Luis Rubio

“History teaches by analogy, not by identity”, noted Kissinger in an interview. His proposal was that there are no two identical historical situations, but that some indeed present important similarities that transcend the time and space in which they have occurred.

It is evident that Trump and Andrés Manuel López Obrador are very distinct in origin, personal profile and political orientation, but their similarities are equally astounding and, now that the U.S. elections have taken place, it is this on which Mexicans will inevitably focus in looking toward the future.

Donald Trump was born in a working class suburb in New York and never left it. His economic plight was transformed but his political conception was forged in the place of his birth; although he was always a businessman, his televised star quality allowed him to express –for decades now- the political postures that he now raised as a candidate: he was always ostentatious and vain, and exceedingly thin-skinned. Everything indicates that he entered this electoral contest in reaction to what he perceived as an attack, an offense by Obama during one the most famous roasting sessions of mutual insults and self-flagellation that U.S. presidents engage in annually with the press.

On his part, López Obrador emerged from a modest background and always focused on social and political mobilization; he has for decades confronted the established powers-that-be, recurring to the media to achieve his task, first in his native state of Tabasco and later as Head of the Government of the Federal District. His activism was always pragmatic: from the construction of the second-level roads in the city to his relationship with businessmen and the Church. When he registered his protest against what he termed a fraudulent election for the governorship of Tabasco, he took over the oil wells of the region, never permitting his followers to touch the valves or other sensitive equipment; it was one thing to protest, another, very distinct one, to engage in unnecessary risks. In that vein, there is nothing more in contrast with Trump than his personality: modest and measured, always flaunting his humility. But likewise there are coincidences and resemblances that cannot be overlooked.

It was not difficult for Mexicans to understand the inherent risks in the Trump discourse. It is not only what he said about Mexico and Mexicans throughout his campaign, but also the context, vision and discursive style. It was his very nature that we Mexicans beheld with consternation and scorn: the rejection of all that exists, his ignorance of the most elementary things, the implicit threat that he must be elected or the arrival of the deluge would transpire and, above all, his willingness to annul what does work, independently of whether there are so many other things that would merit changes. When in the last of the three debates Trump refused to commit to respecting the electoral result, we Mexicans were reminded of the 2006 post-electoral moment when Lopez Obrador took control of the city’s major thoroughfare for months. It would appear to be a caricature, but it is not.

The two personages share a series of very clear values and preferences: their anti-systemic discourse, the absence of specifics in their public stance (they scan solve it alone, as if by magic) and the arrogance inbred in their personality: there is no reason for them to render accounts to anyone. Various journalists have scratched the surface of the discourses of both, finding a Pleiad of practically identical sentences, making up the obvious: it is not that they derive from the same roots, but that they are the same in political proposal and that is the core matter. I doubt that they have ever met, but philosophically they are indistinguishable.

This is about a deeply conservative political vision that does not emerge from the search for social transformation but rather from the protection of losers and the preservation of the old social order; hence their ever-nostalgic manner of thinking: everything worked fine before… In this, both profess an acute nationalism as well as contempt for institutions, the market, international agreements and any rule or law not serving their purposes. In the face of the incompatibility of their discourse with the mundane reality, their response ends up being messianic not only because it entertains no concrete proposals but also because the solution is they themselves. A Messianic perspective allows “ignoring the reality” as often as necessary, building a fantasy sustained on lies that, in their mind, are not.

Now we must wait and see how Trump will react to so brutal a defeat and, above all, how the American institutions will resist the pummeling that he represents. What is certain is that his victory is the result of something we Mexicans understand full well: a series of governments devoted to not governing, to promising but not delivering and, above all, to ignoring the needs, preferences and complaints of the population. Obama’s government has been disastrous and the American people are now paying back.

Mexico’s government refuses to understand a similar reality: that people are fed up with the lack of government response to their needs, with the violence, the constant loss of value of the peso and the lackluster economic performance that affects most people, all of which entails consequences.

I have no doubt but that the worst-case scenario for Mexico would be that of Trump in Washington and AMLO in Mexico: two nationalists seeking to distance their countries from each other, a lethal combination for the Mexican economy.  With its paralysis or, rather, with its disdain and misguided actions, the Peña administration is making the Messianic vision ever more likely.

www.cidac.org
@lrubiof

 Luis Rubio

Whatever happens in the U.S. election next Tuesday, it is imperative for us to redefine our way of seeing our neighbor to the North in order for us to never again confront the risks that were evidenced during this long electoral season. The first part of the nightmare ends now, but the true challenge has only just begun.

Trump has been the protagonist of an ill-tempered anti-Mexican narrative, but despite its being insulting and offensive, it entertains a broad base of credibility: it is not an accident of history but a product of the latter; the campaign merely evidenced the symptom of deep rooted issues. That comprises the hazardous venture: one sector of the U.S. citizenry –that which Trump has managed to attract- is direct and blames Mexicans for all types of wrongdoings; but the other, while not finding Mexico and Mexicans blameworthy, coincides in the fact that Mexico is not a democracy. In other words, the story is the same; what changes is the interpretation. In both cases, the Mexican is good, the government bad. Our challenge is to win their respect notwithstanding our differences.

The challenge does not lie in fighting the literal statements of the Republican candidate, but rather in creating a base of legitimacy for Mexico and Mexicans, including of course Mexicans residing, legally or illegally, there. Modifying prejudices and attitudes is not something easy because, as Trump demonstrated, those biases are deeply rooted. Additionally, the prejudices are unilateral: the average American does not view the Mexican as his peer nor does he understand that his or her own well-being is inextricably bound to Mexico and that the more successful Mexico is, the more secure Americans will be and the greater the economic and commercial interaction, accompanied by jobs, low prices and better quality. The success of any strategy that Mexico decides to undertake in the U.S. in the future will be measured in these parameters.

The dominant narrative there, weightier in some ambits, less in others, but ubiquitous in all, is very simple and very clear: Mexico exports drugs, expels Mexicans, consumes subsidies and steals jobs from Americans and does not know how to govern itself. This summary trivializes the argument but it is accurate and constitutes the essence of the rhetoric that Trump articulated and with which he capitalized on the support of a none-too-contemptible share of the U.S. electorate; more than exaggerated, this narrative is meager, all flesh and bones.

