democratic institutions. Beyond the individuals contending now, the citizenry has a choice of two very distinct types of government and perspectives of the future. And the big question is whether the country can navigate with tranquility, certainty and harmony towards a new stadium of development starting from next October first.

In the year 2000 Mexicans confronted a similar tessitura but the contrast is dramatic with that moment during which the country was undergoing a species of honeymoon: a recently inaugurated National Electoral Institute (INE), an economy in healthy conditions, institutions avowing the consecration of a new era of peace and development, and candidates who conducted themselves like Statesmen. The country was plunged into a wave of optimism due to the milestone of having broken with a partisan tradition that had lasted for seven decades. Today that idyllic moment seems remote, but not so the opportunity confronting the voters.

In recent decades, the country has moved from a political system in which the president ruled (with the only limit of the negotiations that took place within the old political system) towards an imperfect democratic structure to which several presidents more or less adhered, to now end up in a virtually imperial presidency which is even housed in a palace. Clearly, the country did not consolidate a democracy and it is equally clear that the more distant past that the outgoing president idealizes was far from paradisiacal. But it is also obvious (and any reasonable follower of the president should acknowledge) that the achievements of the now-concluding administration are rather modest. Regardless of the objectives that were intended to be achieved, Mexico today entails greater conflict, greater violence and less certainty regarding the future.

Throughout the past year the two candidates have presented themselves before the electorate, they have shown their personalities, their preferences, their abilities, and their ideas regarding the future. In a frank break with the outgoing president, both candidates concur in the imperious need to accelerate the rhythm of the growth of the economy because both recognize that the latter is the only way to break with the vicious cycles of poverty and inequality.

Where they find themselves in disagreement is in the way that each of them would confront the ills that the country is undergoing. While the campaigns are supposed to be the time to propose new ideas and policies, the truth is that, in a country so prone to jolting back and forth, to sudden changes and to depending on a sole individual for everything -a savior or an exterminator- the campaigns only serve to allow the individuals seeking the presidency to be known and for the citizenry to decide on whom to place their wagers.

And that is the core problem: that instead of being able to count on an institutional framework that guarantees the stability necessary for the functioning of everyday life, the Mexican lives in the hope of a better future, relegating to the person occupying the presidential seat the prerogative of conducting the national affairs to the best of their understanding. It is not by chance that for Karl Popper the relevant question concerning democracy should be: “how is the state to be constituted so that bad rulers can be got rid of without bloodshed, without violence?” Something like that seemed to have begun to emerge in that direction, but the current government has made it evident that this was a mere fantasy, thus rendering that option inexistent, and therein lies the inherent risk in today’s election.

Claudia Sheinbaum has laid her cards on the table when stating that there are two governmental projects confronting each other in today’s election. She seasons this with more qualifiers than necessary but puts her finger right on the issue at hand: a country controlled from above with a government that imposes, controls and decides based on its preferences and the interests of its acolytes, or a government that dedicates itself to creating conditions for development to be possible, letting the people to decide how to carry this out. The Morena candidate proposes to concentrate power, Xóchitl Gálvez advocates for power to be dispersed. The difference is radical, and that is what the citizenry must assess.

The problems facing the country are so obvious that they do not require further discussion, but the manner of confronting them entail vast differences and consequences and this does indeed require a conscientious analysis and a far-reaching socialization both within the formal organs of the State (especially the Congress) as well as in the society. Labeling these two perspectives of the future (which inevitably simplifies them), the question is whether the country should advance towards sort of a Chinese model of development, obviously in the Mexican cultural context, with an economy driven by the government and a subjugated society, or a liberal schema in which legislation is worked out so that laws and regulations make possible the development of the country as well as the freedom of the citizens.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

As Marx pointed out, history repeats itself, the first time as a tragedy, second as a farce. For his part, Santayana argued that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Repeated or not, it is imperative not to ignore key historical moments to at least understand the risks and potential implications of the times in which Mexicans are living. Certainly, the experiences of each nation have to do with their particular circumstances and these are not transferable to other latitudes, but, at the same time, there are similarities that it is always important to elucidate. Starting from these perspective, Frank McDonough* has just published a magnificent history of the Weimar Republic in Germany between the two world wars. What follows are the conclusions reached by the author and which it is impossible not to look at with concern in view of the parallels, similarities and differences that they entail.

