It's difficult to explain this in the USA, but Mexico has moved forwards intensively in the last 12 years or so. Do they understand this in the USA? They probably don't. At least, most of them simply do not have the slightest interest in the subject. But it is a subject of superlative importance for the North American continent. Some companies in the USA are still unaware of Mexico being part of a commercial treaty that should make it really easy to expand their markets. Most web sites ignore this and can't sell or do not want to sell anything to Mexicans.
As I am writing this—December, 2011—things are happening in Mexico that might lead this struggling nation back to the past. "The Past" deserves a definition.
Ballots and elections. It took Mexicans about 200 years to design an idiosyncrasy proof electoral system. They got this in 1997 and in 2000, the PRI party—the one in power for 71 years—gave in. President Salinas de Gortari declared in several international forums that "Mexico hadn't just changed political parties, but Mexico had decided a shift in political regime". It's clear that what this expresident meant was that the change hadn't been a simple thing, but a rather very complex shift towards an uncertain new "regime". Why did Salinas say that?
During the campaign months people would very often express that, as happy as they could be that the PAN party was going to win, they were sure it was going to be a disaster, but they didn't know how or why. Today, most of those who commented about the "future disaster", are prompt to express that what really happened is that the PRI structure was never torn down. It's up and powerful, today perhaps more than ever. In the past, the PRI bands used to need to be careful and protect themselves from the other bands. Today, they are protected by the system. They don't need to be careful of each other: they're now dwelling a country of laws, not exactly the one they contributed to create, but exactly the opposite.
Mexico is an extremely difficult country, mainly because of the complexity of a culture that forgives narcotics organized crime more easily than child sexual abuse. For some of us, Mexican born citizens, it's impossible to understand and least of all, accept, the attitude adopted by important editorial figures who have insisted on disseminating the idea that president Calderon's frontal battle against organized crime is a "wrong political action". What would the "correct" action be?
Obviously, this isn't even about political correctness, but simply about political propaganda. The media in Mexico had been traditionally at the mercy of the group in power. Freedom of the Press is only a constitutional formality. In reality, it was never respected. The media were used to communicate whatever the empowered group needed in order to "look good" in front of the people.
It wasn't until year 2000, right when Vicente Fox took office, that the Freedom of the Press became a reality. However, the change meant a serious problem for the entire structure. The media directors were used to receiving "official suggestions" about what to communicate, how to emphasize it, what not to mention, and so forth. Fox and his group of break-in politicians—most of them, convinced believers of democracy—never sent a signal demanding what the journalists still believed to the president's prerogative.
Confronting the presidential power from a newspaper column used to be considered a real act of bravery and civil courage. It shouldn't be, anymore. At a time, it became a "national sport" to destroy the presidential couple using the media. And it was an incredible efficient process. Fox's presidency showed numbers that have only been improved by president Calderon's. However, somehow the media have been incredibly effective at showing to the public an image of constant conflict, lack of imagination to rule and an extensive set of negative traits.
If some or all the negative traits are real, would be a thing to be carefully analyzed. What is undeniable, is the fact that both non-PRI federal governments have yielded numbers that speak marvels of them as responsible administrators, lawful officials and human rights honoring politicians.
Whenever all they needed to do was to abide by the law, they got excellent results, the best ever in the Mexican nation. One clear example of this is the growth of home building, with three-party administered funds. All employers in Mexico have the legal obligation of paying 5% over the salaries paid, to a home building fund called "Infonavit". During the Fox and Calderon administrations, the number of homes built amounts to 1 in 4 houses that have ever existed in the country!. In 1982, the funds of "Infonavit" were seized by Lopez Portillo, and were used to diminish the government internal debt.
Calderon's decision to combat the bands of organized crime was an obligation once he took office. It wasn't something optional to do. Why would it be optional for a government to combat crime? Has it ever been optional to chase criminals? I mean, is it something that should be left "to see what happens"? As a matter of fact, if Calderon had not shown a determination to combat organized crime, he would have been criticized for not doing his duty. The violent encounters between bands of crime groups have resulted in close to 50,000 deaths. Were these deaths caused by bullets from the Army or the Navy? Absolutely not! Then, why are they saying this everywhere? That's the heck of an important question, to be answered with the most accuracy, and be learned accordingly by all Mexican citizens....
The media had never paid any attention to the encounters between gangs. Why did it become so important to record the daily deaths of the armed gangs? Simply because it was the perfect combination: mention the death toll of the day, and concatenate it with "Calderon's 'peronsal' war", and that's it! You've got your journalistic critique of the presidential decision to abide by the law by combating the criminal bands.
In December 2011, as I'm typing this, the weekly polls reflect nothing but a total lack of understanding of what is really important for their country on the part of the citizens of Mexico. If the intention was to generate total confusion, they have been incredibly successful at achieving such goal. Not even the PAN friendly people—a mere 21%—know why their option is a valid and valuable one. Electorally speaking, the benefit is only on behalf of the loser of the elections in 2006, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. This man has had an erratic behavior concerning his relations to the PRI party. Incidentally, during the elections in the state of Mexico, his participation was frankly and openly on behalf of the PRI candidate, even in detriment of the candidate of his alleged party, the PRD, Alejandro Encino. What happened there?
What we see today is a PRI "super candidate" quickly being diminished in the polls. The last heavy stroke against him being his uncomfortable muting during an interview as he was unable to mention 3 books that he might have read that would account for his political views.
The PAN party has always attempted—and achieved, most of the time—democracy in its internal processes to select candidates. As of right now, 3 pre candidates are running for the PAN presidential candidacy: Josefina Vazquez Mota, Santiago Creel Miranda and Cordero. Neither has the stamina and high oratorial capabilities that President Calderon has. So, their performance as candidates is uncertain. The election process has been going on for at least 5 years. The PRI candidate has been on the news daily, competing only with President Calderon. If the information handled by the public were the correct one, the PAN brand would be the highest, well above the PRI and PRD party symbols. However, the extremely clean financial administration of the federal Government—along with its dutifully administered respect for Human Rights—have been opaqued by the daily media sort of pathological necessity to transform every single official act or event, a target for the most severe and unfounded critique.
The future of Mexico is uncertain if whoever holds the presidency decides to break the rules of the IMF. A lot of Mexicans wish our country to continue in the path of sustained growth, rather than in a path of financial upheavals similar to Greece, Italy and Venezuela. We could have grown a lot more during the last 10 years, but the needed Constitutional Amendments were systematically denied by the Congress—with a majority of seats under the control of the PRI party.
No comments:
Post a Comment