Luis Rubio

While the candidacies advance the political risks increase. There are three factors that drive the possibility of the country having to confront critical situations during next year. The first is the most obvious of these: the presidential cycle, everywhere in the world, follows a natural logic that initiates its ascendent phase during which the president accumulates power, it reaches its zenith and then begins its descent.  The second factor derives from the erosion and eventual disarticulation of the mechanisms of political control the system could count on. The third, and the one entertaining the greatest risk during this period, is that issuing from the inexistence of game rules for politics, in conjunction with the growing incapacity to enforce the few rules that remain in force. Each of these elements will play its part in the upcoming months.

The great success of the old political system lay in the existence of precise rules for the functioning of public life. Some of these rules, starting with the first -the president is in command-, were constant while others varied from administration to administration. The cycle of investment and economic activity typically got underway toward the end of the first year, when the government’s own tonic and its specific rules became clear. With respect to succession, the rules were permanent: no one could dispute the legitimacy of the president, but contending for the succession was valid. This and other peculiarities of the system came to be denominated “metaconstitutional” faculties because they were “unwritten rules”, but ones enforced at all costs.

Many of the worst of the current vices derive from that way of conducting public affairs because Mexico never erected a legal system that was compatible with economic development and personal freedom (as indeed does occur in nearly all Latin-American nations). Mexico achieved stability and growth for many decades along the XX century because it had in place an exceptional political system in which the law was irrelevant and what mattered were the unwritten rules. That worked in a country that was small, provincial and relatively isolated from the rest of the planet, but it has now turned into a hindrance to development for a nation that is big, diverse, disperse and extraordinarily interconnected with the exterior world. The old system, which in many senses persists, is a formidable obstacle for the construction of a different future.  What previously were virtues, are now sources of risk and potential instability.

Going back to the factors mentioned at the beginning of this piece, the political cycle takes place in all nations since it is, in a certain fashion, the cycle of life.  Notwithstanding this, what makes things different in Mexico is that while in most nations the president loses power in their descending phase, in Mexico what they lose is control, but not the power bestowed to the presidency because in normal countries power is limited by the by laws and institutions, which explains extreme situations such as  expropriation of the banks,  expropriation of the lands in the Yaqui Valley and other anomalies (and crises), which have almost always occurred at the end of the six-year presidential term of office.

The second element that the political system was able to rely on throughout the past century was the assemblage of institutions, above all the unions, which granted the presidency enormous capacity of control. The structure of the unions, federations and confederations, such as those of workers and peasants of the so-called popular sector, each with its characteristics and vicissitudes, constituted a formidable mechanism of regulation and authority that gave the country decades of stability, all this at the price of the exercise of individual as well as collective rights extant in other latitudes. Trade liberalization altered the scheme by undermining or eliminating the entire control structure exercised by the government on the workers and businesses (except for unions linked to the government, not subject to competition).

The third element is key. In truly democratic and institutionalized countries, the rules of the game are those established by the legal framework: the laws guide the process and determine the faculties and limits for the diverse actors. In a country where the laws comprise no more than a moral guide and what matters are the formidable discretionary (and arbitrary) powers that the authority rests on at every all level, the law is irrelevant and the only thing that matters is power. And a powerful president such as the current one makes and changes the rules according to the time of day and his corresponding moods.

The challenge for Mexicans is expressly that: how to build a system of rules and laws that cannot be modified or defined by a sole person, but instead through an institutional system such as that established by the Constitution. Mexico’s main problem lies in the fact that the president (the present one and his predecessors) can change the rules (and the laws), literally at will. The issue thus is one of power, not one of laws nor, strictly speaking, one of institutions: How to delimit the true powers of the presidency? The day Mexicans achieve that, Mexico will have entered the world of development and civilization.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

India advances uncontainable, but in an exceedingly peculiar manner, deftly skirting the obstacles imposed upon it inexorably by its extraordinary linguistic, religious and ethnic diversity.  An extremely complex and stratified society coming up against enormous barriers to progress, it has found innovative ways to break through fiefdoms, dogmas and ancestral practices. There is much that Mexicans could learn from its experience.

