Petroleumworld`s
Opinion Forum:
viewpoints on issues in energy & international
politics.
Saturday's
Lagniappe
Rodolfo
Hernandez Guerrero: The race for El Presidente
By
Rodolfo Hernandez Guerrero,
Three
Mexican analysts argue the case for three candidates, and Rodolfo
Hernandez Guerrero
explains why it matters to Texans.
On
July 2, Mexicans will elect their new president, six years after
voting in the first national government in modern history administered
by a political outsider. In 2000, Vicente Fox ran for president
as the National Action Party (PAN) candidate – and won
a stunning upset victory.
The
Fox victory taught Mexicans that they had the power to reverse
70 years of rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI).
Many believed that landmark election signaled consolidation
of Mexican democracy and confirmed that economic liberalization
must be accompanied by political liberalization.
Six
years on, it's clear to Mexicans that a vote by itself is not
enough to solidify democracy, produce economic opportunities
and improve living conditions. Mexican voters have for the first
time the opportunity to vote not only against someone, but actually
to vote in favor of responsible leadership capable of carrying
out vital structural reforms necessary to improve living standards.
Surveys
suggest that voters will choose between the rightist PAN candidate,
Felipe Calderón, and the leftist Democratic Revolutionary
Party (PRD) candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
Electing Mr. Calderón could be seen as an endorsement
of Mr. Fox's style, even though PAN has maintained a careful
distance from his controversies.
A
victory for Mr. López Obrador would continue the broader
trend of socialism's rebirth across Latin America.
If
the PRI candidate, Roberto Madrazo, wins – and this is
unlikely – it may be seen as a confirmation of nostalgic
values for authoritarian and centralized governorship that characterized
Mexico through the 20th century.
The
victor will have to re-energize Mexico's dialogue with the U.S.,
particularly around the serious challenges of organized crime,
drug trafficking and migration. The style of Mexico's contribution
to this crucial dialogue will be decided by this vote. Because
Mexico and the U.S. share a linked fate, Mexico's choice cannot
be ignored.
Rodolfo
Hernandez Guerrero is director of the Center for U.S.-Mexico
Studies at the University of Texas at Dallas. His e-mail is
rfo@utdallas.edu.
Felipe
Calderón win would signal stronger democracy, says Macario
Schettino
Why should Felipe Calderón and the National Action Party
(PAN) of outgoing President Vicente Fox win Mexico's presidential
election?
Let
me start by describing how Mexico has transitioned to democracy
in recent years. It will help explain why Mr. Calderón
should be our next president.
The
political system created in Mexico after the Revolution of 1910
had some interesting features. It was a corporatist system,
meaning that it was corporate-based – not as the term
corporation is typically understood in the United States, but
rather it was based on tight, vertical groups with a common
goal. The best way to imagine a corporation in this sense is
to think of a labor union, where everyone wants the same things:
better wages, better job conditions.
The
Mexican government built a political system on three large pillars:
peasants, workers and employees, each a corporate federation.
These were the three branches of the Institutional Revolutionary
Party (PRI). The PRI was also created by this system to manage
appointments to public offices. In addition, business was also
organized in a similar manner, giving way to what we now call
"crony capitalism."
That
was how the political system in Mexico was throughout the 20th
century. It started to crumble by the mid-1980s in the wake
of the 1982 economic crisis, the 1985 earthquakes and the massive
electoral fraud of 1986 in Chihuahua. Mexico's difficult transition
to democracy began at that time and attained significant success
by 1997, when the PRI lost its majority in the House of Representatives.
Three years later, the PRI lost the presidency.
These
defeats of the once-invincible party have led many people to
think that Mexico already has transitioned to democracy. This
is not the case.
Mexico
is the only case of a corporatist system becoming a democratic
one. This has never happened before. All other corporatist systems,
most of them created in the 1920s and 1930s, became dictatorships
first and transitioned to democracy many years later.
In
Mexico this did not occur, and that is why the transition has
taken such a long time and effort. Corporatist systems are essentially
anti-liberal, in the classical sense of favoring free markets,
open democracy and the rule of law. This means that Mexico is
still far from becoming a modern country.
In
this election, two groups will attempt to re-establish traditional
corporatism: Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his
party, the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), and Roberto
Madrazo, the presidential candidate of the PRI. The only chance
Mexico has of staying on the path to modernization is Felipe
Calderón.
In
fact, if Mr. Calderón wins, both the PRI and the PRD
– the old-guard parties – would cease to exist.
