Foundations

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

 

To Succeed at Life

Luis Rubio

A legend relates that, on being part of the academic advisory committee of a student thesis, the great teacher Gabino Fraga found himself with a student whose work did not merit approval but whose capacity to be a successful professional was evident, were he just to propose it to himself. The committee members debated and, after several considerations, Fraga declared that “we will pass him so he can obtain an honest livelihood, but he must continue to study so as not to fail at life.” One’s education certainly does not begin or end in school, but when it falls flat, the rest remains ineffective. The jury in that anecdote wagered that the education this student had acquired would allow him to continue learning, a bet perhaps reasonable in those times. Today the result would be disastrous.

Without my pretending to be an expert in educational matters, it is clear to me that, in a utilitarian sense, there are two schools of thought at play here: one sees education as the means for progress, while the other contemplates it as a tool for control. Chomsky himself affirms that the purpose of education is to prepare people to learn on their own. All the rest, says Chomsky, “is called indoctrination.”

Those who view education as a means for progress have evolved over time: education was first conceived as an instrument for social mobility and, to the degree that the world economy was being integrated into what is known as globalization, education acquired strategic dimensions, because the capacity of the work force began to depend on education to add value, no longer in the traditional industrial manual processes, but in the creativity of the persons that is the essence of the information economy, the latter today dominating the world’s wealthiest nations. Not by chance are the Nordic nations and those of Southeast Asia in the lead in tests such as the OECD’s PISA, in that they have targeted transforming themselves through an education increasingly oriented toward mathematics, language and the sciences.

The politicians who envisage education as a means for controlling of their population have embraced the indoctrination of children, for which they employ politicized professors and textbooks dedicated to selling a contrived version of history. The objective is not development, but instead the submission of the population, for the benefit of a political project. Although the objective of control was visualized from the Calles era, in the thirties, under the principle that “we should take possession of the consciences, of the conscience of children, of the conscience of the youth…” the project solely began to take shape during Cardenas (1934-1940) and, especially, from the fifties with the implementation of free (and obligatory) textbooks. It may not be by chance that the social mobility during the decades that followed at the end of the Mexican Revolution was much swifter than that which took place in the second half of the past century.

During the last decades of the XX century there was a sea change in educational matters, but, very much à la mexicaine, the change was partial: an open regimen was brought about in terms of textbooks, but control of education was left in the hands of the Teachers’ Union. A great step forward was taken in allowing competition in the creation of materials to assist in education, but the politicians were unwilling to do without the political–electoral support of the Tea Union. Though there were at least two attempts to negotiate with the Union the reform of the practice and procedures for educating children, the reality is that nothing changed. If anything, it has been the dissident union (i.e. the so-called Coordinadora, even more retrograde) that has amassed strength in this matter.

The result of the educational strategy that followed, and that is now reinforced with the new textbooks, is that the country produces effective workforce labor for traditional industrial processes but that is, generally, incapable of adjusting to the most advanced processes, those that add more value. The consequence of this is that all the investment reaching Mexico, from the old assembly plants in the seventies to the current nearshoring, continues to arrive due to the cost of labor. Hence, six decades have gone by but Mexico has done nothing to raise the added value, which is the factor that determines workers’ incomes.

Sixty years during which politicians have learned nothing regarding the importance of education for the country’s development. They speak of development (well, all of them but the present government) but nothing has been done for the population to prosper beyond the bare minimum permitted by the current educational system and the favorite union of all the politicians. Worse yet, not only has it not advanced, but the country is experiencing a severe and accelerated regression rather than an evolution. It is to be hoped that the citizenry will recognize the obvious contradiction in time for when they deposit their vote in the ballot urns.