“India lives in all centuries at once” says ex-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. That characteristic, with which Mexicans can clearly identify, has not impeded India from undertaking one of the most impacting transformation processes in the world. The obvious contrast is China, countries with similar population levels, but with radically opposed politico-social natures. While in China the government controls all the processes and has shown the capacity to impose its vision of development on the totality of its population, India is a democratic nation and, at the same time a remarkably diverse, disperse and disorganized one.  For these reasons, the challenge for India has been that much greater.

How, under those circumstances, can change be implemented for the sake of achieving development? Such has been the quandary of that monumental nation throughout the past three decades. How to crack the ancestral mental, social and religious barriers? How to attract new, productive and promising investments, in an environment plagued by bureaucracy, corruption and interminable regulatory decision-making processes? How, in a word, to break through those obstacles, tenaciously deep rooted as they are, as an indispensable condition for raising the growth levels of the economy and to be able to aspire, from that point, to development?

The solution found by the most recent governments, and more so with the drive of the present one, headed by Narendra Modi, has been to leapfrog, to leave out stages, that is, not to copy the experiences of other nations, but instead to strive for quantum leaps. Perhaps there is no more illustrative example, albeit an obvious one, than that undergone in the ambit of communications: rather than investing in wire telephony in a nation where 80% of the population has never had a land-line home phone, the decision was to develop cellular telephony in accelerated fashion. Fewer than two decades after launching this initiative, the country rose from having twenty million land lines to 1,150 million cell phones. The next step was to break with the monopoly of financial services, creating a payment system sustained by mobile phones, through which the entire population is now in the possession of an ID card, thus the possibility of paying and receiving limitless funds at no cost.

To appreciate the size of the obstacles that the reformers have come up against, an example is sufficient: until up to five years ago, each of the 28 states making up that Asian nation levied a different sales and value-added tax (VAT) and demanded payment in cash on crossing each state border. The consequences of this requirement were interminable queues of trucks lining up to make their payment to unhurried bureaucrats. After more than ten years of negotiations, a system of federal taxes was finally agreed upon that respects the different rates, but that permits electronic payments, eliminating the customs barriers between each of the states. Something like that would have been resolved in one month in China, but in India it dragged on arduously for years and now it has transformed the logistics of all of the companies, which previously had to conform to a bureaucratic rationale for their distribution systems and warehouses. Some goods, above all foods, dropped suddenly in price. The point is that conditions have been being created for solving problems, often without changing what exists (such as the bureaucracy or the banking regulations) rendering it irrelevant. The result has been two decades of high rates of economic growth, the birth of an enormous middle class and generalized and contagious optimism.

The great difference between India and Mexico in terms of their transformation process lies in that the government of India   is crystal-clear in terms of its need to incorporate itself swiftly into the XXI century and has been willing to face (sometimes going around) powerful business, political and union interests and, no less important, the traditionalistic dogmas that for centuries have perpetuated the oppressive economic and social system in force.

At a conference that I attended in India of late, the words most frequently articulated by governmental, social and business speakers were: middle class, Internet, development, education, technology, productivity, interconnected world, health. None of these words is found in the daily presidential morning press conferences in Mexico these days.

Although at times reluctantly, Mexico has been advancing along a similar course, but now the dogma that the poverty of the past was always better has been officialized. A total of 1.3 billion citizens of India demonstrate that that is not the pathway to success.

In India, I ran into the following dialog: Charlie Brown: “There are many smart people in the world.” Snoopy “Yes, but the majority is asymptomatic.” In India those who are moving forward are those who see through to the future.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

In the early nineties, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Enrique Krauze explored the implications of those events on Latin-American countries, arriving at the conclusion that the last Stalinist would not die in the USSR, but rather in a university cubicle in Latin America. His sole error concerned the venue: the last Stalinists are to be found in the Palacio Nacional in Mexico City and in its equivalents in other nations in the continent’s South. The messianism characterizing this wave of governments and their retinues is late, aberrant and nostalgic, but not for that less powerful. And destructive.

