López Obrador and the Future of Mexican Democracy

Will He Further Erode the Checks on Executive Power?

Yesterday, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, best known by his initials, AMLO, won Mexico’s presidential election decisively. After 18 years on the campaign trail, including two previous failed presidential runs, thousands of rallies, and, by his count, a visit to every one of Mexico’s 2,400 municipalities, the Tabasco-born politician received the support of 53 percent of voters at the polls, according to an offical rapid count by electoral authorities. Meanwhile, the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA), López Obrador’s four-year-old political party gained a majority in congress and a majority of the nine governorships up for grabs.

López Obrador’s lambasting of Mexico’s corruption, violence, and deep-seated inequalities resonated broadly with the country’s voters. Yet his victory stemmed in no small part from the shortcomings and outright collapse of his competitors. Second-place finisher Ricardo Anaya ran a disorganized campaign with few graspable policy positions. And five-time cabinet member José Antonio Meade, while seen as personally honest and capable, couldn’t rescue the reputation of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), undone in the eyes of voters by corruption scandal after corruption scandal.

A big question now is what López Obrador will do. His campaign revealed a multitude of voices and positions, with his surrogates often contradicting both the candidate and themselves. But even more important for Mexico’s future will be how López Obrador chooses to enact his policies—and whether he will abide by the often frustrating institutional checks and balances within Mexico’s democratic political system. Here, Peña Nieto and his administration’s institutional chicanery has opened the space and set precedents for López Obrador to further erode the democratic rules of the game.

THE POLICY AGENDA

López Obrador’s big-tent philosophy, which helped him prevail where he failed in the past, has created conflicting interests and likely rival factions in his governing coalition, raising questions about what his specific policies will be. Progressive MORENA loyalists work awkwardly alongside seasoned PRI political operatives, and Workers’ Party delegates will serve side by side with socially conservative Social Encounter Party members.

López Obrador’s personal record also seems contradictory: although he often appears thin-skinned and autocratic, he can be a pragmatic dealmaker, as evidenced by his collaboration as mayor of Mexico City with multi-billionaire Carlos Slim to restore the capital’s historic downtown. Portrayed as a leftist populist by most media outlets, he is also deeply socially conservative—opposed to gay marriage, same-sex adoption, abortion rights, and the legalization of marijuana. While crusading against corruption, he has defended supporters with tainted records, most recently Senator Layda Sansores, who became mired in scandal for charging makeup, jewelry, her grandchildren’s toys, and a host of other personal expenses to taxpayers. Most important, although promising to give voice to Mexico’s oppressed, to throw out the “mafia of power” that has controlled Mexico for so long, López Obrador doesn’t seem to particularly care for democracy’s norms, routinely criticizing the press, independent civil society organizations, the Supreme Court, and others he perceives to have wronged him.

Most observers are focused on his populist economic plans. There, the question is less what he wants to do than how far he will go and how fast his policies will happen. He is unlikely to upend NAFTA—the bigger threat to the quarter-century-old trade agreement comes from the United States. Instead, supporters and detractors alike expect him to shift Mexico’s domestic economic paradigm, expanding the role of government through a broader social safety net and active industrial policies. This will include a mix of benefits for the old and young—higher pensions for retirees and free schooling and apprenticeships for those just starting out. It will also include a minimum-wage hike for workers.

Meanwhile, an invigorated Mexican industrial policy will start on the farm. López Obrador plans to promote food self-sufficiency through a mix of price floors on basic foods such as corn, beans, rice, and beef, combined with cheap or free fertilizer and other government benefits. He has also spoken about spurring economic development in the depressed southeastern states by planting one million hectares of fruit trees, and providing other supports to expand the economic and political clout of Mexico’s small farmers.

Another state champion under López Obrador will be the energy sector. Although talk by his critics of his tearing up private contracts is overblown, the state-owned petroleum company Pemex will likely reclaim its dominant role, the government slowing if not stopping the fast-paced auctions of the last three years, which opened up exploration and production in Mexico to private companies for the first time in over 70 years. And to fulfill the mantra of energy self-sufficiency, billions may go to new refineries. More broadly, López Obrador has promised nearly to double public infrastructure investment as a percentage of GDP, talking of new highways, airports, passenger trains, and an overland Pacific to Atlantic transportation corridor to rival the Panama Canal.

It is unclear how much of this expansive economic agenda will become actual policy. These programs will all cost large sums of money, and López Obrador also promised not to raise taxes or the debt on the campaign trail. Even rising oil prices won’t feed the public treasury as much as in the past; domestic oil production is in decline, and the nation is now a net importer.

Beyond the economy, it is unclear if and how López Obrador will translate his promises into actions.