Thomas Sowell sums up the problematic in a lapidary phrase: “Ours may be the first civilization destroyed, not by the power of our enemies, but by the ignorance of our teachers and the dangerous nonsense they are teaching our children. In an era of artificial intelligence, they are creating artificial stupidity.”

www.mexicoevalua.org

@lrubiof

Incompatibilities

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

Today’s Play

Luis Rubio

Sarajevo 1914. Gavrilo Princip shoots Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife. One more assassination, except that this one would have indescribable consequences, starting with dozens of millions of deaths. An apparently insignificant event unleashes forces that after it nothing or no one could contain. Thus begin the great changes: with small things that accumulate, the old saying of the straw that broke the camel’s back. But the times are tricky, and things take place in their own times, not necessarily those of the political hourglass.

The year 2024 marks the period of constitutional transition, a process that represents two simultaneous components, albeit in opposite directions: on the one hand, those who are taking their leave; on the other, those who have not yet arrived. The former are known, while the latter have yet to be defined.   That is what elections are for, as are the mechanisms designed to reach that moment, beginning with the electoral campaigns themselves, a period during which Mexicans are thrust into at this momentous point in time.

Campaigns are about those who aspire to incorporate themselves into the government and in that period, which in Mexico is excessively defined and regulated, designed as it is for the candidates to make themselves known and for them to be presented to the electorate. Under normal circumstances, candidates would arise from their own internal processes and would dedicate themselves to conquering the votes cast by the citizenry. The theory is very clear, but on this occasion that process has been overtaken by the President’s urgency in trying to win the election months before the votes are actually cast and the manner in which party alignments have come about.

Surveys and other measures suggest that the result is already inevitable, thus the strategy of the governing party is intended to discourage the opposition vote: why waste time on campaigns and election day if the result is known beforehand, as in the good old days.  Notwithstanding this, the objective of the campaigns is precisely for the candidates to present themselves before the electorate, to be known and to make an impression on it, developing in that manner a true competition. While the Morena party candidate is widely known, the campaign embodies the opportunity for the electorate to come to know the opposition candidate. This very process is key for a credible result that would be consummated and legitimatized on election day.

The flip side of the coin, critical at this moment due to the tight linking (in truth much more that that) between the outgoing President and his candidate, is that which materializes in the ambit of those concluding their constitutional mandate this year, from the President and his family to the lowermost of his collaborators.

There is no presidential term in which the departing governmental group does not emanate excessive satisfaction for the achievements of their term of office. Each and every government of the past century concluded with the governing group sure of their accomplishments -all extraordinary and great- that explain their prestige and historical transcendence. Viewing themselves in the mirror, (nearly) all of them were certain of having done good, transforming the reality and ending up with neither outstanding nor pending debt.  All of this vindicates their sense of invulnerability, fully justified in the face of a golden future. But all, all of them, erred: some because they remained irrelevant, others because in the last analysis they caused uncommon crises or worse.   Some, few, ended up in jail. But their most important error was to believe that theirs was the party would continue forever, well beyond the day of the constitutional relinquishment of that power. In this, the Mexican political system is not only ungrateful, but also absolutely brutal: therein lies that tiny Maderista detail of no-reelection.

Engrossed in their own myths and their artificial and artifice-ridden truths, they never ponder the possible errors that they may have committed, the abuses, the victims of their excesses or the offenses that they left along the way, not to mention the atrocious acts that their initiatives could have caused. All of them know and are perhaps part of what Emilio Portes Gil denominated “the sexennial broods of millionaires.” Nothing has caused them to lose any sleep over this because it’s all about the cleanest, purest and most exceptional government in history. Like all of those preceding it… How many Sarajevos might they have left in their wake?

This concluding administration now nearing its end is somewhat out of the ordinary because its narrative is so attractive and contagious, therefore leading its members to believe and feel themselves to be part of a great transformation, of that crusade that seems unstoppable and that is driven by the enormous distance between the discourse and the reality. There is no doubt of the President’s popularity, but his support is merely castles in the sand. The only question is when those foundationless supports will collapse. This is where the times come in, which will benefit one or the other of the candidate, but that will inexorably be akin to the winner drawing the short straw.

