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

Luis Rubio

The stakes of the coming election are much higher than just one person being the winner this coming June second. Mexico has wasted too much time shirking fundamental decisions on how it is going to develop, a circumstance that betrays the incapacity and unwillingness of the leading members of successive governments throughout many decades of assuming the costs, but also the benefits, of effectively democratizing the country. The result has been interminable stop- and-go processes, substantive advances only to be diluted -when not reverted- in a later government, until garnering an enormous polarization that, as strategy, was adopted by the out-going President. Beyond the rhetoric inherent in a presidential election, the key to this process lies in seizing the opportunity to build the foundations of a true “leap forward.” Tonight’s debate should help elucidate who can advance it.

At the dawn of the end of the Mexican revolutionary era (1910-1917), the winners convoked the consecration of a great foundational pact that was ultimately responsible for several decades of economic progress. The success of that first period of economic growth reached its limit in the sixties both because new internal political realities had been created, as well as due to the rest of the world having experienced deep transformation. A growing population, a strong middle class and the beginning of the end of the economic viability of the semi-autarchic industrialization schema forced a redefinition of the economic project, a circumstance that took nearly twenty years to materialize.

The liberalization project that followed has resulted in being extremely successful, as demonstrated by the exports that today sustain the Mexican economy, but it did not resolve all the problems, as illustrated by the election in 2018 of a politician who forged his career denouncing that project’s consequences and insufficiencies. And, in effect,  with all of its attributes, the economic project that continues to function despite all of the obstacles imposed upon it was unable to achieve its purpose of accelerating the country’s integral development because there persist innumerable interests that live from (and pillage) the previously existing order, rendering impossible the attainment of a stable economic and political development, where all Mexicans can thrive. There is no better example of this than the situation of insecurity and extorsion suffered by the majority of the population and that the current government has done nothing other than exacerbate instead of fixing it.

Governments come and go, but none accomplished what Stefan Dercon* says that is key: there is not a single one way to procure development, but the latter is impossible to obtain without the committed participation of the society and its elites, both political as well as economic, in the edification of a new political order. In Mexico the various administrations -both those of technocratic persuasion of the eighties and nineties as well as those of the more political nature of the last two governments- devoted themselves to imposing their view of the world rather than constructing a development platform in which the whole society could be included. They preferred to uphold ancestral interests and to grant privilege to their “cronies” at every turn before negotiating agreements and democratizing decision-making.  It should not come as a surprise to anyone that the country continues to exist in a dangerously unsteady state however many parts of society feel satisfied, independently of their living in an environment of uncertainty and violence.

Expressed in another way, what lies at the core of this election is nothing less than the step toward civilization. WH Auden says “Civilization is a precarious equilibrium between barbaric vagueness and trivial order.” In Mexico we have insisted on protecting unacceptable monopolies and abusive unions, corrupt politicians and mafia-like organizations. Combatting organized crime or establishing the bases for the population to enjoy the most minimal freedom of being able to go out into the street at night have become issues enshrouded in taboo, politically untouchable, all this because of their not squaring with the dogmas of the current President or with the poor strategies of previous governments. Meanwhile, let them eat cake. This does not occur, cannot occur, in a democratic society that espouses vibrant citizen participation.

The election that is nearly upon us will determine who is going to govern Mexico, but not how it is going to be governed or, even, if the winner will be able to govern. The problems pile up and multiply: the consequences of the outgoing President’s tactic of polarizing and taunting the citizenry have sullied the atmosphere and powerful interests dedicated to protecting themselves survive. The candidates would start by lending serious thought to how they must prepare themselves, and prepare the citizens’ terrain, to build the possibility of, first, maintaining order; second, confronting the violence and insecurity; and, above all, decidedly driving the development of the country. None of that would be possible without the active and decided participation of the citizenry in general and that of the elites in particular.

The country finds itself in the midst of an upheaval and neither of the candidates is enjoying great popular support at present. One of them will logically win, but she can only advance to the extent that she summons together the entire society, something not appearing to be in their plans. If the candidates do not want to be crushed, they’d better start to bring the citizenry in.

*Gambling on Development

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

“To be or not to be, that is the question” spoke Hamlet in his famous and introspective monologue. Presidential campaigns tend to lapse into contradictions and incompatibilities -to be or not to be- because they have of necessity to reconcile interests, groups and projects that are not compatible or coherent among themselves; they tend to be real -and, therefore inevitable- factors of power with which the candidates must contend. In the strikingly extremist Mexico of today, these incoherencies are at unusually substantial levels.

Repeating the dogmas of the outgoing government sells well to the man who decides everything, but hinders the proposal of an integral development project because this would inexorably involve a shift with respect to many of the prevailing dogmas. Proposing novel ideas alienates the base of believers who have benefitted from the recent policies, even when the latter are clearly not sustainable. The dilemma for the campaign of the party in office is plain: how to win an election and simultaneously elaborate an alternative project because the one the campaign promotes has already given its all. The contradictions will do nothing other than worsen until it is possible for the candidate to emerge from the confines that the circumstances have imposed upon her.

The dilemma for the opposition candidature is no less complex.  The combination of political parties historically dedicated to competing among themselves (and, in many respects, to detesting each other) and the minimal quality evident in their party leaderships imply a nearly total absence of professionals in electoral matters whose experience could boost the probability of achieving success in the electoral arena. One good speech certainly does not a summer make, but it can become the cornerstone that changes the fate of the candidacy, were there a strategy to make it possible. In contrast with the Morena-party candidacy, existing as it does under the constant harassment of the owner of the national narrative (i.e. AMLO), the limitations confronting the opposition candidacy are half structural and half self-imposed.

Raw material will not be lacking for either of the candidates. The government from which the Morena candidacy arises built and financed an electoral base that, while insufficient for winning on its own, constitutes an enviable political platform. As a development project or, even, a governmental one, the ALMO project will end up owing a debt to the citizenry, given that the economy he hands over in 2024 will be, at best, on a par with that of 2018, but with several more millions of Mexicans, and with an incompetent and corrupt government that the citizenry finds qualitatively reprehensible. However, as an electoral project, AMLO’s has been formidable because his sole true objective has been his group’s continuity in power. In this way, the great asset of the Morena candidate is also her great curse.

The coming months will display the full range of paraphernalia of the virtues, vices and contradictions characterizing Mexico’s political process and the country in general. Along the way, opportunities will be created for each candidate to exhibit her capacity to manage and operate under adverse conditions. What neither candidate can ignore, the real change that the country has undergone since the 1996 Electoral Reform, is the centrality of the President in the electoral process. While to all appearances this benefits the Morena candidate, with it she inherits the costs of his administration and, as long as she does not divest herself of her predecessor, his dogmas and his vices.

One Hundred Years of Solitude, the great novel penned by García Márquez, represents the archetype of the magic realism of the Latin-American region   and its consequent mechanisms of power that produce incongruent, if not disastrous, results, which are always incompatible with the encompassing reality. This is a space in which the personages inhabit parallel worlds that are seen but not touched. Something similar can be said of a country that is what it is, but that would prefer to be different without changing anything.

It is within that context that the candidates must uncover every nook and cranny that permits them to divulge who they are without estrangement from those sponsoring them.

Thus concludes Hamlet his soliloquy: Who would fardels* bear,/ To grunt and sweat under a weary life,/ But that the dread of something after death,/ The undiscover’d country from whose bourn/ No traveller returns…? The candidates will surely understand this…

*burdens

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