It is obvious that each of the components of the narrative can be supplanted in an instant with analytical and rational arguments, but the discussion there has not been rational but instead gut-level and emotional. Even in the most benign quarters, the so-called “sanctuary cities”, where illegal migrants are not prosecuted, the point of departure is that this is about persons with no alternative, who flee the problems of Mexico. In that discussion there is no job market, no recognition of what is most apparent: that migrants go where there are jobs and not because one day they get up in the mood for putting their lives on the line by crossing the river. That perhaps occurs with the Syrian refugees who have no better option for saving their skins, but that is far from constituting a photograph of the North American region.

Nor is there comprehension in the U.S., even the knowledge, of how intimately intertwined the two economies are and how that implies better prices and quality for the U.S. citizen or that the neighborhood of the three nations has achieved the optimal concentration of relative forces to benefit the consumer and that Mexico is the third largest destination for their exports. The same takes place with the matter of security in that Mexico is a key piece, as part of the so-called security perimeter, to secure its southern flank. In sum, Mexico and the U.S. are irredeemably integrated through their peoples and merchandise as well as agreements and projects that are essential for stability and regional security.

After the election, whoever the victor, our commitment should be very transparent and absolute: ensure that never again will Mexico and Mexicans be treated as they have been in this season. To achieve this, it will be necessary to build an intelligent strategy that, far from confrontational as if we were very macho, makes inroads into the U.S. collective subconscious and situates Mexico among the friendly, partnering and legitimate nations.
The challenge is enormous because it implies modifying the premises of that entire narrative that are, at the end of the day, prejudices accumulated over a long time. If one examines the surveys, those prejudices are neither universal nor absolute: there are many differentiating factors. For example, the surveys reveal an exceedingly benevolent attitude toward things Mexican: the culture, the food, the Mexican mind set and friendliness, the pyramids and artisan handwork. Likewise, there is merciless repudiation of everything associated with the government: security, migration, the governing process, corruption.

The problem with the U.S. narrative on Mexico is that, although false in much of what refers to Mexico, it is bolstered by a set of real factors –such as corruption, the lack of competent governance and the insecurity- which will have to be addressed in order to change reality itself, not just perceptions. That is, if we want our image to change, however distorted it may be today, we have to change the reality. As in so many other fronts, the real challenge is domestic.
Culture is Mexico’s major asset and should be taken advantage of as a vehicle to present and project the country positively there. It is not difficult to imagine the essence of a strategy: visitations of the cultural and artistic assets such as chefs, musicians, writers, businesspeople as well as exhibitions, films, Mexican actors in popular televised programs; a social, cultural and academic deployment of our consulates in the U.S. society, etc.

The point is to grasp the nature of the problem in neutral fashion to begin to chip away at it. It will take time, but Mexico must never again be the whipping boy of a candidate for the presidency of that country. We have to start by cleaning house.

www.cidac.org

@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

The election that will be over in nine days has not been the most polarized in history; whoever recalls the Vietnam era knows that there are cycles in this respect, but also an enormous capacity of regeneration. That is one of America’s strengths and characteristics and there is no reason to suppose that something similar would be impossible in the medium-term future. The question is what kind of relationship will ensue between the two nations.

Mexico ended up being an involuntary actor and (nearly) absent in the U.S. elections; many factors came into play to create the current electoral scenario: from technological change to migrants, by way of lousy U.S. support programs to adjust for commercial and technological change and, not at all trifling, the political scorning of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the U.S. Each and every one of the approaches and outcries that arose in that electoral race –from Sanders to Trump- are analytically disputable, but the political fact is that Mexico was, at the end of the day, an easy target of the criticism.

There are two post-electoral scenarios for Mexico and both are complex. In first place is found the possibility that Mr. Trump will win: this is the least desirable scenario from the Mexican perspective for the simple reason that it entails prodigious uncertainty, the latter aggravated by the explosive and impulsive temperament of the personage-in-question. The principal risk of a possible win by Trump lies in the actions in which he individually, in his character as chief executive, could engage, particularly with regard to NAFTA. If Trump wins and he does not act impulsively in this matter, we would enter into a period of uncertainty that would probably involve extensive negotiations and lobbying within the U.S. and, on a second plane, in bilateral matters, regarding which steps to take.

The second scenario, the Clinton triumph, although more benign, would not be free of risks and complications. Clinton has not headed a proactive campaign, which would deny her what the Americans denominate a “mandate”. In contrast with Trump, her campaign has instead been obscure and defensive, thus (with the possible exception of foreign policy) it would not be distinct from that of Obama and, in that regard, it would become a third presidential term, similar to what occurred with Bush Senior in 1988. Clinton has had long experience with Mexico and understands the complexity of the relationship; therefore we would not have to anticipate much ado except for her obvious wish to penalize the Peña government for the invitation to Trump.

The greatest risk of a Clinton government would reside not in Clinton herself but in the Congress. Were the Democrats to win control of the Senate and, on an extreme scenario, of the Congress, Clinton would fall into the hands of activist legislators determined to step up financial, labor and trade regulations, much of that with potentially grim consequences for NAFTA. Viewed from the most benevolent side, under this scenario it would be conceivable for a migratory reform initiative to prosper.

It seems to me that there are three lessons to be derived from this election. The first is without doubt that the Mexican government should acquire better understanding of our neighbors in order to avoid episodes of maladroitness such as the events that transpired with the Trump invitation to Mexico: there are well-established procedures for contacting candidates, thus eschewing the need to reinvent sliced bread.

The second is that the Mexican government cannot and should not intervene in the internal affairs of another nation, but it definitely should advance its interests. In the case of the U.S., this fine line is somewhat difficult to draw, if not artificial, due to the fact that the two societies and their economies are so profoundly intertwined. Although the Mexican government should articulate a strategy that would redress the poor reputation of Mexico exhibited in this electoral contest, it is clear that it is the Mexican society, and not the government, that should respond to the insults heaped upon us by Trump. It is sufficient to remember that the declarations of Fox as well the invitation issued to Trump inflated his electoral stakes. Better for artists, literati, entrepreneurs and chefs to stalwartly defend and advance a fairer picture of Mexico than our beleaguered -and ignorant-politicians.