Victor Sebestyen, the Hungarian historian, writes, in his history of the Russian Revolution that “The men and women who made the Russian Revolution wanted to change the world… The intention at first may have been to overthrow the Tzar and a dynasty that had ruled Russia for three centuries as an autocracy… But it went way beyond that… their faith was no less than to perfect mankind and put an end to exploitation by one group of people -one class- by another… The appeal of Communism was religious, spiritual and the Party was t Church. Trotsky wrote:  ‘Let future generations of people cleanse life of all evil, oppression and violence and enjoy it to the full.ˊ The messianic scale of the Bolsheviks’ ambition made the scale of their failure so vast and shocking.”

The Soviet Union did not collapse because it was a good idea but poorly implemented, as many Socialists argue, but instead because it was a bad idea that clashes(ed) with human nature. Worse yet, in order to put it into practice, the Bolsheviks resorted to a regime of terror that consisted of, in the words of Robert Conquest, another historian of the USSR, more of a nightmare than a dream. Although (fortunately) the plan of the Mexican messianic is less violent than that of those who inspired it, the obstinacy of denying human nature is always present in their manner of acting, as exemplified by their science policy, the new textbooks and, in general, their vision of excluding the citizenry from the diverse tasks and activities of the nation’s development.

Now that the twilight of this administration is under way, it is unavoidable to evaluate the costs of a project that did not come together (fortunately) because it did not fit with the reality of the XXI century, because it did not count on the natural creativity of the Mexican (our famous jacks of all trades), because the economy is infinitely more complex, deep and successful that the government considered and, above all, because it was a really bad idea. Additionally, as demonstrated by the way they assembled the new textbooks -by people driven by an attempt to preserve a vision that clashes with the world in which today’s children will have to live when they reach adulthood, as well as its vindictive nature-  the project did not even entertain an objective of development, but rather a messianism whose only purpose is electoral: that everyone, today’s adults and, through the indoctrination of the children -the adults of the future- would vote for Morena.

The messianism of the project is evidenced in the expectation of a complete transformation without there being any groundwork to achieve it, except, perhaps, to polarize, disqualify and attack. The flip side of that coin is the triviality of the objective: staying in power. The contrast between the maximalist rhetoric and the baseness of its purpose speaks for itself.

But none of that lessens the damage or the consequences. Before anything else, there’s the opportunity cost: all the time and resources that were wasted instead of employing them in the construction of a better future. Then comes the destruction -literally- of assets, such as the new international airport, appropriate for the needs of a country that aspires to grow and enjoy life and, first and foremost, that their children would enjoy the prosperity for which increasingly more Mexicans scan the horizon and that which too many governments have ignored in terms of the imperative of smoothing the way in that direction (such as dealing intelligently, but effectively, with organized crime, the extortion and the local political bosses -caciques- opposed to progress that proliferate chiefly in the country’s South). Finally, maybe the greatest of the damages is the absurdity of attempting to go against the proven formulas for development that characterize nations as diverse as Canada, Vietnam, China and Spain.

Mexico finds itself at a unique moment in the history of humanity: technology has favored economic integration among nations, geography has gifted Mexicans with access to the largest world market and geopolitics have created the opportunity to come by hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, with the consequent potential for the creation of wealth, jobs and, in a word, future. All that is lacking is to focus on creating the conditions for this to materialize, so that the drip-by-drip of nearshoring turns into a cascade of investments.