Beyond the economy, it is unclear if and how López Obrador will translate his promises into actions. Although taking on Mexico’s deep-seated corruption and reducing historic levels of violence were part of almost every campaign stump speech, he hasn’t let on how he plans to get results. (Morevoer, López Obrador enters office with fraught relations with Mexico’s military, the main stabilizing security force on the streets and in Mexico’s hills today.) Rather, he has been clearest on what policies he will end. He has promised to roll back an education reform designed to limit union control over public schools and transform the curriculum and way of teaching Mexico’s youth, despite its general popularity. And in the international sphere, he and his foreign minister designate have made clear their lack of interest in continuing to play a regional leadership role, particularly on Venezuela.

THE RETURN OF AN UNCHECKED EXECUTIVE?

Just as important as what López Obrador’s policies will be is how he will go about implementing them. Mexico was long known for its imperial presidency, the head of government constrained largely only by a one-term limit. The office’s power dispersed somewhat with democratization and the rise of divided government. But during the Peña Nieto administration, power again concentrated in the executive.

oneil-pena-nieto-rts107wl
JOSE LUIS GONZALEZ / REUTERS. A woman takes part in a protest against Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto in Mexico City, Mexico February 2017.

Discretionary spending within the Mexican budget rose substantially under Peña Nieto, topping $18 billion last year, or just under 10 percent of overall government spending. Peña Nieto used these outlays, along with other tactics, to push through a series of structural reforms that included new anti-trust, financial, telecommunications, education, energy, and fiscal policies, even as his PRI party lacked a majority in congress. López Obrador could follow this lead, using outlays to solidify his heterogeneous partisan base and to build a broader legislative or even constitutional coalition for change. Alongside these financial carrots, López Obrador can wield the stick of his anti-corruption crusade, threatening to investigate those hesitant to join his legislative alliances. These tools suggest that Congress will provide few checks and balances against his administration.

The judicial branch, too, is unlikely to check any of his moves. Rule of law is a troubling factor in general in Mexico; the court system’s failures to address widespread impunity over the last decade have diminished its standing. Here, too, Peña Nieto’s skirting of the rules with his Supreme Court picks set an unhealthy precedent for López Obrador to continue. Consider the appointment of Eduardo Medina Mora, a former Mexican ambassador to the United States, to the Supreme Court bench in 2015. Medina Mora didn’t meet the technical requirement of having lived in Mexico in the preceding two years, and many questioned his professional bonafides for the job, focusing in particular on his stint as head of the intelligence service as less than exemplary for an aspirant to the highest Court. Peña Nieto’s move weakened the tradition of appointing accomplished jurists as new justices.

The Peña administration also politicized technical posts to an unhealthy degree, a policy that carried over to other institutions as well. In 2015, despite widespread academic and civil society outrage, it forced through Congress a new vice president at the statistical agency INEGI who didn’t meet the professional requirements laid out in the law. Peña’s transgressions give López Obrador space to do the same when positions open up over the course of his six-year term in these or other autonomous agencies that have similar rules regarding qualifications and processes—including Mexico’s antitrust commission, electoral institute, Central Bank, or independent prosecutor’s office.

Many changes can be made through executive actions or inactions, reflecting a long history of divergences between de jure rules and de facto outcomes. As Peña before him, López Obrador can take advantage of these gaps to fulfill his economic and social agenda with little interference from other branches of government.

Where domestic checks and balances fail, international currency and bond markets could step in, particularly in response to reckless economic policy and potential profligacy. Yet so far, the markets have been relatively unfazed by López Obrador’s rise, assuming he will veer toward pragmatic governance. Debt increased dramatically under Peña Nieto—from 33 percent of GDP in 2012 to roughly 46 percent today—without much worry from Wall Street. And although investors may not give López Obrador and his team as much leeway as they granted to his predecessors, Mexico remains quite solvent, with significant room to increase spending.

The last bastion of democratic defense comes from civil society and a free press. Here, too, Peña Nieto has abused the president’s power. The government stands accused of using sophisticated Israeli spy software not to go after drug cartels but to dig up dirt on journalists and civil society leaders. It has also harassed its critics through repeated tax audits and has utilized its immense public advertising budget to reward media outlets proffering favorable headlines.

López Obrador has already painted independent think tanks and nongovernmental organizations with an ugly brush, dismissing them as abetting the “mafia of power” he has come to defeat. He has also publicly opposed any active governmental oversight role for civil society, for instance in choosing an independent prosecutor. The next president has gotten into his fair share of dustups with the press—emulating the attacks more often heard to Mexico’s north about “fake news” when media reports go against him. In the weeks before the election he went after Reforma, one of the most independent-minded of Mexico’s media outlets, and has repeatedly called out prominent columnists for criticizing his platforms, suggesting more scuffles to come once in office. Perhaps in anticipation of his win, in April his MORENA party voted alongside the PRI in the lower house to keep the Ley Chayote, the slang term Mexicans use to talk about the long-held government practice of doling out payments to journalists and news outlets to gain favorable coverage.