“The commonly held view that the ‘Great Depression’ led to the collapse of Weimar democracy, and brought Hitler to power, is not credible. The USA and Britain suffered economic problems often as difficult as those of Germany, but democracy did not collapse in either of those countries. This suggests there was something specific about the nature of the political and economic crisis that was peculiar to Germany and this time…

A total of 13.74 million people voted for Hitler of their own free will in July 1932 [of a total of 37.2 million votes cast]. Solid middle-class groups, usually the cement that holds together democratic governments, decided to support a party openly promising to destroy democracy… Hitler’s party grew because millions of Germans felt democratic government had been a monumental failed experiment. To these voters, Hitler offered the utopian vision of creating an authoritarian ‘national community’ that would sweep away the seeming chaos and instability of democratic government, and provide strong leadership…

There were two aspects pf the Weimar Constitution that undoubtedly contributed to the failure of democracy. The first was the voting system, based on proportional representation, which gave Reichstag seats in exact proportion to the votes cast in elections. In Germany, this system did not work. In July 1932, 27 different political parties contested the election, ranging across the political spectrum with each representing one class or interest group. These differing parties reflected the bitter divisions in German society and made the task of creating stable coalition governments extremely difficult, and eventually impossible…

Those who drafted the Weimar Constitution were unwittingly culpable in offering a means of destroying democracy. This was the special powers the Weimar Constitution invested in the role of the President. No one realized when drafting the Constitution how an antidemocratic holder of the post could subvert the power of the President. Article 48 gave the German President extensive subsidiary powers in a ‘state of emergency’ to appoint and dismiss Chancellors and cabinets, to dissolve the Reichstag, call elections and suspend civil rights…

The two German presidents of the Weimar years were quite different. Social Democrat Friedrich Ebert was an enthusiastic supporter of Weimar democracy… Paul von Hindenburg was a great contrast. He was a right-wing figure, who had led Germany’s militaristic armed forces during the Great War of 1914-1918… It was President Hindenburg who mortally damaged the infant democratic structure in Germany more than anyone else. It was not the Constitution or the voting system that was the fundamental problem, but the culpable actions of Hindenburg, who chose to deliberately subvert the power it had invested in him…

The real problem Hindenburg faced was that the three previous Chancellors had no popular legitimacy and no parliamentary support. Hindenburg’s presidential rule had taken Germany down a blind alley…

Even in the period of deep political and economic crisis between 1930 and 1933, during the time or authoritarian ‘presidential rule’, there was no attempt to overthrow the Republic… The two decisive ingredients in the period from 1930 to 1933 were the supreme indifference of President Hindenburg, and his inner circle, to sustain democratic government, and the dramatic rise in electoral support for Adolf Hitler.”

This story can be read in many ways. My impression upon reading and rereading it is that there are signs of México’s past and present reality -perhaps since the beginning of the democratic transition in the late 90s- that could well end up determining the future. Of course, history is not linear or deterministic and things evolve in different ways in each nation and circumstance. A look back over the past decades shows how much Mexico has changed and the infinite opportunities that could lie in the future. But it is worth keeping in mind that just as the country could confidently evolve favorably, the opposite cannot be ruled out.

*The Weimar Years: Rise and Fall 1918-1933

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

Jack-of-all-trades (Milusos in Spanish) is one of the most accurate, and audacious at the same time, characterizations of the Mexican who can do nothing other than to work for a living. Héctor Suárez, an actor, popularized the term in his film of the same name, a drama and simultaneously a social critique: the enormous capacity of adaptation of the Mexican on coming up against the adversity that the socioeconomic structure produces. The term milusos reveals a very in-depth reality of the Mexican: their search for solutions, their rejection of imposition and, to achieve this, their extraordinary creativity.