The messianism of this government has led to the cancelling out the opportunity with its political strategy and its criminal weakening of the health and educational sectors, its attack on the judiciary and the destruction of the infrastructure. What it has not destroyed is the aspiration for a better Mexico and therein lies the true opportunity because that, in contrast with the other elements, does not depend on the government.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

“The stability of a democracy depends very much on the people making a careful distinction between what a government can do and cannot do,” stated the academician, diplomat and politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Seeking what it cannot achieve implies “creating the conditions for frustration and ruin.” All societies procure finding an equilibrium between what is possible and what is desirable, what leads to progress and what entails excessive risks. Conditions of equilibrium are crucial, but there is congruence only if the objectives pursued match the provision of elemental services.

In Mexico there is great confusion with respect to what corresponds to the government and what concerns the society.  Mexicans tend to mix social philosophy with the practice of government, which has produced enormous swerves back and forth over time, but at the same time it has impeded the consolidation of functional government at the service of the development and the progress of the people.

One thing is the management of public affairs, another very distinct is the criteria for the allocation of resources. What is basic for any society, in any country and under any circumstance, is for the existence of conditions for life to function, which implies, for example, infrastructure of potable water, sewers, streets, security, education, health and everything that make it possible for daily life to work in normal fashion.

On the other hand, there’s the philosophy of who presides over the government and that, as a point of departure, entails the allocation of resources in the broadest sense.  Will it privilege the development of an individualist society or of a more corporativist? Will it invest in streets for the circulation of vehicles or in public transportation? Centralized education will be favored, or a multiplicity of service providers will be promoted? The market will be emphasized as a mechanism of decision-making in matters of investment and production, or industrial policy? and What will the balance between these two models be?

There is no single philosophy of government and the voters, on electing a governor, endorse distinct ways of facing the challenges of development with discrete visions and models as long-term objectives. In contrast, in the most elemental, there is only one way of creating conditions under which daily life can be possible. That is not to say that providing a certain service (e.g., water) should necessarily be public or private, but that there should be sufficient water at a competitive cost so that the entire population would be satisfied.  The same with all the other indispensable factors for quotidian life.

On a more elevated level, one of the key elements of the governmental function in the process of engendering conditions for progress and prosperity is the creation of what economists call “public goods,” that is, services that benefit the whole of society and that are necessary for its development, such as security, education, knowledge, infrastructure, rule of law and health. No country can prosper in the absence of these factors.

In this context, one cannot do other than ask what the rationale is in suspending the provision of statistical information on justice or education, two obvious public goods, on the part of the governmental entity dedicated to that purpose, Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI). The only explanation possible is that for the government the less information afforded the greater control of the population. If one were to extend this logic to the budget cuts that the health sector, scientific development, and the infrastructure in general have undergone, one can only conclude that the change spearheaded by AMLO’s Fourth Transformation (4T) does not include the development of the country, but instead the submission of the population.  If one then adds the systematic attacks on the judiciary, especially on the Supreme Court of Justice, on the National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information and Personal Data (INAI) and on institutions such as the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), the project becomes transparent in the end.

The spirit that drives the bill on administrative reform promoted by the federal Executive branch is revealing.  It involves recreating, in one fell swoop, the discretionary component enjoyed by the Mexican government in the seventies: the era of arbitrariness in which a public servant could decide on the life or death of an investment, the viability of an educational project or the possibility of consolidating a scientific investigation liable to transforming vast regions of the country.  The rationality of the bill is evident, but its costs and consequences are unmistakable, not due to the philosophy that stands behind it, but instead because it fails to separate those two pivotal components of the governmental function: the philosophical and the administrative.

The world’s most successful governments, the majority of these in Asia, divide those two elements, contracting professional functionaries for the administrative part for there to be continuity in the provision of services, while political decisions orient the long-term investment projects. On blending together, or confusing, both functions, Mexico sacrifices its development on the altar of personal and short-term obsessions.

One can approve or reject this or that policy, but no one should be against the existence of better public services that make prosperity possible. Lest the true objective is another.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

The “liar’s paradox” is one of the most amusing logic puzzles: If the liar is indeed lying, then the liar is telling the truth, which means the liar just lied. In today’s Mexico, lies become truths, corruption is purified and impunity flourishes, confusing both those who narrate daily life as well as those who live it: endless contradictions.