It is quite possible that the PRI would have only 15 percent
of the vote, far below what it once had. It would likely be
unable to survive.
On
the other hand, the PRD has been taken over by its candidate,
Mr. López Obrador, who built his campaign team from former
PRI cadres, put former PRI members in as candidates to Congress,
and imposed Marcelo Ebrard – another former PRI stalwart
– as candidate for Mexico City mayor. This means that
if Mr. López Obrador loses, his party will no longer
hold any high political offices, obviously not in the federal
government, but also not in Mexico City (the hottest place for
the PRD by far) or in Congress. Therefore, the PRD will be dead.
If
Mr. Calderón wins, the political parties that would like
to turn back the clocks will not only be defeated, but also
will be one step away from disappearing. This finally will complete
the transition that began 20 years ago and put Mexico on a clear
path to modernization. Old views about Mexico, rooted in the
Mexican Revolution, will give way to new ways of thinking.
Furthermore,
a Calderón victory would launch Mexico along a new wave
of reforms, from a complete fiscal reform to important changes
in energy, education, labor and social security.
It
won't be an easy path, but it will surely be a step forward.
The election we Mexicans are facing is not just about a new
president or a new Congress. It is about the end of a historical
period. It is about the future – a future that will inevitably
bring Mexico and the United States closer together.
Roberto
Madrazo would create viable, centrist policies, says Francisco
Gil-Villegas
With Mexico's presidential race just around the corner, here's
what we know about the three main parties and their candidates:
Andrés
Manuel López Obrador represents the leftist PRD and arguably
would be a Mexican version of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez.
Felipe
Calderón comes from the rightist PAN, supported by President
Vicente Fox, who has been acting as his campaign manager, in
order to continue a problematic administration that many already
see as a total failure, if not an outright catastrophe.
And
there's Roberto Madrazo from the centrist PRI, the political
party with the longest and most proven experience to rule and
administer Mexico. The PRI has the widest support of any political
party, real national representation across the country and still
retains the majority of legislators and state governors in office.
It also can boast the best record in terms of local electoral
trends in the last five years.
In
spite of being the candidate of the strongest and most experienced
party in Mexico, Mr. Madrazo does not enjoy the best public
image. The internal struggle within the PRI to select its presidential
candidate proved too harsh. The resulting internal divisions
and cleavages made him damaged goods in the public eye.
Nevertheless,
Mr. Madrazo still has important resources. Despite his personal
struggles in opinion polls, he has the backing of the political
party with the widest support across Mexican society.
If
elected, Mr. Madrazo would create a centrist government. He
could pursue credible social policies without falling into the
negligent, insensitive policies from the right proposed by Mr.
Calderón as a continuation of the Fox government. Nor
would he be susceptible to the radical, corrupt, violent policies
portended by Mr. López Obrador's "alternative project
for the nation."
By
contrast, the social and economic policies that Mr. Madrazo
endorses are attractive to private entrepreneurs that still
consider a PRI government reliable, experienced and stabilizing.
Simultaneously, those policies are much more sensitive to the
real needs and expectations of the popular sectors in Mexico
than anything pursued by the PAN in the last few years.
Mr.
Madrazo also has the best foreign policy proposal; it recovers
the prestigious Mexican foreign policy of the past and takes
into account the challenges of a globalized world. The Fox administration
shattered that policy; Mexico has its worst relationship in
history with Latin America and certainly not the best one with
the U.S.
This
is partially due to Mr. Fox's leadership handicaps, reflected
today in the terrible security crisis at the U.S. border. By
contrast, more experienced diplomats and foreign policymakers
in Mexico designed the PRI's foreign policy. It's the only platform
specifically designed to care for the needs of Mexican citizens
abroad, mainly in the United States, and which offers concrete
proposals to improve the benefits of NAFTA. And unlike Mr. López
Obrador's, it is not directed toward causing a collision with
U.S. interests.
Mr.
Madrazo is also the only candidate with the political experience
to guarantee Mexican national security – domestically
and abroad.
Neither
Mr. López Obrador as mayor of Mexico City nor Mr. Calderón
as a member of the Fox government was able to deal effectively
with the insecurity caused by crime. The crime rates increased
dramatically in the last five years in their respective government
responsibilities.
By
contrast, Mr. Madrazo reduced crime and kidnappings dramatically
when he was governor of Tabasco state between 1994 and 2000.
He is the only presidential candidate capable of finding a workable
solution to the current explosive political situation in Mexico,
to which both PAN negligence and PRD radicalism are to blame.