The geopolitical reality obliges Mexico to get along and build with the Americans and we are the ones who, in the absence of visionary leadership on their part, will be required to take the initiative. Thus, whatever the electoral scenario of next November 8^th, Mexico will have no alternative to that of seeking out the best way to attenuate electoral broadsides and to correct its own dearth of strategic lucidity in the relationship.

Finally, much of what was addressed in the U.S. elections and its effects (for example, on the peso) have to do with what has not been accomplished within Mexico itself. Mexico continue to be a society dependent on low salaries to be competitive, we have returned to financial policies that render economic stability vulnerable and we have not grown up to the need to agree on a political process to settle disputes in general and over the economy in particular. Hence the unending disputes that consume the country and that proved so dangerous through this campaign. As long as we do not attend to these issues, Mexico will continue to produce risk factors that feed into those originating in the outside.

www.cidac.org

@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

In his comedy The Knights, Aristophanes groups the population into a personage called Demos who, on being led by the nose, is coaxed with flattery and beguiled by adroit demagogues. The Athenians who applauded and celebrated the comedy did not appear to recognize that the fable referred to the audience itself. Surely something like that gave rise to the expression that nations have the governments that they deserve. Unless the citizenry of Mexico City wakes up, that very saying will have been exhibited by the political elites with what they denominate a ”constitution.”

The first problem with the attempted constitution is that no one requested it. This touches on an old demand by the elites of the Left that do not discern any value in the collective of denizens they pretend they govern. The document that the Head of the City Government presented is nothing more than a complex, dyslexic and very poorly written platform that has nothing to do with the daily reality; rather, it is a pretext to bring political bases on board, incorporate unconnected groups and consolidate interests and demands. Rights are addressed but it is not appreciated that a right comprises the obverse side of an obligation. Both must exist for there to be a social order; but no, in a political platform order is the least of it: the only thing that matters is to win and retain the power.

Defined in this way –a platform to retain the power- the constitution undertaken makes all the sense in the world and is perfectly explained as a document that does not claim to inspire; it is, strictly speaking, a reflection of ideological and political infighting among gangs, thus the text does not have to be inclusive. It is, in a word, an authoritarian and bureaucratic platform from which the current City Government Head can launch his candidacy for the 2018 presidency.

“What is a constitution?” asked Ferdinand Lassalle after the 1848 revolution, perhaps the most astute and practical observer in this matter: “The constitutional questions are not in the first instance questions of right but questions of might.” The content as well as the form in which the constitutional process has been administered for Mexico City (CDMX) evidence the clairvoyance of Lassalle: everything is about power and nothing is about rights, the latter nonetheless cited ad nauseam. What are important are compacts among the owners of local power and the safeguarding of their interests.

A constitutional process of consequence would have begun with two elementary queries: the first, a vigorous debate on the principles that would hold the constitution aloft -with the widest and most diverse citizen participation- about the future of Mexico City. The second is an intelligible argumentation and one directed toward the citizenry of the rules that would give shape to a “new” city. A process of this nature would have situated the CDMX, and its government, at the vanguard of the country. What has been done is to convert the government and its constituency into the laughingstock of the entire nation.

It is evident that among the document’s drafters the citizenry is conceived of as a nuisance on which rights should be imposed more readily than incorporating it into the discussion. That is what happened in Europe in the nineties and what those politicians are reaping at present is Brexit and a series of votes that are starting to scale back the European Constitution.

A bad constitution is much worse than no constitution at all. What the CDMX government has presented is an unintelligible mess that reveals more about the mobs in the bowels of power than of the future that, one would suppose, is aspired to for the city and the country. Worse yet, a constitution like that which has been proffered entails a poor system of government and, inevitably, would lead to a still worse performance of the city within the context of the nation. It is obvious that none of the esteemed writers has asked himself or herself why the CDMX has lagged behind in economic matters while states such as Querétaro, Aguascalientes, Yucatán and Nuevo León -let alone Singapore- grow at rates of nearly 7%, some of these for decades. Might it not be that the rights consecrated at such insistence (but that for some time have existed in practice) are obstacles to investment, job creation and city development?

Living in a fantasy world undeniably has its benefits and that is what the published text brings to light. However, this is not the recipe for political success, and all the more so when its main characteristic is aversion to democratic accountability. Surely the populace is far from being endowed with the drafters’ sophistication, but it is this very citizenry that maintains them and makes it possible for them to busy themselves with authoritarian exercises such as these.

The objective of a constitution should be to ensure a good government, not allotting monies and public posts among politicians. An earnest, honest constitution would establish the rights and obligations of the citizens and the limits of the authority, while simultaneously defining the rules of the game for interaction between the two. There is none of that in the published text.

The text is irretrievable: the process must be set into motion anew with a little more humility and a lot more vision.

www.cidac.org

@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

What is novel in the U.S. electoral contest does not lie in the polarization of that society which is reflected not in the personages themselves, although there is much to be said about them, but rather in the fact that both monopolize a generalized rejection on the part of the society. In the post-war era, there were many polarized disputes -we recall as a paradigmatic example the Vietnam era- and the U.S. society exhibited an extraordinary capacity of regeneration. That is one of their strengths and characteristics and there is no reason to suppose that something similar is impossible in the not-too-distant future. What is exceptional on this occasion, particularly for us in Mexico, is the fact that Mexico is one of the central focal points of the dispute.

Regarding this commentary, I would like to concentrate on three aspects: first, on the fact that we are involuntary protagonists in the dispute; second, on the potential scenarios and their impacts on Mexico; and, third, on the possible responses on our part. First off, please allow me to set forth my conclusion: the relationship between the two nations today is so complex, profound and diverse that it could only become more accentuated, but the political factors that encompass it can turn into exceedingly disruptive elements if not managed intelligently by both parties. The geopolitical reality obligates us to deal with and build with the U.S. and we are the ones who, in the absence of visionary leadership on their part, will need to take the initiative. Therefore, whatever the scenario of next November 8, Mexico has no alternative other than to seek the best way of attenuating the electoral broadsides and to correct its own clarity in the relationship.