In the early eighties, a European ambassador in Mexico told me that she’d gone to see the pyramids of Teotihuacán. On the way, she observed a phenomenon that contradicted everything she’d learned from the preparatory materials with which her Foreign Ministry had provided her, these materials which had characterized the country as a socialist nation. She expected a conformist and timorous population. What she found, literally from the moment she advanced along Mexico City’s Insurgentes Avenue toward Indios Verdes, was the most enterprising population she’d ever seen: no corner was bereft of a vendor of sweets, magazines, cold drinks, and on entering the zone of the pyramids, it was replete with sellers of handicrafts and evocative playthings of the most diverse type.

The creativity of the Mexican may be noted in all aspects of life, but above all in their hunger for getting ahead, for which they work longer hours than in many countries, many more than the average in the nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a testament not only to their willingness to work, but also to Mexico’s very poor socioeconomic organization, rendering as it does such low productivity levels. The differences in the nature and quality of the educational and health systems, as well as a greater investment in the infrastructure of other OECD nations, translate into much higher levels of productivity.

Another way of phrasing this is that the Mexican possesses an enormous propensity for procuring innovative ways of creating, resolving problems and setting up shop. Mexicans in the United States tend to create enterprises with great celerity because they discern opportunities and attempt to convert them into realities for their own greater well-being. There as well as in Mexico, the key lies in that no one has their life all tied up with a red bow for them in advance.

Mexicans work because there’s no other way, but nearly always they work without ideal instruments or with tools that are very poorly prepared for being successful, especially the poor-quality and inadequate education provided to them by the educational system. Despite that, their attitude and disposition do not falter because their skills and tool kits are lacking in comparison with those of other nationalities. They work and put forth their best effort to this in life, but, above all, they work to generate wealth, without which no government would have anything to distribute.

Contrariwise, when a government opts for giving away money for people not to have to work, it impedes the creation of wealth and inhibits personal development. Of course, not all jobs are equally desirable, remunerative or satisfactory, but all contribute to the development of people, therefore to that of families and countries. To eliminate the incentive to work implies destroying the essence of life itself and, consequently, that of the nation.

At the beginning of the 20^th century, Argentina was of the wealthiest nations in the world, comparable with the European ones or the United States of the epoch. The combination of natural resources, a fundamentally middle-class population and a disposition to work led to the consecration of a successful nation. One hundred years later, the profile of Argentina is very different, with a very much lower range of product per capita. One of the main reasons for this fall was the disincentive to work and to create wealth incorporated into the Peronist strategy of subsidizing workers and women, children, older adults, the unemployed and persons who retired after only a few short work years. When people do not have the need to work because the government systematically subsidizes them, the country begins to break down.

It is within this context that the recent proposal by the Morena-party candidate looms so dangerous and pernicious with respect to the function of the government in this matter: “It is not true, it is false, that if one does not work, then one cannot have a good living standard. That is the discourse of the past. Here the government, the Mexican State, has to provide support.” One thing is to “support” older adults who no longer entertain the possibility of contributing to the nation’s productive life and another very different one is to subsidize everyone because work is not important. That would imply not only that depending on the government is a virtue, but that, in addition, people do not have the right to develop themselves. Worse yet, that work is not a form of progressing, realizing oneself and contributing to personal, familial and national development.

The reason is obvious why the Morena presidential candidate thinks of work: as past President Porfirio Díaz said, “A dog with a bone in its mouth neither bites nor barks.” But, beyond creating clienteles, Gertrude Himmelfarb had a most appropriate idea concerning the issue: “Work, if not sacred, is essential not only to their sustenance but to their self-respect.”

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

April 30, 2024

 The advent of populist movements, from the left and the right, has been accompanied by a rejection of globalization and a systematic call for the reappearance of an all-powerful government, aimed at correcting the ills that afflict humanity.

This populist narrative does not deny the extraordinary progress in terms of prosperity and poverty reduction that has characterized the world in recent decades, but it argues that “savage” or unfettered capitalism has caused extreme income inequality, benefiting mainly the rich.