According to Voltaire, “History never repeats itself. Man always does.” Perhaps this is why Marx thought that the second time around is no more than a farce, but Mexico has been repeating that history for a century and those taking their leave of power never learn. The history of that process appears inevitable, but it is far from having been written in textbooks. Those who leave, leave, but those who will come have yet to be determined.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

 

On Their Way

Luis Rubio

In his novel on Argentina entitled Zama, Antonio Di Benedetto speaks of the “victims of expectation,” which Michael Reid, the Latin-American expert, interprets as the victims of waiting, a metaphor on the permanent expectancy of achieving the progress and prosperity that in Mexico would seem to be an interminable struggle to reach  the summit, only to find that, as in the famous parable of Camus, each time the goal comes closer, everything implodes and one has to start over. Mexican governments begin with hope and end in uncertainty; but that of López Obrador is exceptional due to his headlong boldness to keep pushing ahead with all the attendant fanfare to the end, only to find himself in straits where not everything is icing on the cake and where he can equally win or lose. It is there that one finds Mexico at the beginning of the last phase of this electoral contest.

A year ago, everything seemed to be rosy for the President and for whomever would be his candidate for the presidency.  Today things might appear to be similar (some surveys indicate this), but there are two factors that evidence the existence of a much more competitive environment. The first of these factors is that not all the measurements coincide. The dispersion that the surveys depict suggests at least two possibilities: on the one hand, the intention to manipulate public opinion, and, on the other, problems with measurement. The latter are accentuated when one observes the competition in the social networks, these presenting nearly the opposite situation from that shown by surveys enjoying a solid reputation. I am not saying that some are good and others bad, only that there are indicators warning of greater competition than is apparent.

The other factor that suggests greater competitivity in the contest that is underway is the President’s activism. Above all, his preoccupation is notorious; his morning press conferences are no longer epic exercises of convincing narrative, with no limit nor scruple, for their turning into flagrant proselytist activism. The change could seem insignificant, but it chiefly reveals a state of mind, and, principally, contempt for the canons established by the President himself at the beginning of his mandate. There is no better example of this than the risks that, in financial matters, he decided to take at the very end of his term-of-office, the most vulnerable moment for any president, precisely the period during which most of his predecessors were devoting themselves to close chapters, avoiding unnecessary conflicts, resolving those possible and trusting that things would turn out well.

Presidential proselytizing insinuates what the Greeks called hubris: the sensation that everything is possible, that there is no limit to what the individual wielding the power can achieve by only proposing it to themselves. For five years, the President was extremely conservative with respect to the fiscal accounts because he worried about being accused of causing a devaluation; given that the peso appears to be disconnected from the internal politico-economic happening, the government opted for putting all its eggs in one basket with an extraordinary growth in expenditures (thus, of indebtedness) during the last year of his presidential term. The same can be said for his twenty initiatives of constitutional reform, which are nothing other than an attempt to underpin, in the foundational legal document, everything that he in fact did without legal support throughout the entire administration, as if he were the sole relevant Mexican, deserving of immense power to alter the internal, always fragile order. For a president who likes to talk about history, his reading of what happened towards the end of administrations of the last decades is poor. The wagers that he has assumed (needless to say, in the name of the whole society) may turn out well or badly for him, but accounts always get settled. The only thing left to elucidate is who will have to pay for them: he or his successor, whomever she may be.

Beyond what the President does, the moment of succession unleashes all kinds of forces, interests and circumstances that, at the twilight of the sexennium, no one can control. The appearance of accusations concerning the financing of previous campaigns, evidence of corruption in the family nucleus, conflicts inside the Morena party and incongruencies in which the presidential candidate must incur to avoid unleashing the presidential ire are all examples of the type of imponderables that start to make noise and that, easily enough, could become a roaring river.

Long before the current electoral contest began taking shape, the governmental narrative argued that everything was already resolved, that the only matter left to clear up in terms of the succession was the naming of who would head up the Morena candidacy. The appearance of Xóchitl Gálvez on the scene, in no small way the product of the President’s arrogance, changed the political reality, while not the morning narrative. The attempt to discredit the opposition candidate, recurring as it has to confidential information and to manipulating it shamelessly as is usual in this government, exerted the immediate consequence of confusion, but the effect over time has been the opposite: today there are clearly two strong and vibrant candidates.