First, Mexico ended up being an unwilling as much as an absent actor in the elections; this happened due to endogenous as well as exogenous factors. On the one hand, the years of rapprochement between the two societies practically coincided with the moment of the greatest technological disruption that the modern world has experienced, particularly in the heavy and manufacturing industry, which has translated into structural unemployment, economic insecurity and disenchantment, in addition to drug addiction and uncertainty; additionally, the growth of Mexican migration has exerted an outstanding social impact on the most recondite quarters of U.S. society: it is not sufficient to argue that this concerns the virtual integration of the labor market; that fact has come to light hand in hand with a growing and, in many localities, overwhelming presence of foreign persons and, in an alien language, demanding minimal satisfiers that, within a context of job insecurity, implied the automatic identification of a scapegoat. On the U.S. side, their support programs for those affected by international trade have been a failure and that explains, in part at least, Trump’s social base. Finally, the trade deficit that Mexico possesses in this bilateral relationship had made the argument easy that Mexico wins and the U.S. loses.

Each and every one of the proposals and outcries that arose in this contest -from Sanders to Trump- are analytically disputable, but the political fact is that Mexico was in the end an easy target of the criticism. That occurred, in good measure, because, in contrast with China or with technological change, Mexico is right there, and from the time of the dispute regarding the approval of NAFTA it turned into an internal political factor. This is something that is not similar in the case of China. Our deficit in this matter is evident. At the same time, not any type of action would have been favorable.

Second, there are the electoral scenarios and their potential impact on Mexico. Beyond what the surveys indicate at the moment, there are two scenarios and both are complex. In the first place, there is the possibility that Mr. Trump will win: this is the least desirable scenario from the Mexican perspective for the simple reason that it entails enormous uncertainty, which would be aggravated by the explosive and impulsive personality of the Republican candidate. The main risk in a possible Trump triumph lies in the actions that individually, in his capacity of Chief Executive, he could take. NAFTA, the principal engine of growth of the Mexican economy and one of the constant objects of the Trump rhetoric, is plainly our main asset, but also our greatest vulnerability. In legal terms, there is a dispute over whether NAFTA, as an agreement and not as a treaty, can be cancelled by the Executive branch without a vote of the Legislative power. There are more than 200 agreements of the most diverse order and never has one been cancelled, thus the risk that Trump would act impulsively, initiating a legal process that, however potentially disputable, would signal immediate damage to the Mexican economy in exchange rate issues as well as in investment flows. While the legal situation was elucidated, the economic and financial impact on Mexico would be striking.

If Trump wins and does not act impulsively in NAFTA matters, we would enter into an uncertain time that probably would entail extensive negotiations within the U.S. and, on a second plane, with respect to bilateral matters, concerning the steps to be taken. Much would depend on the makeup of the Congress and the Senate, but we may anticipate that all of the key actors of the bilateral relationship would be on the playing field and that this would in return, perhaps in somewhat comedic form, to the scene of the dispute for the 1993 ratification of NAFTA. The unions and companies with investments in Mexico would be at the ready to exert an influence on the manner of acting in this matter and the arrangements they would reach would have a real impact, in contrast with the media impact, on Mexican economic activity. The great pains taken with these processes would become our chief challenge.

The second scenario, a Clinton win, although more benign, would not be absent from risks and complications. Clinton has not headed a proactive campaign, which would deny her what Americans call a “mandate”. In contrast with Trump, her campaign has been more obscure and defensive, thus she would not embrace a project distinct from that of Obama and, in that respect, hers would become a third Obama presidential term. The most evident parallel in this scenario would be that of George H.W. Bush, who found himself with an exhausted governing party, one without motivation and with few initiatives. The principal risk of that presidency would be the potential search for scapegoats; however, Clinton has had long experience with Mexico and it is highly improbable for that to be her drive, which would not exclude a review of NAFTA and other similar actions. That said, the strange and unprecedented way that the Mexican Government attempted to be in closer proximity to Trump could entail, as took place in 1993, a lengthy period of formal distancing.

The major risk of a Clinton government would lie not in the person herself but instead in the Legislative power. Should the Democrats win the Senate and recover the Congress, the Democratic Party would probably be overtaken by legislative activists who, taking advantage of the roiling river of a project-less administration, would seek to incorporate aggressive regulations in financial, labor and trade matters. On the more benevolent side, in this scenario it would be conceivable that a migratory reform initiative would prosper. Whichever way, given the surveys at this moment, this should comprise the most disturbing factor for Mexico.

Beyond the election itself, it is important to understand that U.S. politics is much more violent, much more hardball, that Mexican politics but, simultaneously, it enjoys a singular capacity of regeneration. This is a society with scarce historical memory, but with more ample flexibility than this year suggests. At the same time, its institutions are strong and obey logic of continuity that is much more true that it would seem. With regard to the positive, this implies that the capacity for adopting radical decisions (as could be represented by the cancellation or the renegotiation of NAFTA) is much more demarcated than what is apparent due to the counterweights that the Legislative power embodies and to the capacity of action of all types of the U.S. society’s groups and interests. In the same fashion, the U.S. is a highly institutionalized country, suggesting that the damage could be great but not infinite. As to the negative, there are policies, such as the systematic deportation of illegal immigrants, which will continue independently of who leads the next administration. Inertia in this matter, such as in budgetary matters, is obvious.

Of prime importance for the future will be the size of the Trump defeat, in case this is the result. A marginal defeat would surely intimate that the Trump legacy in ideological and political terms would be returned to by other candidates in the future and would permeate the proposals of the Republican Party. A more comfortable victory by Clinton would diminish this effect.

With respect to Mexico, it is easy to speculate on the potential impact of the U.S. elections on those of Mexico in 2018, but the usefulness of these speculations is not evident. To date, the sole well-defined candidate, Andrés Manuel López-Obrador, has not been benefited by Trump’s strength. In the case of a Republican win, the policies that a Trump government would decide to espouse would certainly impact Mexican decision making and political rhetoric, but it is not very probable that the latter would be modified by much. That said, it appears evident to me that the worst possible scenario for Mexico, for the bilateral relationship and for the region would be the combination of Trump and López-Obrador in the presidency of each of these nations. Two nationalists seeking to distance their countries from each other would certainly be lethal for the Mexican economy.