The daily presidential rhetoric, with all the falsehoods that pass through there, is nothing more than a permanent construction of myths, with a strong component of hate oriented to creating prejudices and loyalties. That covers the immediate issues but, in the world of the concrete, myths are pernicious creatures that obscure more than what they illuminate. Denying the existence of factors of reality –such as insecurity, extortion, few economic opportunities and poverty- acquires mythical dimensions. Except that this clashes with what Mexicans observe and live in their daily life and, more importantly, neither square with what then-candidate López Obrador denounced as the great evils that afflicted the country. The contradictions cannot but become more acute during the coming period of succession.

The great paradox that has been showing up in these years is that the president has been able to destroy innumerable institutional structures that hindered concentration of power in his person, but he has had much less impact upon the economy or in the factors on which he built his presidential bid and that are an inherent component of his narrative, such as poverty, corruption and inequality. However, the post-pandemic economic performance has been much better than expected not only by the government itself, but also by the main banks and national and foreign analysts.

There may be no better evidence of the contradictions that characterize the country than the exchange rate: the peso has not only strengthened, but it keeps less and less relationship with what happens in the economy at large and, certainly, with the deteriorating politico-institutional sphere. Violence affects exports such as those of avocados, corruption remains embedded at customs, extortion alters the lives of both the population and of companies, public finances are weaker than it appears (now aggravated by the insatiable appetite of public funds by PEMEX) and the President keeps attacking the Supreme Court of Justice. And yet, none of this seems to impact the peso. The obvious conclusion is that the factors that affect the exchange rate have changed. JP Morgan has just published a study that argues exactly this: that factors such as exports, remittances and commercial exchanges that Mexico keeps with the outside have become structural and, therefore, less susceptible to the ups and downs that characterized the past.

An alert and sensible government would conclude from this fact that what is required is to strengthen the factors that contribute to multiplying investment and stabilizing the economy to tackle phenomena such as poverty and corruption. However, what the government has produced are obstacles to trade and investment, unnecessary conflicts in energy, and a total absence of mechanisms to attract and secure the new manna that is falling from the sky in the form of the so-called nearshoring, as if economic success were pernicious. Regrettably, the perception within the government is precisely this last one, as revealed by the new textbooks aimed at impoverishing the population because they do not contribute to the development of skills among children, so that they can make it in life. Rather, they aim at saturating children with ideological prejudices. The same could be said of the institutions, starting with those dedicated to justice, where there has been a systematic attempt to degrade and subordinate them to the President.

Contradictions are present everywhere and reveal both the government’s objectives and the economic and political reality of the country. The economy has proven to be more complex, mature, and resilient than the government supposed, less susceptible to the President’s attacks. Its structural connection via exports with the US economy has given it enormous dynamism and thirty years of trade liberalization have translated into rising real incomes. In a word, the government is benefiting from the very actions and policies undertaken over the past three decades that it derides so much.

Contrarywise, the past five years have shown that the country faces a political challenge of enormous dimensions. The ease with which the President attacks and dismantles institutions proves that Mexican democracy is far too fragile, and that the citizenry still has not managed to impose itself to exercise its rights. What remains to be determined is whether the political frailty will end up undermining the economic strength.

A few months ago, the authoritarian Polish government approved a law aimed at purging the country of all Russian influence.  The use of Stalinist methods to eliminate Russian influence does not cease to be ironic. Not much different from what is happening in Mexico today.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

The brew is complicated in itself: an unsatisfied electorate, a culture hardly prone to reaching compromises and considering the rights of others, and a tradition devoted to dividing rather than adding up. The past years have displayed the best and the worst of Mexico’s primitive democratic culture and our scant disposition for venturing into the search for solutions. While the surveys show elevated popularity for presidents while in office (all except for one since the nineties were as popular or more so than the present one), the majority of votes since 1997 have been cast against the incumbent political party, especially governors and presidents. An unsatisfied electorate.