On his arrival at the presidency, López Obrador counted on wide popular support and the expectation that he would be a President for all Mexicans. Today is clear that he only works for himself. Another betting President: the last one, back in 1982, bankrupted the country.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

 

 

 

On the campaign trail, expect the unexpected

Mexico News Daily

 

 Luis Rubio
March 4, 2024

 Electoral contests are akin to military campaigns: an objective is contested, weapons and tools of combat are deployed, and the aim is to defeat the enemy — in this case, the contender.

In his biography of Napoleon, Andrew Roberts states, “It was a measure of Napoleon’s resilience and ingenuity — and of the confidence he still had in himself — that, having returned from Russia with only 10,000 effective troops from his invading force, he was able to assemble an army of 151,000 men for the Elba campaign within four months, with many more to come.”

As in military campaigns, both sides believe they’ll emerge victorious, but in elections, only votes matter, and surprises can happen on either side.

Polls suggest that Claudia Sheinbaum will win the election, but in electoral matters and in the last year of a contentious government, anything can happen. Her campaign, starting with its leader (AMLO), continues to deploy increasingly heavy weaponry (the most recent announced on Feb. 5 with the constitutional reforms package), indicating their own uncertainty about their chances.

There are valid reasons for this uncertainty. The outgoing government focused on succession from day one, neglecting basic citizen concerns like security and economic development. Dedicated to building an electoral base, it now faces the question of whether its efforts guarantee the desired voting outcome, possibly at a high cost. While there have been significant improvements in real family incomes, the certainty of preserving them is lacking. Stretching resources has benefits but also risks.

A victory for Claudia Sheinbaum, the Morena candidate, would bring to power a person who has shown great executive capacity and who has a much more competent and organized team than her predecessor. It’s impossible to know what she would do as president, given that her campaign has focused on reproducing the statements and dogmas of the current government. While her biography suggests a propensity for action, drawing conclusions is challenging. Regardless, her success would depend on her ability to chart a new course, a common challenge in politics.

On the other hand, Xóchitl Gálvez is more transparent and direct, unburdened by a dominant president’s shadow. Her instincts clearly lie in unleashing the population’s potential; instead of aiming to control everything, she would seek to break the obstacles that hinder the citizenry’s development. Her history as an entrepreneur and a politician show a willingness to undertake projects and see them through, while her background and biography indicates a readiness to confront factors perpetuating inequality. Her main challenge would be leading diverse factions within her coalition.

The most dangerous scenario would be either candidate securing a significant majority in both legislative chambers, even a qualified majority. This scenario, hypothetically more likely if Morena were to win, would be especially harmful for Claudia Sheinbaum, who not only faces old and new conflicts within the web of contrasting interests characterizing her party, but it also could empower extreme factions and hinder governance.

This paradox is evident in recent nominations, such as for the mayoral candidate of Mexico City and for the Supreme Court.

There are still many months to go until this campaign concludes, a period during which numerous factors could alter what seems certain. Some of these factors will stem from the president’s eagerness to influence the outcome, while others are inherent in Mexico’s succession process.

As Chilean diplomat Gabriel Gaspar suggests, the full extent of uncertainty and lack of confidence will be revealed, “two traits that shape the feelings of broad majorities of our societies… Uncertainty for a significant part of the population is very concrete, as it becomes increasingly difficult to survive, to put food on the table, and at the same time, going out into the street becomes more dangerous every day.” And he concludes with what should be obvious for the contenders: “Replacing uncertainty requires certainties.”

Meanwhile, as Thomas Sowell says, “The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is also a reflection on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy.“

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.