Finally, the core matter is what can and the Mexican response should be in the face of the U.S. elections. In the immediate term, the governmental response can be only one and that comprises attempting to reconstruct the relationship with the winning team. While the bureaucracy that oversees the relationship maintains course within its own normal inertia, the key will be to building a new political relationship that would permit the skirting of danger, avoiding damage to the relationship. The first impulse should be perfectly planned to begin a working relationship in which the criteria ought to be very simple: a) keep the ship afloat; b) avoid an executive decision from being made in NAFTA matters;  c) align the forces favorable to Mexico in the business as well as social and academic ambit; d) maintain the posture of NAFTA not being negotiable, but allowing it to be understood that, in the extreme case, any negotiation can be external, complementary agreements to NAFTA itself; and e) without adopting an inflexible position, make it very clear that Mexico also has interests and objectives and that it will not cease to protect and advance them. The central point is that the U.S. will not be the ones conducting the political or bureaucratic processes that affect Mexico: it is Mexico that must have the clarity of vision and provide ideas for the process so that these will become the decision of the U.S. This is how that country functions and we have to act under the logic that they have a multiplicity of interests and focal points, while they are a clear and vital one for us.

The Mexican government cannot and should not intervene in the internal affairs of another nation, but it should advance its interests. In the case of the U.S., this separation is somewhat difficult, if not artificial, due to that the two societies and their economies are so profoundly intertwined. In the last year a wide-reaching political debate has ensued in Mexico about what Mexico’s response should be in the face of Trump’s improprieties; while the government was lukewarm in its initial responses and subsequently incorporated itself in full into the electoral dispute, non-governmental actors demanded decisive action on the part of the government. It is not evident what the Mexican response can and should be in circumstances like these. On the one hand, to illustrate, the interventions of former President Fox had the effect of strengthening Trump’s numbers in the nomination process within his party; on the other hand, innumerable persons insisted on the defense of the national dignity. One way of responding could have been by the society and not the government: in fact, there were diverse efforts through texts, videos and other types of participations that achieved this objective at least partially. The heart of the matter is that a government cannot interfere in the electoral process of another country without there being costs and consequences. The difference between the acting of the society and of the government is definitive and decisive.

On a second plane, it is imperative to devote efforts and resources to understanding the U.S. society better, its social and political processes and the manner in which Mexico has become an integral part of these, whether we like it or not.    This is imperative in order to avoid clumsy -and even dangerous- behavior such as those that occurred recently, but also to develop a long-term strategy that avoids falling into a situation of extreme vulnerability like that evidenced during these months.

In this matter, it is necessary to understand that the campaigns of Trump and Sanders were not irrational, that they were not about new or recent phenomena, but that they were, yes, predictable; thus, we should have acted with vision some time back. Among the lessons to be learned from this contest, there are the following: first, there is great appreciation by the U.S. society for the culture, the language, the history, the traditions, the art, the cuisine and the attitude of the Mexicans; second, there is enormous contempt for the corruption, the bureaucracy, the insecurity and, in general, for Mexican politicians. This infers that the basis of any long-term strategy can be founded on the development and deepening of the links between the two societies, this by the Mexican society: that is, backing of the long-term relationship in terms of artists, chefs, intellectuals, entrepreneurs, students, etc., and not on what the U.S. society reproaches that, in general, is related with the government and the politicians.

I conclude here with two considerations. Before anything else, the geographic and geopolitical reality obliges us to act on and protect our interests and that, in this matter, denotes conquering the American society. Seen from the surface, it is difficult to understand the depth of the links that exist today between the two nations, the mutual dependence in an immense diversity of issues that cover everything, from the economy to security, the supply lines of basic goods and the personal and familial ties. The industrial integration is remarkable and key for the employment and salaries of Mexicans. And it would be impossible not to emphasize how crucial it is for us to realize as a country that we must, never again, become the scapegoat of the political discussion in that country.

Secondly, much of what was discussed in the U.S. elections and its effects on the process (for example, in currency exchange matters) concerns with what has not been done within Mexico. We continue being a society dependent on low salaries to be competitive, we have returned to financial policies that render economic stability vulnerable and we have not solved fundamental political processes to the degree that they impede our always being in dispute about the essence of the functioning of the country’s economy. As long as we do not attend to these factors, we will continue engendering risk factors that feed into those originating in the outside.

www.cidac.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

In his Political Testament (1640), Cardinal Richelieu sustains that the problems of the State are of two classes: easy and insoluble. The easy ones are those that were foreseen. When they blow up in your face, they are already insoluble. That is the history of security in Mexico.  The security system that existed between the forties and the seventies of the past century worked because it responded to the peculiar circumstances of that era and it was never brought up to date, or transformed, to respond to what came later: the problems exploded in the government’s face and it has yet to react.

“The past, says the British author Leslie Poles Hartley, is another country. There they do things differently there”. In effect, even the most unexceptional Mexican town in the fifties had three well-established institutions: the Church, the IMSS (the Social Security system of hospitals and clinics), and the PRI. Although the Constitution stated that Mexico was a federal country, those institutions were witness to the absolute centralization of the system of government; from the PRI–Presidency couple to the most unpretentious local representation, the tentacles of the system embraced and covered the country’s entire population, to the most remote hamlet. Information flowed in both directions and the rules were clear: no one doubted who was in command.

Of course there was a certain degree of local autonomy (it was not, after all, a Soviet system), but the forms and centralization were reproduced at all levels, allowing for effective control of the territory.  The advantage of the system was evident and was observed in the peace that reigned in the majority of the territory: when a problem came up, the system responded with efficacy, with thorough unity that only vertical authority provides. Authoritarian systems are governed with few institutions and scarce rules: it was sufficient for the will of the government to impose itself, arbitrarily or not, on the rest.

It worked while it worked. The system was effective but was never flexible and its capacity of adaptation was practically a null. The great virtue of that system is that it created conditions for economic prosperity; but that prosperity changed Mexican society and exacted the adoption of a dynamic framework that would respond to a world that did not stop transforming itself. Thus, the society of the seventies began to demand social and political satisfiers that the old system was incapable of providing, and the economic crises pressured for liberalization, which virtually eliminated the capacity of vertical control that had functioned in former decades.  That is, the success of the old system ended up undermining its own viability, in every realm.