The Morena party and the alliance that the opposition has built share more traits than their members are disposed to admit. That is not strange, in that they respond to factors of culture and tradition that are equal across the board. Morena, as a movement, incorporated citizens of an extraordinary diversity of origin and essential features; the alliance of the opposition embodies historical contradictions due to antagonisms dating back to the thirties of the past century.   Forging accords and building lasting mechanisms, but above all efficient ones for the achievement of their objectives (presumably power) has not been simple.

Morena had achieved it because it is able to count on an exceptional factor of unity in the figure of the President, but, as the current internal contest illustrates, the factors that divide are always more powerful than those that unite. In the state of Coahuila, Morena was incapable of avoiding division and low blows among aspirants to the presidential candidacy are more prominent than their attributes.

The case of the alliance is equally revealing: although the opposition overall won more votes in 2021 than Morena, its success was due to a much greater degree to the disappointment and anger of a broad swath of the urban population than to the ability (and willingness) of the political parties to bring their structures to operate together and to assure that their capacity of mobilization would be maximized. The case of the state of Mexico is a proverbial example: there the candidate was nominated by one of the political parties in the alliance and the other members of the supposed alliance essentially abandoned ship.

The difference between the two coalitions (because that is what Morena is) is not as large as it appears. The opposition has been losing ground at the gubernatorial level because of Morena’s thrust with its leadership and its capacity of extortion, but now that Morena is the incumbent (in the presidency and in 23 governorships) it will no doubt begin to undergo the same phenomenon: an unsatisfied electorate.  This process will deepen to the extent that the factor of unity in Morena, the President, is relegated to that of second tier.

The point is that the political culture is not naturally compatible with democracy.  The country has over several decades dismantled the structures that made the one-party system function, but it has not advanced much in the construction of a new form of governing nor in the development of a citizenry capable of defending its rights and asserting its preferences. While Mexicans have experienced a severe democratic regression during these past few years, the permanence of the current clique in power will be brief, given that structures and scaffolds susceptible to providing continuity were not built. The concentration of power in a sole individual does not constitute an enduring alternative.

All of this suggests that the country is found on the threshold of a new political era, one more like that lived through during the political transition’s first era (the 2000’s) than to the more recent one. But with an enormous difference: the accumulated frustration of decades of unsatisfied promises, saviors who proved incapable of saving anything, and tensions caused by a style of government effective at generating loyalties but not for advancing the country’s development. A complicated brew that will exact outstanding political skills to start over… one more time.

But between today and the moment when that immense challenge must be dealt with, the process of succession will take place, one that shows signs of being not only competitive, but also potentially highly conflictive. The divisive factors will be prominent and the propensity toward conflict even more so. There will be manifested all the deficiencies of the country’s primitive democratic culture: the difficulty in accepting a defeat, the inability to join forces with whoever wins (in both the internal competition and in the constitutional election), and the indisposition for recognizing the merits of the others. On top of this lies the mindset of the clique around the president that believes that a coup is in the works.

The challenge for whomever turns out to be Morena’s nominee will consist of uniting the divergent support bases that sustained each of the contenders. Easy enough to say, but without the factor of unity, the President, this will be remarkably difficult. The challenge for the candidate arising from the opposition will reside in persuading the parties sustaining his or her candidacy to bringing their structures forth, as well as in forsaking the complex tradition of competition and antagonism amongst them, that is explained by history but that, to win, would of necessity have to be abandoned once and for all. Neither candidate will have it easy.