 


https://mexiconewsdaily.com/politics/opinion-on-the-campaign-trail-expect-the-unexpected/

 

 

The Big Race

Luis Rubio

Electoral contests are a little like military campaigns: an objective is disputed, arms and instruments of combat are deployed, and the defeat of the enemy is sought, in this case the contender. In his biography on Napoleon, Andrew Roberts states that it was “a measure of Napoleon’s resilience and resourcefulness –and of the confidence that he continued to have in himself– that, having returned from Russia with only 10,000 effectives from his central invading force, he was able within 4 months to align an army of 151,000 men for the Elbe campaign and many more to come.” As in bellicose campaigns, both parties believe themselves to be destined to win, but in electoral matters it is the votes that count and either one can surprise.

The surveys suggest that Claudia Sheinbaum will win the presidential election in Mexico, but in electoral matters and given the current government’s last year in office, particularly one as contentious as the outgoing one, anything can happen. Her campaign, beginning with its (real) head (i.e. AMLO), does not cease to call up increasingly heavy arms (the most recent of these announced on February 5th, a series of bills including 18 constitutional amendments), showing that they are not so sure that they have already won.

There are good reasons for the latter. The government that is about to conclude its mandate dedicated itself to this presidential succession from its inaugural day (in fact from the very election itself back in 2018), ignoring its responsibility to deal with the most basic of matters for the citizenry, such as security and economic development. Devoted to building and nourishing an electoral base, it now finds itself before the tessiture of whether what was done was sufficient to guarantee the voting result desired. Perhaps it will achieve just that, but at a very high price. The population recognizes this government for its important benefits re the improvement of families’ real income, an achievement not in the least a lesser one, but one lacking the certainty of being preserved. Stretching the elastic band has its benefits, but also its risks…

A triumph of Claudia Sheinbaum, the Morena candidate, would deliver to the government a person who has shown great executive capacity and who is able to count on a much more competent and organized team than that of her predecessor. It is impossible to know how good a president she would make, due to that her campaign has focused on reproducing the platitudes and dogmas of the present government. Sheinbaum’s biography hints at a much more pronounced proclivity to act and transform, but deriving conclusions from that is not feasible. Something about which there is no doubt is that her success would wholly depend on her capacity to build toward the future, that is, to forsake the project from whence she comes. This would not amount to anything unusual in matters of politics, but it is not evident that she is aware of it as of today.

For her part, Xóchitl Gálvez is much more transparent and direct in her positioning due to her personality and because she does not navigate in the shadow of such a dominant president. Her instincts lie clearly in the freeing up of the population’s capacities; instead of aspiring to control everything, she could seek to break with the obstacles that impede and hinder the citizenry’s development. Her history as an entrepreneur and a functionary reflects a disposition for undertaking projects and for carrying them through, while her origin and biography would auger a clear willingness to confront the factors that maintain inequality in the country. Her principal challenge would lie in commanding dissimilar parties of her coalition that share few features in common.

The most dangerous scenario for the country would be one in which either of the two candidates were to procure an overwhelming majority in the two legislative chambers, even a qualified majority. This backdrop, hypothetically more probable were Morena to win, would be especially pernicious for Claudia Sheinbaum, who not only confronts old and new conflicts within the web of the counterpoised interests characterizing her party, but also because that would imply that the most extreme factions of her entourage would impose themselves for the sake of advancing their agenda, hampering her from governing. This paradox is not a meager one, as illustrated by the recent nomination of the candidate for Mexico City (CDMX) and to the Supreme Court.

There are still many months to go until this election-at-hand is over, a period during which there could appear innumerable factors that alter what for many is already a sure thing. Some of those factors will stem from the President in his eagerness to skew the result, while many others will be merely the product of the inevitable highs and lows of a process of succession that, in Mexico, always entails not only a changing of the guard, but also the termination of the power of the outgoing president.

Along the way, as the Chilean diplomat Gabriel Gaspar suggests, this will reveal a plenitude of uncertainty and a lack of confidence, “two traits that model the sense of wide majorities of our societies… Uncertainty for a good part of the population is more concrete, in that every day it is more difficult to survive, to fill the pot while, at the same time, going out every day into the street is more dangerous.” And he ends with what should be obvious for the contenders: “To replace uncertainty requires certainties.”