Security was exercised vertically and was implemented through local actors, to the degree that the government itself administered criminals. It was a primitive system designed for a small country, relatively sparsely populated without significant contact with the rest of the world. Those circumstances changed: the population nearly quadrupled (25 million in 1950 vs. 119 in 2015), educative levels rose, and with that the demand for satisfiers was qualitatively altered. All this came to erode the functionality and efficacy of the security system until it collapsed.

In the nineties Mexicans started to observe a dramatic growth of crime and abductions. Later came the lethal combination of a structural political change (the “divorce” of the PRI and the Presidency with the defeat of the PRI in 2000), Fox’s aloofness and incomprehension of the change his victory had unleashed, and the burgeoning of organized crime, to a great extent due to the success of the Americans on closing drug entry via the Caribbean and the control achieved by the Colombian government of its narco mafias, whose beneficiaries were, in turn, the Mexicans who had worked for them and ended up appropriating the business.

All of this occurred precisely when the old security system broke down and the governors wrested the checkbook from Hacienda and, instead of constructing a modern security system at the local level, they misspent or outright stole these monies. That is, what no longer worked well practically disappeared and nothing was constructed in its place.

It has been sixteen years since this new era began and there is no recognition yet of two elemental things: first, that the objective of the security system should be that of protecting the population.  As basic as that. And, second, that the federal forces can serve to allay the problem, but that only the development of local capacity (bottom up) can solve the security problem in the long run. Proposed solutions like a single (or shared) security command will only work to the extent that conceived as a temporary means (even if it takes years) to stabilize the local situation to help develop local-level capacity. Security is either bottom up or it does not exist.

These principles are the same as those for states with relatively minor problems such as Querétaro as for those immersed in the world of criminality like Guerrero or Tamaulipas. The specific changes, but the generic remains the same: Mexico’s problem is that of the absence of government, of capacity of government, in the entire national terrain. Each case requires particular attention, but what is relevant for the whole country is obvious: structural reforms are necessary, but without security, the dividends that they promise will never materialize.

www.cidac.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

I have always been intrigued by the contrasts in Mexico’s political evolution with respect to the South American nations. Although there are in truth some parallels, the reality is that Mexico’s history through the XX century is not at all like those of the Southern countries. In analytical terms, without resorting to adjectives, today’s Mexico is encumbered by a more totalitarian than an authoritarian heritage: the nature of the PRI is not similar to that of the military dictatorships of the South and the difference explains, at least to some degree, those contrasts. But time and generational differences begin to erode the differences, yielding important lessons.

Guillermo O’Donnell* coined the phrase “delegative democracy” to clarify the distortions that southern dictatorships generate. Ironically, many of the signs observed at present in Mexico are not so distinct. For O’Donnell, delegative democracies “yet they are not—and do not seem to be on the oath toward being—representative democracies”. According to the author, the key lies in that “The installation of a democratically elected government [should open] the way for a ‘second transition’, often longer and more complex than the initial transition from authoritarian rule… [but] nothing guarantees that this second transition will occur. New democracies may regress to authoritarian rule, or they may stall in a feeble, uncertain situation.” Doesn’t this sound like Fox?

“The crucial element determining the success of the second transition is the building of a set of institutions that become the decisional points in the flow of political power… The successful cases have featured a decisive coalition of broadly supported political leaders who take great care in creating and strengthening democratic institutions.”

“A noninstitutionalized democracy is characterized by the restricted scope, weakness and the low density of whatever political institutions exist. The place of well-functioning institutions is taken by other non-formalized but strongly operative practices—clientelism, patrimonialism, and corruption.” Any doubt about how President Peña’s reforms were approved? Is it not possible to see within this logic the mobilizations of the CNTE, the paybacks (“moches”) of the PAN, the votes of the PRI in Congress, and the unusual growth of the public expenditure of late, thus the debt?

“Delegative democracies rest on the premise that whoever wins election to the presidency is thereby entitled to govern as he or she sees fit, constricted only by the hard facts of existing power relations and by a constitutionally limited term of office… [In this view] other institutions—courts and legislatures, for instance—are nuisances that come attached to the domestic and international advantages of being a democratically elected president. Accountability to such institutions appears as a mere impediment to the authority that the president has been delegated to exercise.” Doesn’t this sound like the appointment of a close associate of the president to oversee governmental corruption? or the disdain of judiciary? the died-in-the-wool corruption of the legislative power? and the amazing mismanagement of cases like those of  Ayotzinapa and Nochixtlán?

“What matters is not only the values and beliefs of officials (whether elected or not) but also that they are embedded in a network of institutionalized power relations. Since those relations can be mobilized to impose punishment, rational actors will calculate the likely costs when they consider undertaking improper behavior.”

“Delegative Democracy gives the president the apparent advantage of having practically no horizontal accountability. Delegative Democracy has the additional apparent advantage of allowing swift policy making, but at the expense of a higher likelihood of gross mistakes, of hazardous implementation, and of concentrating responsibility for outcomes on the president. Not surprisingly, presidents in Delegative Democracies tend to suffer wide swings in popularity: one day they are acclaimed as providential saviors, and the next they are cursed as only fallen gods can be.“ The Trump affair? The fast train to Querétaro?

The history of reforms in innumerable countries worldwide -extensively studied- demonstrates that the errors -and opposition to them- build in direct relation to the concentration of power among the decision makers acting without counterweights. This seems like a textbook on the happenstances of the present-day government. The question is what the consequences will be.

“Once the initial hopes are dashed… cynicism about politics, politicians, and the government becomes the pervading mood… Power was delegated to the president, and he did what he deemed best. As failures accumulate, the country finds itself stuck with a widely reviled president whose goal is to just hang on until the end of his term.” Mexico is not the first country to suffer from so called “social ill-humor.”

The risk for Mexico is not what is done but rather what is not done up to the end of the presidential term. A country without effective counterweights to the presidency such as Mexico and with a government that is asleep and festering within, all but guarantees the electoral result that all Mexicans, and the President himself, find repugnant. The president’s term-of-office does not end until November 30, 2018: from here on in it is imperative to make the reforms effective for the country to land on its feet.