Whether López Obrador turns out to be an economic pragmatist or a populist will shape Mexico’s financial trajectory. But more important for the nation’s political future will be whether he chooses to recognize and respect institutional checks and balances. If he does not, he will ultimately be to blame for undermining Mexico’s still-fragile democracy. But so too will Peña Nieto and his administration, as their choices and behavior over the last six years will have opened the door to further abuse of the system.

Publicado el 2 de julio en: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/mexico/2018-07-02/lopez-obrador-and-future-mexican-democracy

 

Salvar la democracia

El triunfo de Andrés Manuel López Obrador, el presidente electo de México en la reciente elección presidencial obtuvo un histórico resultado de 53% de los votos, según indican las cifras oficiales emitidas por el Instituto Nacional Electoral (INE), institución pública y autónoma encargada de la organización de las elecciones y que es dirigida por ciudadanos con la participación y representación de todas las fuerzas políticas del país. Sin duda alguna, tanto el resultado y la institución por si misma son un síntoma positivo de una democracia que sigue latiendo.

Ningún otro presidente mexicano había sido electo en un contexto histórico como el que se presentó el pasado 1 de julio en la jornada electoral, López Obrador es el primer presidente mexicano de la era de la transición democrática con el mayor porcentaje de votos, con más de 30 millones de los más de 56 millones que ejercieron su derecho al voto.

Una jornada con alta participación tan solo superada por la del año 2000, cuando resultó electo Vicente Fox, el primer presidente emanado del Partido Acción Nacional (PAN) y el primero de la transición democrática que puso fin a más de 70 años del viejo régimen del Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI).

La democracia mexicana ha cumplido dieciocho años, y con ello su mayoría de edad si tomamos en cuenta la semejanza de que en México los ciudadanos obtienen su credencial de elector a esa edad. Sin embargo, esta joven democracia tuvo un recorrido de experiencias significativas y algunas dolorosas en las décadas que precedieron a su nacimiento.

Por mencionar algunos ejemplos como la creación del PAN en 1939, el partido más importante de oposición al viejo régimen del PRI, pasando por el traumático 2 de octubre de 1968 y el nacimiento de una generación de políticos que en aquel entonces eran estudiantes universitarios cuando sucedió la matanza de Tlatelolco en la Plaza de las Tres Culturas.

También es importante señalar lo que algunos estudiosos y analistas reconocen como el inicio de la transición democrática con la reforma político electoral del año 1977, cuando desde el poder presidencial, todavía en el viejo régimen priista se promovió pasar de un esquema hegemónico controlado por el PRI-Gobierno a uno pluripartidista, que incluso dio cabida a los partidos de izquierda proscritos hasta ese entonces.

Todas estas anécdotas que más bien parecerían dignas de una historia de hazañas de mujeres y hombres con nombres y apellidos que dieron testimonio de un férreo compromiso por democratizar el poder y dotar de instituciones al país, son parte de una historia que en si misma es valiosa no solo por la profundidad de los cambios que generaron, sino porque sin ellas no podríamos comprender que hoy el primer presidente emanado de un partido-movimiento abiertamente de izquierda haya llegado al poder con tan amplio margen y con una legitimidad inusual.

A pesar de que, por joven e incipiente para algunos sea la democracia que tenemos los mexicanos, es importante conocer, comprender y valorar que los cambios que los ciudadanos seguimos anhelando pueden ser canalizados por medio del voto, como ya lo demostró la elección reciente, y que las instituciones como el INE generan la confianza necesaria para que la voluntad ciudadana exprese en las urnas sus sueños, anhelos y frustraciones con respecto al poder y quienes lo buscan conquistar.

Dos son los elementos característicos para tener una democracia fuerte, según señalan en el libro How Democracies die los profesores de la Universidad de Harvard Steven Levitsky y Daniel Ziblatt. El primer elemento es la edad, la antigüedad de la democracia en un país, y el segundo elemento tiene que ver con cómo está distribuida la riqueza.

A diferencia de las personas, los años y la edad avanzada garantizan la prolongación de la vida de una democracia, pues las experiencias que viven las distintas generaciones de ciudadanos, los hitos que suscitan van construyendo instituciones cada vez más resilientes.

En términos sistémicos la vejez ayuda a la democracia, mientras que, por el contrario, la aparición de amenazas a la democracia en una edad temprana por parte de tendencias y líderes autoritarios pueden “erosionarla” e incluso llevarla a su muerte prematura.

