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

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

 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/

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 5^th, 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