*Delegative Democracy, Journal of Democracy Vol 5, No 1, January 1994

www.cidac.org

@lrubiof

 Luis Rubio

The Government Palace is burning. It is ablaze in a state famous for being civilized and even developed. This is not Oaxaca or Guerrero but Chihuahua. The responsibility, says César Duarte, the outgoing state governor, corresponds to the winner of the elections to succeed him. That is, the one currently in governmental office is not responsible, the responsible one is he who is about to take office. With this Duarte constitutes the most patent example of the evasion of responsibility that has characterized our system of government since 1968.

Violence has nearly disappeared from public discussion not because it has diminished but because it has become an everyday issue: it no longer involves the surprise element. Governors, and many media outlets, leap in alarm in the face of any incidence of violence but never repair to the causes of the phenomenon nor do they ever assume any responsibility. The government and its retinue of personages are not there to solve security problems, create conditions for the growth of the economy or supply services. Its sole function is to keep the representatives of the system, of any party, in power.

Another governor, the Duarte of Veracruz state, even allows himself the luxury to change laws after his defeat, supposedly to deprive his successor of the pleasure of initiating judicial processes against him. Cynicism is so great that whoever changes the law does not imagine that his successor could do something exactly the same but in the opposite direction. In the last analysis, the law is a pliant tool in the hands of incumbents and not a rule of behavior with punitive instruments against those in non-compliance.

Today, finally, we have a governor who clarifies for us the reason for his not impeding the burning of the government palace. According to César Duarte in a radio program, “Lest they say that I’m a repressor, I let them burn the palace.” So, the government does not exist to maintain the peace, security and stability, but rather to evade responsibility. The phenomenon is played out in all latitudes and corners of the country.

Noam Chomsky described a similar circumstance in the Nixon era: “Even the most cynical can hardly be surprised by the antics of Nixon and his accomplices as they are gradually revealed. It matters little, at this point, where the exact truth lies as the maze of perjury, evasion and contempt for the normal –hardly inspiring- standards of political conduct.”

The end of the Nixon era and the Watergate scandals forced American politicians to adopt a legal framework for making the new ethical standards be enforced and to combat corruption; of course that did not destroy all the vermin swarming around the systems of government throughout the world, but it did evidence a clear break with the permissive world in matters of ethics and past corruption.

In Mexico, those who pretend to govern Mexico have wasted one opportunity after another to take the bull by the horns. The boorish manner in which the senators attempted to scoff at and take revenge on society by approving the anti-corruption law is revealing in itself. Instead of taking advantage of the adversity, the government has persisted in opening new fronts, day in and day out. Cases of corruption in recent years constituted an outstanding opportunity for the government to assume a leadership role that would not only change the country in terms of looking toward the future, but that also would convert the current government itself into a transformative factor.

Passivity and lack of vision won out. Now fronts accumulate and there is no response whatsoever. Is this trending pattern sustainable? If one glances back at the past, as one would assume the president has done, the probability of winding up poorly is high, but it might still be possible to avert a catastrophic end. However, the risks are amassing now that there are teachers and doctors in the streets, protests from entrepreneurs, the firing of volleys from all types of organizations from the civil-society, guerilla outbreaks and brutal events that can no longer be hided or ignored. From Ayotzinapa we went on to Oaxaca and, in between, a mass of cases keeps piling up that activists would like to take to the International Criminal Court which, although legally unviable, helps further deepen the discredit of both the Mexican government and the Mexican Army.

The main problem characterizing the country lies in the absence of government: since 1968, one government after another –federal as well as state and municipal- essentially abdicated their responsibility to safeguard the peace and, in a word, to govern. Faced with the risk of accusations of being repressors, they preferred the epithet of incompetent and corrupt. Today their only competency is for corruption.

There are two years left for the next presidential transition. This period could be one of political stabilization to avert a catastrophic transition and to lay the foundations of trust for economic renewal; it could also be a period of paralysis, totally devoid of a new vision. The president has been attempting a new discourse, aiming at convincing the people of what was sought in the past four years, without realizing that what’s required is something new, quite different. The problem is not (only) one of narrative but of perspective: it is still time to work on the arrangements and agreements for a smooth transition. What’s not obvious is that there’s the capacity or the will to attempt it.

www.cidac.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

Could it be that we find ourselves witnessing one of those seismic moments of radical change one reads about in history books but that only occur in real life exceptionally? The world constructed after the end of the Second World War seems to be crumpling one bit at a time. The manifestations and symptoms are ubiquitous, but the big question is whether this is about a moment of catharsis that questions the status quo, only to later return to normality or whether, in reality, we are beginning to see the end of an entire era.

The signs are everywhere: voters in France, the U.S., Spain and Mexico reveal themselves in unusual and atypical forms, but all in the same direction: contempt for and rejection of what exists. Thus we can explain phenomena such as that of Marine Le Pen in France, Sanders and Trump in the U.S., El Bronco in the Mexican state of Nuevo León and the Podemos party in Spain. People are angry and display this through their vote.

On its part, the world economy no longer responds to the strategies that, for decades, achieved radical transformations, and for the better, around the world. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the European Union and the orb’s central banks strive to solve the crisis of the last years but appear incapable of dealing with the depth of the convulsion that exploded in 2008. Some of these institutions champion orthodox solutions, others have become paragons of heterodoxy, but the growth rate of the world economy continues to be pathetic.

The claim of stagnation in incomes is universal; the advance of technology, above all robotics, displaces jobs that formerly seemed permanent and immovable. People in the South migrate to the North seeking better possibilities, in some cases due to the total absence of an alternative (as occurs in Sudan and Syria), or others simply in pursuit of better opportunities. Regardless, this massive movement of people has consequences, as Brexit exemplifies.

During the last decade we have witnessed the disintegration of authoritarian regimes and the collapse of dysfunctional political systems. The so-called Arab Spring came and went, leaving instability and violence in its wake. Yemen’s government collapsed while others attempted to regenerate themselves. In Guatemala the government failed and the Brazilian president is being impeached; it will probably not be long before something similar happens in Venezuela. The planet is experiencing spasms anywhere and everywhere.

The imbalance that the world is undergoing is omnipresent and all-inclusive. Some countries have governments in form that respond, or endeavor to respond, to the challenge of growth and stability; others simply retire into their shell, trusting that divine providence will rescue them. China is striving to undertake the most complex transition that any nation has ever attempted: that of going from a manufacturing-for-export platform to one based on consumption, in a few years. Singapore is the sole country that, with unique clarity of course, has accomplished a similar transformation, but this is a city-state, highly homogeneous and with a small and extremely well-educated population. China is a nation of monumental dimensions of hundreds of millions of poor and alienated peasants who have not been integrated into modern life.