In the meanwhile, as Sowell says, “The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, but also on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy.”

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

 

The answers to Mexico’s problems may be simple, but they are not easy

Mexico News Daily

 

 

Luis Rubio
February 27, 2024

It is not difficult to name the problems confronting Mexico; the hard part is to identify suitable solutions and create consensus for their implementation.

The problems are in good measure ageless and known to all, but their causes, consequences and potential solutions are always controversial. That’s why the old notion that the country is over-diagnosed and that the solutions are all but obvious is a false one or at least absurd. If they were, Mexicans would not be mired in the bog as we are.

Some of those problems are long-entrenched, while others are the product of the world’s accelerated evolution. Both, however, call for solutions that Mexican politicians have been incapable of providing.

In his presidential campaign, candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador outlined the historical problems precisely: poverty, inequality, low growth and corruption. This complex set of problems is perceived as central for the development of the country, but they are consequences, not causal factors. As the official campaign season draws near, any discussion likely to deliver a relevant and viable program of government must focus on the roots of those problems in order to effectively address them.

To further complicate things, there are new problems  change the environment within which economic activity takes place and societies interact. The globalization of economic activity — from which Mexico more than benefits through exports and, recently, through so-called nearshoring — renders it impossible (and counterproductive) to adopt unilateral economic measures, as would have happened a half-century ago.

Factors such as organized crime — a transnational activity — require attention at the domestic level, but no nation can thwart these on its own. The ubiquity of information and the universalization of access to it has changed all the factors that characterized political life in the past.

The point is that long-running problems require solutions that take into consideration the realities of today’s world. The current out-going administration’s attempt to distance itself from today’s reality has proven to be misleading and detrimental to development and, paradoxically, harmful for the poorest part of the population — the same people who most intensely suffer from the problems that the president identified during his campaign.

The surprising aspect of the situation that Mexico is undergoing, like that of other nations, is not that it is difficult to spell out what should be done. The hard part, for whatever reason, has been to move toward implementing those solutions. The answers are often in plain sight, although at first glance they do not seem plausible.

Ronald Reagan delineated the dilemma with clairvoyance: “For many years now … [we have been] told there are no simple answers to the complex problems which are beyond our comprehension. Well, the truth is, there are simple answers. There just are no easy answers.”

Mexico’s particular points of tension did not come about by chance. They are the result of political malfunction (often as a result of the increasing complexity of the modern world, as seen in Ukraine and with artificial intelligence, cyber-attacks, the possible return of Trump and other disruptive politicians, especially in the context of extreme institutional weakness and the absence of effective checks and balances), bringing forth a political and electoral (outlook/expectation) that has paralyzed the country. This, paradoxically, also constitutes a great opportunity because even the president’s most devoted followers know that progress is impossible without agreements on the basic elements of human coexistence.

Throughout the current administration, government budgeting has been particularly harmful to economic growth. By diverting resources that would have normally been dedicated to education, health and other public spending, the government preferred to direct funds to its preferred clientele via cash transfer social programs. As the comedian Andy Borowitz says, “it would be nice to spend billions on schools and roads, but right now that money is desperately needed for political ads.”

Election cycles make it impossible to build accords about and for the future, but the political campaign season is also a good moment to explore options and possibilities. The candidates’ proposals may or may not be viable, but they oblige the public to think beyond the prevailing status quo. For that reason, political campaigns give society an opportunity to propose solutions and new approaches to address existing issues. The result is the creation of a shared understanding that can be the basis for future solutions. One of the most frequent errors in political analysis is blaming leaders for problems that are, in fact, structural. However, that does not excuse those same politicians from the obligation to work on — or, during their political campaigns, to propose — solutions to overcome the systemic issues.