The narrative is appealing, but it has served less to improve the welfare of the population than to consolidate new interests in power. This poses a clear dilemma in the context of electing Mexico’s next president: Closing the country’s doors to the world, or finding ways for the entire population to reap the benefits of the enormous opportunities that come with proximity to our two northern neighbors.

The economic liberalization that Mexico embarked on since the 1980s was little more than an acceptance that global technological change opened opportunities the country couldn’t seize without significantly changing its economic strategy and institutional framework. Today, the Mexican economy is much larger and more productive than it was half a century ago, and citizens enjoy political freedoms previously unimaginable.

The election of a new president, regardless of the winner, will determine the state’s  willingness to chart a course that allows the entire population to live in an environment of security and certainty, or to persist in the institutional and economic destruction initiated by the outgoing government of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

The key point for those seeking progress for Mexico has to be accepting that globalization is an inexorable reality that has been extraordinarily beneficial for the country. The ills often associated with it — such as violence, inequality and poor-quality education — have been the result of what has not been done. The country can only attempt to isolate itself from globalization if it is willing to pay the price in terms of low growth, increased poverty and more inequality, losing out on the technological change upon which future progress depends.

The outgoing administration has attempted to play two contradictory games. On the one hand, it has allowed the continuation of integration with our northern neighbors, but did nothing to improve infrastructure or opportunities for the population to participate in that economic space. On the other hand, the administration has undermined the country’s security, hindered the development of energy capacity and created an environment of enormous uncertainty regarding the future, including the conditions necessary for the USMCA to continue after the review in 2026.

All of this calls into question the sustainability of current sources of growth. The winner of the election in June will have to define policy on this matter immediately.

Nations that, in recent decades, chose to face up to these challenges share very similar characteristics: They focused on improving the quality of their educational systems, built the necessary infrastructure and modified legislation to facilitate the transition of their economies. Above all, they changed their way of understanding development and embarked on a crusade to ensure that all of society could join the process.

By observing nations that thrive and those that lag behind, the path is evident. The successful countries embraced globalization and continue to do so, in parallel with adjusting and adapting their strategies and policies to ensure that their populations have access to every possible opportunity.

Mexico has followed a less consistent and more uncertain path. While there was a clear and consistent vision in the first iteration of Mexican reforms in the 1980s and 90s, the truth is that this did not last long. The liberalization of the economy was inconsistent with the way companies and banks were privatized, and many of the reforms, especially those undertaken in the previous administration of Enrique Peña Nieto (extraordinarily ambitious in themselves), were executed in such a way that they never gained legitimacy, and were therefore politically vulnerable.

The crucial point is that Mexico has spent decades pretending to reform when, in reality, it has only adapted at the lowest possible cost, preventing more successful and attractive results from being achieved for the population. That is the real dilemma for the next government.

Mexico has not embraced the need to be successful, has not accepted the imperative (and inevitable) nature of the new reality, all of which has made possible the attacks the country is now experiencing against its own future.

Globalization has not ceased to exist; the question is whether Mexico will eventually make it its own, or continue to pretend that its economic and political impoverishment is merely a matter of chance.

Luis Rubio is the president of México Evalúa-CIDAC and former president of the Mexican Council on International Affairs (COMEXI). He is a prolific columnist on international relations and on politics and the economy, writing weekly for Reforma newspaper, and regularly for The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Mexico News Daily, its owner or its employees.

Opinion: How the populist narrative will challenge Mexico’s next president

Luis Rubio

The advent of populist currents, left as well as right, has been accompanied by the rejection of so-called globalization and a systemic summons for the reappearance of an all-powerful government, aiming at correcting the ills afflicting humanity. That narrative does not deny the extraordinary advance of the prosperity and diminution of poverty that has characterized the world over the last decades, but it proposes that this pertains to a “savage” capitalism that gave rise to extreme inequality in income, mainly benefitting the wealthy. The narrative is attractive, but it has served less for improving the population’s welfare than for the consolidation of new interests in power. For Mexicans this furnishes a clear tessitura in the context of the presidential succession: shut the door to the world or find ways that the whole population could reap equitable benefits in the enormous opportunities entailed in the connection with our neighbors to the North.