Furthermore,
only Mr. Madrazo guarantees a progress in the democratization
process in Mexico, partly because he has never claimed to be
above the law (as Mr. López Obrador has repeatedly),
but also because he is the only candidate who knows how to respect
the rule of law without losing the reins of political control.
Only
Mr. Madrazo guarantees an adequate formula of democracy with
efficiency in the performance of governmental functions. And
since Mr. López Obrador would mean populist dictatorship
and Mr. Calderón a continuation of negligence and political
paralysis, Roberto Madrazo is the only presidential candidate
who could defuse today's explosive social situation in Mexico
while consolidating the gains Mexico has made toward a workable
and efficient democracy.
Ordinary people want - and deserve
- Andrés Manuel López Obrador, says Pablo Marentes
Nearly 71 million Mexicans are registered for Mexico's July
2 presidential election, which also is my country's first truly
democratic election in 95 years. Three parties – the PRI,
the PAN and the PRD – are engaged in a contest that's
increasingly aggressive, at least from the point of view of
the Mexican elite, which is not used to harsh exchange of political
fare and negative propaganda.
Roberto
Madrazo of the PRI and Felipe Calderón of PAN have joined
forces to portray Andrés Manuel López Obrador
of PRD as a populist authoritarian and an old-fashioned nationalist
surrounded by cronies – the future members of a pro-big-state
cabinet who will handle deficit budgets to fill the pockets
of unemployed elders with money.
His
aim, the campaigns hammer away, is to alter the terms of the
North American Free Trade Agreement and hamper free trade and
free transit of workers across international borders, denying
Mexico its major source of foreign exchange.
Both
Mr. Madrazo and Mr. Calderón are worried because Mr.
López Obrador previously had shown a 10-point voter preference.
If Mr. López Obrador corrects campaign shortcomings –
in particular, when he addressed President Vicente Fox and his
own adversaries as chachalacas, the vulgar name of a noisy bird
– then he will be president.
He
was able to stop an impeachment process set in motion by Mr.
Fox to remove him from the race. More than a million demonstrators
marched the entire length of Paseo de la Reforma, Mexico City's
main thoroughfare, to protest the move. Mr. Fox changed his
plans.
Mr.
López Obrador's electoral platform includes attention
on economic reform, which, if successful, would eradicate the
causes of immigration that have induced more than 10 million
Mexicans to cross the border into the U.S.
During
the past five years, the tendency toward creating monopolies
and cartel agreements in manufacturing and services has been
pervasive. Mexico imports 90 percent of its food. The countryside
is stagnant. Its sole staple is wet immigrant arms and backs.
One million families concentrate 40 percent of the national
income.
President
Bush recently advised the Mexican government to convince wealthy
Mexicans to start sharing. Otherwise, "the Mexican poor
will say that neither free enterprise nor free trade is good."
Mr.
López Obrador's platform and situation seem very much
like William Jennings Bryan's. Mr. Bryan's famed "Cross
of Gold" speech in favor of industrial workers and farmers
in the 1896 Democratic National Convention in Chicago led "the
Boy Orator of the Platte" to be labeled pejoratively as
"populist."
He
did, in fact, receive the Populist Party nomination, in addition
to the Democratic one, and during the campaign proclaimed: "Executive
power and patronage have been used to corrupt our legislatures
and defeat the will of the people. Government of the few has
been enthroned over the ruins of democracy."
Mr.
Bryan lost the election by a few votes to Republican William
McKinley. Historians largely have agreed that the election was
manipulated by the robber barons and big business. In Mexico
today, even though Mr. López Obrador's opponents are
spending 20 times more than he is on TV and radio ads, he remains
a top contender. Ordinary Mexicans can relate to him and his
proposals.
Mr.
Bryan's attack on monopolies and corruption and his proposals
for women's rights, wealth redistribution through taxation and
human and workers' rights were later advanced by the Republican
administrations of Mr. McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt and William
Howard Taft throughout the early 1900s. His political talent
was recognized by Woodrow Wilson, who appointed him secretary
of state.
Once
derided as a dangerous man of the people, Mr. Bryan is now regarded
as "The Great Commoner" because of his deep and abiding
faith in the goodness of the common man.
William
Jennings Bryan is respected today because he pointed out –
as Mr. López Obrador does today – that positive
macroeconomics figures mean nothing when the common man is not
well off.
The
message has reached the poor and ordinary people. They are 90
percent of the Mexican population today.