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.

https://mexiconewsdaily.com/politics/opinion-the-answers-to-mexicos-problems-may-be-simple-but-they-are-not-easy/

 

 

Priorities

Luis Rubio

It is not difficult to elucidate the problems confronting Mexico; the hard part is to identify suitable solutions and to create consensus for their implementation. The problems are in good measure ageless and known to all, but their causes, consequences and potential solutions are always controversial. That’s why the old notion that the country is over-diagnosed and that the solutions are all but obvious is a false one or at least absurd. If they were, Mexicans would not be mired in the bog as they are. Some of those problems are ancestral, others the product of the world’s accelerated evolution, but both call for solutions that Mexican politics has been incapable of providing.

In his presidential campaign, candidate López Obrador outlined the ancestral problems precisely: poverty, inequality, low growth, and corruption. One can add or qualify each of these, even if the list summarizes the problematic that is perceived as central for the development of the country, but they concern consequences, not causal factors. That is, now, in view of the coming campaign season, a discussion likely to deliver a relevant and viable program of government must focus on the roots of the problems that have been identified for effectively being able to exert a direct influence on them.

On the other hand, complicating the panorama, novel problems are found or, at least circumstances that alter the environment within which economic activity and societies interact. The globalization of economic activity -from which Mexico more than benefits through exports and, recently, through so-called nearshoring renders it impossible (and counterproductive) to adopt unilateral economic measures, as would have happened a half-century ago. Factors such as organized crime -a transnational activity- require attention at the internal level, but no nation can thwart these on its own. The ubiquity of information and the universalization of access to it has recast all the vectors that characterized political life in the past.

The point is that ancestral problems require solutions that should consider and form part of a conception that includes the realities typifying today’s world. The attempt to abstract itself from the world as the government about to end has encouraged has proven to be fallacious and detrimental to development and, paradoxically, harmful for the poorest population and the one entertaining the greatest propensity for suffering from the ills that the President identified in his campaign.

The surprising aspect of the situation that Mexico is undergoing, like that of other nations, is not that it is difficult to spell out what should be done. The hard part, whatever the cause, has been to advance toward putting those solutions into effect. The answers are often in plain sight, although at first glance they do not seem plausible. Ronald Reagan delineated the dilemma with clairvoyance: “For many years now, we have been shushed like children and told there are no simple answers to the complex problems which are beyond our comprehension.   Well, the truth is, there are simple answers. They just are not easy ones.”

The tensions distinguishing the country do not take place merely by chance -many of these are the upshot of the deepening complexity currently depicting the planet and that manifests itself in the Ukraine, in the surge of artificial intelligence, cyberattacks, the potential for a Trump comeback- and disruptive politicians, especially in the context of an extreme institutional weakness,  above all in terms of the absence of effective counterweights, bringing forth a political, and now an electoral, panorama that has paralyzed the country.  This, paradoxically, also constitutes a great opportunity because even the most devout believers within the President’s camp know that progress is impossible without agreements on at least the most fundamental elements of human coexistence.

The management of the governmental budget throughout the current administration has been particularly pernicious for the growth of the economy. On deflecting resources that would have normally been dedicated to education and health, as well as to public investment, the government preferred to endow its favorite clienteles with cash transfers. As the comedian Andy Borowitz satirizes, “it would be nice to spend billions on schools and roads, but right now that money is needed for political ads.”

Electioneering periods make it impossible to build accords about and for the future, but these times are also propitious moments for exploring options and possibilities. The candidates’ proposals may or may not be viable, but they obligate the citizenry to think differently about the prevailing status quo. In this latter sense, they open the door to society for it to propose solutions and alternative ways of addressing existing issues to focus on problems, establishing the possibility of common moorings for future solutions.