The great democratic advance of Mexico lies in that no one has a sure win: its great deficit lies in that many forces and interests persist that are dedicated to eradicating democracy as a form of government.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

   Luis Rubio

The narrative hides more than it illuminates: its purpose is not to explain the circumstances or to argue in favor of this or that proposal, but instead to control the national conversation and strengthen a message whose intention has nothing to do with progress or well-being. Five years of a daily dose of dogma from the official pulpit have created a parallel planet that makes it impossible to recognize the real goings-on in the world of the concrete. What takes place in the realm of reality -whether relative to insecurity, Ukraine or inflation- is relegated to the second plane and is discarded or interpreted in the light of the official narrative. All of that might be very good for the designs of political control, but it impedes the understanding of what is happening in the rest of the earthly world. And, of course, it has consequences.

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle” wrote George Orwell in 1946. Although he was referring more to politics than to everyday life, his approach was quite logical:   two things may be in the same place, but I may see only one of them. In today’s Mexico, where the narrative attracts and repels, respectively, either side of the citizenry, the day-to-day comings and goings are in the final analysis interpreted in radically contrasting and incompatible ways, generating a permanent disconnect, in addition to misunderstanding.

The obvious example these days is Xóchitl Gálvez, a political phenomenon whose appearance was circumstantial, not in the least because of the obstinacy of the narrator-in-chief who denied Gálvez’s “right of rebuttal,” provoking the emergence of the person who can well end up being the President’s nemesis. When the narrative not only affects the one being manipulated but also the manipulator himself, a miniscule error in calculation can acquire potentially cosmic dimensions.

Xóchitl Gálvez is not a new presence in the political panorama. The novelty is her sudden rise as a relevant political factor, in this case at the upcoming 2024 presidential election. Equally significant is the way her arrival on the political scene has been interpreted as an advent by some and as a figment of the imagination by others: a biblical phenomenon by the former, a fantasy by the latter. What’s remarkable is that few on each side of this great narrative divide characterizing current Mexican society take an interest in understanding the why of that keen difference in interpretation.

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts,” wrote Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the U.S. politician and diplomat. A complex concept to adopt in the Mexico of the “other data” (AMLO’s way of deflecting anything he disapproves of), but not for that is it less applicable at this present moment. No one can reasonably refute that current political discourse has taken a radical spin because Xóchitl Gálvez has become a key factor in this election. Each can have their own opinion on the fact of her emergence or on her specifically, but the fact itself is beyond dispute. The reality has changed and could affect the perception that, as the official narrative would suggest, everything had been settled, lacking only the formality of the president’s “finger pointing, or dedazo.

Beyond the fact, what is transcendent lies in the incapacity of the world of Morena to grasp the uneasiness and fears that afflict those not eating at that table. Xóchitl Gálvez became an element of hope and opportunity for an enormous portion of the population that discerns with worry and fear the continuation of a government dedicated to dividing and disqualifying, in addition to sacrificing the country’s future for the sake of a supposed transformation that is nothing other than the concentration of power in a sole individual. Needless to say, the same occurs on the other side of the divide, where the anger, rejection and resentment that decades -or centuries- of promises of development did not diminish poverty or reduce the vast inequalities characterizing the country. It is those misunderstandings that polarize and cause disagreements that leave the door open to conceivably radical, demagogical solutions.

What joins the two Mexicos that the narrative separates and divides is hope. AMLO peddles hope but only among his followers, while Xóchitl, the new political phenomenon, generates hope among those who view the presiding government with unease. The differences on that plane are minor: hope unifies if the leadership understands it and the importance it represents for the population. Much more important, hope can narrow the gap between the two Mexicos to convert it into a great transformative factor.

Mexicans are given to the search for saviors to address their limitations.   Once and again throughout the last decades, the vote has favored those proffering nirvana. The illusion never dies, explaining the continuous failure to break away from endless traps. Thus, it is very important for those who find themselves encountering the possibility of heading up the looming candidacies to develop approaches that transcend the hopeful rhetoric and propose a project of development liable to advance it.