The economic liberalization that Mexico undertook from the eighties onward was nothing other than accepting that the technological change characterizing the world could not be taken advantage of without effecting great changes in its economic strategy and institutional fabric. Today’s Mexican economy is infinitely greater and more productive than it was a half-century ago and the citizenry enjoys formerly unimaginable political freedoms. The presidential succession that is nearly upon us, whosoever wins, will determine the disposition of the new government to find a direction that permits the entire population to live in an environment of security and certainty or to persevere in the institutional and economic destruction that the outgoing government initiated.

The key point for those whose prime objective is the progress of Mexico must of necessity be that of accepting that globalization is a reality that is inexorable but that, in addition, has been extraordinarily beneficial for the country. The harms with which globalization is often associated with -such as violence, inequality and a lousy educational system- have been the product of what has not been done. In this manner, the country can attempt to abstract itself from globalization only if it is willing to pay the price in terms of low growth, more poverty and more inequality, due to the mere fact that this would isolate Mexico from the technological change on which future progress depends.

The outgoing government has tried to play two contradictory games. On the one hand, it has permitted the interconnection to persist with our northern neighbors, but it did literally nothing to improve the infrastructure of the population’s opportunities to participate in that economic space. On the other hand, it undermined the country’s security, blocked the development of the electric capacity, and created an immense uncertainty with respect to the future, including under this rubric the conditions that will be required for the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) to continue after its compulsory review during the coming year. All this casts doubt on the viability of the sources of current growth. Whoever succeeds in winning the election will have to define herself on this matter immediately.

The nations that, during the last decades, chose to face up to the challenge share very similar characteristics: they dedicated themselves to elevate the quality of their educational systems, built all the infrastructure necessary and modified their legislation in order to facilitate the transition of their economies.  Above that, they changed their way of understanding development and, literally, launched a crusade so that all the society would join in the process.

It is sufficient to observe the nations that prosper and those that fall behind to make evident that the successful ones are those that embrace globalization and that continue doing so, in parallel with the adjustment of and adaptation of their strategies and policies to ensure that their populations have access to all possible opportunities.

Very much in Mexico’s peculiar ways, the country has followed a less consistent and uncertain route, concluding with the pathway of the “other data” with which the President avoids responsibility for his actions. Although there was a clear and consistent conception in the first iteration of the Mexican reforms back in the eighties and nineties, the truth is that that consistency did not last long. The liberalization of the economy was inconsistent with how government entities and banks were privatized, while many of the reforms, principally those advanced during the Peña-Nieto administration (these exceptionally ambitious), were processed in such a way that they never gained legitimacy within the citizenry, rendering them politically vulnerable. The crucial issue is that the country has for decades pretended that it is reforming itself when, in truth, it has done nothing more than adapt itself to a changing world at the least possible cost, thus impeding it from garnering more successful and attractive results for the population. That is the true dilemma of the next government.

Ultimately, Mexico has not made the necessity of being successful its own, it has not accepted how imperative (and inevitable) the new reality is, all of which has made possible the attacks that the country is now experiencing against its future. Globalization has not ceased to be there: the question is whether Mexicans will make it theirs or whether the country will continue engaging in the ploy that its economic and political impoverishment is the product of mere chance.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof
a quick-translation of this article can be found at www.luisrubio.mx

 Luis Rubio

There are decisive moments in the life of people and the history of nations that determine the beginning of an era and the end of another. The coming election on June 2 may well be one of these. This is neither good nor bad -only time can tell- but it can well be decisive for the road Mexico follows in the future.

Just as in the life of each person there are situations that might appear to be normal but that, in time, acquire great significance because they implied decisions that marked a course, there are distinguishing moments in the history of the world, points of inflection, that mark a before and an after, although it may take time for this to be discerned.