One of the most frequent errors in political diagnoses lies in attributing to the leaderships responsibilities that are in fact structural problems, but that does not in turn exempt these leaders from the obligation to work -or to come up with proposals during the electoral period- that cite alternatives that permit overcoming the structural complexities.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

 

Counterpoint

 Counterpoint

Luis Rubio

The great magic of the old political system lay in the expectation that there would always be a new opportunity to reinvent the country with the change of governments. When a government was bad, the saying went that “there is no evil that lasts six years nor a people that can endure it.” When the outgoing administration was good, the citizens rewarded it with a favorable vote in the elections for its successor. But the presidents of yesteryear did not leave things to chance: good or bad, popular or not, they resorted to transactional mechanisms to ensure a favorable vote, in addition to employing all the mechanisms of electoral fraud that were necessary to ensure an overwhelming victory. Mexicans are now living through another era of Mexican politics -at least of the country’s political reality-, apparently having returned to vote buying, by good or bad means, within the law or not. The question is whether the new method will be as successful.

The first indication that this six-year term would be different was evident in the President’s disinterest -in fact radical opposition- to promoting economic growth. The priority, from the beginning, was the 2024 succession and nothing else. Despite the rhetoric that “the poor first,” for the President the poor were merely an electoral instrument and reducing poverty went against the succession objective: in the words of the president of Morena at the time, “when you take people out of poverty and they become middle class, they forget where they come from, because people think how they live.” In short: the poor are a reserve of votes and the last thing that Morena wants is that there be fewer poor people and more middle-class voters because the latter stop conceiving themselves as “people” to think as citizens. Economic growth ends up being a curse for the only objective that motivated this administration: ensuring victory in 2024.

Consequently, everything that was done throughout the six-year term followed a strictly electoral logic: where are the votes and how to ensure that government programs make their target voters dependent on the handouts granted by the government, but always in the name of the president, as if they came from his own money. Cash transfers to older adults, young people and other target audiences had a strictly political logic and the evidence shows that poverty was not one of the relevant criteria. That is, the presidential narrative said one thing, but the logic was always laser focused: to secure the votes.

The governments of yesteryear -from the Revolution (1910) until 2018- sought votes in two ways: on the one hand, they employed economic and investment strategies aimed at significant economic improvement that, in turn, would raise the standards of living and, therefore, satisfied the population, trusting that this would translate into a favorable vote for the outgoing government. Some were extremely successful, others ended up causing terrible crises, but there was not even one administration that did not follow this rationale, similar to what one could observe anywhere on the planet.

The other way of seeking votes was transactional: candidates invented all kinds of mechanisms to exchange favors for votes. On some occasions they distributed household goods, breakfasts or groceries in exchange for the promise of the vote (later they demanded a photo of the vote itself), in others they produced cash cards, but the purpose was transparent: whatever the performance of the outgoing government, the candidate offered an “incentive” for the voter to respond favorably on election day. In the era prior to the electoral reform of 1996, various strategies were added to ensure that the vote was as the government and its party wanted: recurring to manipulation of the voters’ registry, “frequent” voting, factious use of the media, etc. With the 1996 reform, all these practices were prohibited and, although what followed was not perfect, it constituted a scheme of impeccable level playing field for electoral competition, as evidenced by the countless alternations of parties in power at all levels of government.

Today Mexico has returned to the prehistoric, certainly pre democratic, era of national political life. The President has not the slightest scruple in using all the resources at his disposal to ensure his electoral objective. When a path is closed to him -for example a call from the INE, the electoral authority, which is already biased in his favor, to refrain from being so crass in his ways- he invents twenty constitutional reforms just to remain a legitimate player in the electoral field through his daily press conferences, known as “mañaneras.” He, too, has not the slightest qualm about presenting himself as the head of his candidate’s campaign, which he controls and limits all the time.

The outcome of this election will depend on a single factor: to what extent citizens recognize the manipulation to which they have been subjected by the government through the exchange of favors for votes. If the voter realizes that it is an old-style manipulation, he or she will act as a citizen; If he or she believes that AMLO is a mythical leadership, he or she will behave like a subject, expecting more handouts.

As another Mexican saying goes, “Every little saint ends up getting his little party.” This year’s will mark a before and after.

 

www.mexicoevalua.org

@lrubiof