Por otro, el fenómeno de la inequidad en las oportunidades, la injusta distribución de la riqueza y el deterioro de la calidad de vida de los ciudadanos son amenazas a la resiliencia de una democracia, pues, aunque la economía es una esfera de la actividad humana distinta a la de la política, esta termina por determinar de manera importante las preferencias, opiniones y percepciones sobre la forma en cómo vivimos en la esfera de la política. Así que mientras las opciones políticas existentes puedan responder mejor a las exigencias de los ciudadanos en este sentido, más sano será para la prolongación de una vida sana para la democracia.

México tiene ante sí un reto y una oportunidad. El reto consiste en evitar a toda costa la erosión de su democracia que apenas madura, que con una corta edad ha demostrado resistir los embates de tendencias autoritarias en el pasado, y la cada vez más creciente desigualdad, pobreza y marginación de más de la mitad de su población.

La oportunidad estriba en aprovechar el resurgimiento de una especie de “bono democrático” que los mexicanos hicieron posible al usar la democracia y sus instrumentos para decidir un cambio de rumbo, una exigencia para nada despreciable por la cantidad de votantes que así lo dejaron claro.

En ambos casos, el reto y la oportunidad, corresponde, por una parte al nuevo gobierno reconocer el camino que han recorrido tanto ellos como sus adversarios políticos a lo largo de las décadas para construir un ambiente democrático y de instituciones más o menos sólidas, y por otro lado le corresponde a la oposición política de todo el espectro político y a la sociedad civil ser lo garantes del fortalecimiento de la democracia a través de hacerse corresponsables en la atención a los problemas más graves y urgentes que aquejan al país: pobreza, desigualdad, inseguridad, impunidad y la corrupción; así como ser los canales para fomentar, fortalecer y promover la participación ciudadana eficaz en los asuntos públicos, y en caso de ser necesario, servir de diques a las tentaciones autoritarias de quienes llegan al poder en todos los niveles de gobierno, de todos los partidos políticos de donde provengan esos gobernantes y servidores públicos.

Salvar la democracia es tarea continua, pues no podemos dar por sentado que nunca está amenazada o en riesgo de ser erosionada, ejemplos en la historia, a lo largo y ancho del mundo nos señalan que cuando menos se le piensa, un golpe de estado puede suceder o un líder electo democráticamente socavar las instituciones y las libertades.

No importa si es con tanques o con una versión “suave” del desmantelamiento de la democracia, «Nadie nos va a regalar la democracia, la democracia necesita demócratas y demócratas son los que se toman el trabajo de construir los instrumentos e instituciones que favorecen a la democracia«, dijo Carlos Castillo Peraza, periodista, político y pensador humanista mexicano. Los ciudadanos, la sociedad civil, los partidos políticos y gobiernos, todos somos necesarios para darle viabilidad a quien este año llegó a la mayoría de edad: el México democrático.

Conferencia la importancia de la juventud en procesos electorales

33871891_1698151513599006_5644982745286311936_n

“Hay países en donde aún no tienen derecho a elegir a sus gobernantes, incluso hay países en donde los jóvenes están muriendo por poder votar libremente.” Ayer en el Consejo Ciudadano de Juventud de Puebla compartí una presentación bajo el título “Tiempo de elecciones: la importancia de la Juventud en los procesos electorales.” En México los jóvenes tenemos que reconstruir y cuidar nuestra democracia, que aunque imperfecta, aún la tenemos.

Puebla, México.- En el marco de las próximas elecciones presidenciales y legislativas, además de la elección de más de 18,299 cargos públicos que los mexicanos realizarán fue que el Consejo Ciudadano de Juventud de la ciudad de Puebla invitó a la Red Latinoamericana de Jóvenes por la Democracia a presentar el rol de los jóvenes en los procesos electorales y en la democracia.

Fue así como Jonathan Maza, Secretario Ejecutivo de JueventudLAC, presentó a los jóvenes asistente a la conferencia, datos sobre el entorno político electoral del país y un análisis comparativo del estado de la democracia en distintos países de la región.

Durante la presentación se recalcó las luchas democráticas que los jóvenes están impulsando en distintos países como Cuba, Venezuela y Nicaragua donde enfrentan a regímenes autoritarios, además de violaciones sistemáticas de derechos humanos que afectan a activistas, líderes estudiantiles y políticos opositores.

Por último se invitó a los jóvenes a participar en las próximas elecciones a través del ejercicio de su derecho al voto de manera informada y reflexiva, también invitándoles a participar en la democracias y las instituciones públicas más allá del día de la elección.