Mexico’s problems are known and, in many respects, almost ancestral. For decades, various administrations recurred to distinct types of economic and political strategies aimed at dealing with the challenges, actually the symptoms, of a reality that keeps failing to transform itself in full: President López Obrador articulated these as objectives of his government (inequality, poverty, low growth rate and corruption) but, like his predecessors in the past half century, he was incapable of impinging upon these more than marginally and, perhaps, in a merely ephemeral way. These challenges continue to be there and, although the two presidential candidates do not address these issues directly, their rhetoric and proposals continually evoke these challenges. For the voter the key question is whether the ideas and proposals of those aspiring to govern Mexico are susceptible to making a real difference on those ancestral and recent challenges, above all if one adds two of these that are no less transcendent for being (more) recent: governance and security.

The government that takes the reins of the country next October first will have no marbles left to play with. Beyond the political or ideological preferences of whomever wins the electoral race, the panorama that the government of the fourth involution (instead of the much-heralded Fourth Transformation) bequeaths to its successor will be, to say the least, dire: a huge public debt, excessive fiscal commitments, rapidly growing labor liabilities, a collapsed health system, the saddest of educative panoramas and, to top it all off, violence, insecurity and a government incapable of resolving any problem whatsoever. Independent of who wins, the problems will be enormous and will usher in an inexorable pragmatism.

But how the candidate who wins attempts to resolve the problems indeed does make a difference. And it is here that the country comes face to face with that great choice, the fork ahead, implying a definition toward the future: the government’s way or the citizenry’s way. In a serious-minded, developed and civilized country, the difference would be merely a matter of focus, of a slight inclination in balance because the counterweights inherent in a democracy and in a good system of government are sufficient to avoid excesses. But in a country polarized to such a degree that it has not achieved the consolidation of its democracy or minimal effective checks and balances, the resulting lurches hither and yon tend to be brutal and definitory.

It is precisely because of those erratic lurches literally always characterizing Mexican politics that the population does not envisage or expect a president but rather a savior and saviors are not prone to being benign because they entail, by their very nature, excessive power, never a recipe for success. In 1996 Mexico formalized a project of transition toward democracy that, although incomplete, guided politics for several decades. However, the tendency for casting about for a savior has always been present: in that Mexicans have had Fox, Peña and now AMLO. All wanted to save Mexico, but the country’s problems persist and worsen.

Judging by the proposals now in vogue, the present pitch of things presents a clear choice between an entrepreneurial capitalism and a State-managed capitalism. This manner of seeing it explains why there exists a difference of perceptions inside Mexico and abroad: for the operators of the financial markets, rating agencies and other foreign players, the operative word is capitalism, not the preceding adjective in that both guarantee a path forward, at least in the conceptual sense.  For the Mexican citizen the contrast is more manifest and crystalline: a government that imposes itself and pretends to administer and control everything or a government that creates conditions for the country to develop. It is within that striking difference that the country will define a path towards its long-term future, the path initiated by Peña and dug deeper by AMLO, or the path towards an democratic and liberal thoroughfare.

Campaign times are accompanied by extreme rhetoric and present categorical dilemmas akin to those of a biblical confrontation. However, if one glances back at the past, Mexico has for decades found itself facing a similar dilemma. Edmundo O’Gorman, the great historian of the 19^th  century, spoke of the “axis of our history” as a confrontation between two ancestral aspirations: “the need to achieve the prosperity of the United States” and, at the same time, “the need to maintain the mode of being colonial”, which, he continued, constitutes a “choice between two impossibilities.”

The upcoming election on June second will define with greater clarity in one direction or the other, which is why it is critical for the candidates to define themselves: where they see Mexico today and what kind of country they would wish for it to become. In one word, how they would govern and what for.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

The great success in politico-electoral matters of the last few decades was creating conditions of certainty regarding the electoral competition for those that would govern Mexico. The two electoral authorities (the National Electoral Institute [INE] and the Electoral Tribunal) came into being to avoid the persistence of the fraudulent practices in electoral matters that became exacerbated in the eighties. The consolidation of those two entities was no small achievement and thanks to it the country has experienced alternation of political parties at all levels of government. Today, in the light of the obvious violations in the letter as well as in the spirit of the electoral legislation on the part of the President, the question is whether the process will withstand the onslaughts from all sides from here to June 2, and, especially, after that.