In the same text, George Orwell wrote that “we are all capable of believing things that we know to be untrue.” It is high time for those that aspire to the highest governmental function to explain what they would do to get the country out of the hole in which thousands of recent promises and acts of corruption, both recent and old, have left it.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

Salim, a Central-African entrepreneur, is a personage who at once attracts and repels: his business prospers, serving up a perspective simultaneously optimistic about his country’s future and tragic in which progress, and the old practices that never disappeared, sow the seeds of the revolution that will come. The novel by V.S. Naipaul, A Bend in the River, allows one to appreciate two ways of perceiving the same reality. Something in that story brings to mind the way that the Mexico of today has split into two great blocs of persons who inhabit a same place, but who   contemplate the future in very contrasting ways.

Sixty percent of Mexicans attest to being satisfied with their lives, they have seen their real income grow and they are employed. That same 60% supports the President and considers that his administration has made possible the stability and well-being that it enjoys. For its part, the remaining forty percent disapprove of the President’s administration due to their perception that it is damaging the foundations of future well-being. One asks oneself what it is that makes two groups of the same society able to entertain perceptions so radically contrasting about the same phenomenon or historical moment.

According to the survey of Alejandro Moreno in “El Financiero” (May 2, 2023), the fundamental difference between the two groups of Mexicans is the level of schooling: while the vote of university students was crucial in the 2018 Presidential Election, today that cohort represents the segment most critical of his work. The two most solid contingents that sustain the President’s popularity are older Mexicans and persons with less schooling.  The inevitable conclusion is that the individuals most unfavored in their incomes and life and employment perspectives have benefitted from the economic stability, the growth of real disposable income and from a job market that, after the pandemic, has presented greater work opportunities.

In politico-electoral terms, these two contingents project their perception of the situation in the way they hold an opinion and vote: those feeling that they have reaped benefits approve of the presidential administration and emit their vote in favor of the governing party independently of belonging or not to the Morena Party; while on the other side, those disapproving of the presidential administration vote contrariwise. Nothing new under the sun.

What is relevant is the contrast of perspectives. It is evident that the improvement in the real income of the people exerts an impact similarly on the entire population, and, yet, the conclusions in mind-set at which those two population segments arrive are stringently opposed.  The explanation for this phenomenon is key to understanding the moment and to emit a prognosis of the country’s prospects in the future, including at the 2024 ballot box.

The crux of the contrast seems to lie in the perspective of time. For the cohort that feels satisfied, what counts is the here and now; for the remaining 40% what matters is the perception of the future: where is the country going toward. This concerns the perspectives emanating from economic realities and from very distinct visions and that display the circumstances of a very divided country: the one that has had the opportunity to advance in the scale of education, and the one that got stuck in an educational system that does not prepare students for the labor market nor for life. In this world era, in which what adds value (and pays better salaries) is no longer physical strength but the person’s creativity, educational achievement makes an abysmal difference in individuals’ incomes and, inexorably, in their perceptions.

For those barely able to get a job, often a precarious one, what carries weight is preserving it, and it is natural to attribute the job’s availability to whoever is at the government’s helm at the time. For those who already have a job and who have the perception of being able to continue advancing up the rungs of the income scale and those of their family’s prosperity, their concerns are concentrated on the future: will the economic stability be maintained? Will there be a crisis akin to those at the end of prior governmental terms? For the former what is of import is the moment at which a survey is taken or the moment at which one deposits their vote in the urn; for the latter the only thing that matters are the future perspectives because the present is already resolved.

Two Mexicos that reflect the place at which each individual is found on the productive chain, but that, at the same time constitute a true censure of the political system in general that has been incapable, for decades, to resolve elemental problems such as those of infrastructure in general as well as health, but above all education. Previously, a half century ago, those things were not noteworthy because the Mexican economy was a simple one and negligibly demanding. Today, the job market demands increasing specialization and the educational system in force -and the government that covers up for union bosses instead of preparing children- is incapable of providing it.

The President can be very satisfied with the popularity afforded him by the least favored Mexicans, but what they are really awarding him for is his unwillingness to create conditions for that same support base to have a better future.

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