Brazil is living through a strange combination of strong institutions on the judicial side, with weak checks and balances between the executive and the legislature. Some decades ago a president was removed there and the nation now finds itself in a similar tessitura. If the present crisis is resolved well and an effective system is erected against corruption and impunity, Brazil will emerge strengthened and more democratic; if, contrariwise, it turns out that this was more a dispute among counterpoised interests than a true attempt at nation building, an extraordinary opportunity will have been allowed to get away.

The opportunity of the Mexican government in matters of corruption is not a lesser one: instead of diluting the existing proposal, it would be better to take the bull by the horns and launch a true transformative system that severs itself from the past, even if that implies the exoneration of any past corruption. A new paradigm is clearly called for and moments of crisis are unique for implementing one.

The crisis of the postwar-era institutions can likewise conclude in a radical redefinition as well as in minor adjustments. Something of which I have no doubt is that those with a better capacity of adaptation, as well as flexible institutional structures, will come out better. Germany surely will emerge better than Greece and Tunisia better than Libya. The question-at-hand is how Mexico will end up.

The materialization of numerous candidates in each party -many not traditional and some independent- suggests that the existing structures lack the capacity for response, but also, simultaneously, that players are adapting, identifying ways of getting ahead. The reverse side of each problem always encompasses an opportunity.

Shortly before he died, Steve Jobs said something that is absolutely applicable to the current moment: “Innovation has nothing to do with how many R&D dollars you have. When Apple came up with the Mac, IBM was spending at least 100 times more on R&D. It’s not about money. It’s about the people you have, how you’re led, and how much you get it”.

Paradigms and problems change, but the only thing that matters is the clarity of the moment, the capacity to construct and respond, as well as the flexibility to do it in opportune fashion. Where do you think Mexico stands before these conundrums?

www.cidac.org

@lrubiof

 Luis Rubio

 Presidential candidacies grow and proliferate at the speed of sound. In that universe there are men and women, some young some older, experienced individuals and neophytes. If one were to assess Mexican politics by the number, diversity and intensity of presidential aspirants, one would fast conclude that our democracy is robust. What’s peculiar of the race that is beginning to catch steam is the fact that none of what the potential contenders argue over has much to do with the world we are living in today. It is that world, however, that will determine both the opportunities, as well as the risks that the country will face once the election is over.

The national as well as the international environment has tended to deteriorate in recent months, planting seeds of doubt with regard to political as well as economic stability. Gone is the nearly immovable certainty that produced the power equilibrium among the Cold War powers and the solidity of the multilateral institutions of that era, the mid-XX Century. That framework of certainty favored internal economic growth and social peace. However, from the seventies on, things changed in the world and within the country, undermining sources of confidence and threatening stability. These circumstances have characterized the ambit in which we have lived for several decades now, but the problematic has accelerated in recent times, creating a sea of doubts about the future.

In terms of the international milieu, we live in an era of convulsions. The Cold War ended, engendering a sensation of hope and opportunity. Twenty five years later, it seems clear that the opportunity was wasted and that the idyllic expectations of the nineties led to a world of terrorism, disequilibrium and renewed conflict. The U.S., the Cold War’s triumphant “hyperpower” nation, was unable to maintain its leadership and, after two costly wars in the Middle East followed by seven years of retreat, lost its capacity as international peacekeeper. The world began to look like the second half of the XIX Century, a time when the arrangement of power balance charted by Metternich in 1815 was exhausted, giving way to renewed rivalry among the powers, new sources of international conflict and, above all, a novel, acute absence of leadership. Unless these circumstances change with the U.S. presidential turnover in January 2017, the upcoming years can be nothing other than times of growing conflict and uncertainty. This is a scenario that no living Mexican has known.

With regard to the economy, there is little about which we Mexicans can be proud. The present government returned to the era of fiscal deficit financed by more taxes and debt, which did not avoid the economy’s continuing to show a pathetic growth rate. In addition, the measures adopted had the effect of generating growing uncertainty and a climate of absolute mistrust. Instead of producing conditions under which the economy could prosper to the extent that the circumstances would allow, the government clung to schemas that had for some time evidenced their obsolescence.

A similar sequence of events characterizes the political world and that of security. Rather than building new institutions, above all in matters of criminality, in Michoacán the federal government settled on the old formula of co-opting the opposition, without understanding that organized crime does not comprise a source of political opposition but instead one of corrosion that threatens everything. This six-year presidential term is entering into its second and last phase, not only without having solved the security problem, but also without even demonstrating that it is clear about the nature of the problem.

All of this has given rise to a climate of incredulity, mistrust and heightened uncertainty. The absence of governmental response has increased its discredit, affecting even more so credibility relative to the reforms driven by the administration itself. Social rancor is burgeoning and the ambiance of confrontation, doubtlessly nurtured by electoral interests, flourishes without surcease. Perhaps there is no better way to typify the present moment than to affirm that this is about conditions that no government would wish to experience precisely prior to the initiation of the battle for succession.

We find ourselves before an unprecedented scenario, one lacking the type of leadership, domestic or international, that would be necessary to lay a foundation of certitude. Much worse yet, without a recognition that confidence and trust are critical for development, particularly regarding a society that feels endangered, some by issues of physical safety, others by patrimonial security and still others by the growing concentration of power, persistence of cases of corruption and spaces of patronage as well as diminution of political, economic and personal freedoms.

Feasibly the greatest of the errors that have been prototypical of several recent governments (in Mexico and in the world) lies in a faulty reading from the outset. In Mexico and in numerous nations, voters have cast their ballots less in favor of someone than against someone else; this in no way alters the result, but does entail a radically distinct reality from what a new government presupposes and that demands great dexterity in terms of focusing its energies. To govern, the least that an incoming administration requires is to comprehend the circumstances. In the light of the changing, uncertain and precarious world we live in, the next government had better understand that it must resolve basic problems before imposing a dogmatic vision and one remote from the reality.

www.cidac.org
@lrubiof