The key to the electoral arrangement to which the three relevant political parties subscribed at that moment (PAN, PRI and PRD) was that there would be established conditions of equity for the electoral contest, zero interference on the part of the authorities of the moment and certainty with respect to the process, but not concerning the result, the essence of the first rung of the ladder toward democracy: clean elections, a level playing field and acceptance of the result.

The way the President acts today contrives an attempt against all three of the elements:  first, an effort to meddle in the INE, something unheard of since the Reform of 1996. In second place, the President’s activism and proselytism biases the electoral contest, introducing an evident element of inequity. Finally, the message that only the triumph of the Morena party would be an acceptable and legitimate outcome attempts against the essence of democratic behavior.

The matter does not lie only in the desire of AMLO and his cohort to cling to power; in fact, it is a reminder of the election of 2006 and, in reality, goes back to the emblematic reform of 1996.  At that time, the PRD, from which derives the greater part of Morena, voted for the constitutional reform but refused to vote in favor of the implementing legislation. Although the PRD leadership at the time reached an internal consensus with respect to the general democratic principle, there was a significant contingent of members of the party (essentially those who eventually migrated to Morena, led by AMLO) who entertained a certain resistance regarding democracy. It is now clear that from then on there existed conditions that steered these individuals toward the rejection of the result of the 2006 election. For that contingent, the country or the citizenry owed an outstanding historical debt to the PRD, which thus led to the assumption that that was a sufficient reason for their (supposed) victory to be recognized. There is no reason to think that that same logic has varied; that is, that for the President and his supporters, the win in 2024 is a right and not a possibility or a wish.

While the Party of Democratic Revolution (PRD) that survived with that name accepts the rules of democratic competition, those who moved to Morena only accept those rules when these favor them. What this tells us is that there is a strong current of thought within that Left that continues operating under the revolutionary principle of power being achieved at any cost and, once there, it is preserved without looking back and at any cost. The actions that the President has undertaken throughout his presidential term and that he now tries to convert into law, much of that at the constitutional level, are nothing other than the attempt to consolidate their control of political power in permanent fashion.

The group governing at present spent eighteen years in search of power, twelve of those dedicated to exploiting their vision of having been the victims of fraud in 2006 and 2012 (and they further assumed they would also be denied a victory in 2018). That belief led them to justify their rejection of any rule or law: for them, beginning with the President, the rules of the game (constitution, laws, and regulations) do not apply to them, and these rules can always be shaped to facilitate acting in any way thar serves their purposes.

Although history would have led one to assume that a Mexican government, of any stripe, would advocate the promotion of economic development (each with its penchants and politico-ideological preferences), the sitting government has distinguished itself by its conscious decision to abandon any pretention of economic promotion because its sole objective is and has been power. One can speculate that the latter is a prerogative of the government in turn, but this administration has reaped benefits from the reforms of the past decades that led to the development of an extraordinary export sector whose foreign currency income, in conjunction with remittances from Mexicans living abroad, have conferred exceptional stability on the country and on the exchange rate. What is not clear is what AMLO will bequeath to his successor.

The country has borne abuses, polarization, insecurity and indebtedness, all implying enormous risks for the President’s successor, whoever she may be. Continuing to interfere in the electoral process augers growing political risks that, combined with the entire series of conflicts and accumulated deficits (economy, polarization, the United States, etc.), would put into question not only Mexico’s economic certainty but also the one thing that the Mexico of the last one-hundred years has not known: instability and political violence.

It remains unclear when the moment will come in which the consequences of what has been done (and not done) become evident, but there is no doubt that these consequences will impact the next government and, of course, all Mexicans. Great legacy…

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof