What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
Special Investigation: Why Did the
World Trade Towers Fall?
A scientific explanation
at last, from a physicist and mechanical engineer. P. Sainath recalls
Gandhi's 9/11, one hundred years ago; Chris Sands reports from Afghanistan on the rise
of the Taliban.What you just missed, but can still get, in our
last newsletter: Paul Craig Roberts on the Collapse of America. CounterPunch Online is read by millions of viewers
each month! But
remember, we are funded solely by the subscribers to the
print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a subscription
to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find
anywhere else, or by making a donation towards the cost of this
online edition.
Remember contributions are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
On September 16, over one million people
raised their hands in a vote to recognize center-left leader
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador as the "legitimate president"
of Mexico. Gathered in Mexico City's historic center, the delegates
to the National Democratic Convention (NDC) agreed to inaugurate
their president on November 21-nine days before the inauguration
of the officially recognized candidate, Felipe Calderon. This
act of civil resistance ushered in a new stage in an electoral
conflict that has developed into an all-out battle for the country's
future.
The NDC constituted an unprecedented
event in Mexico's tumultuous sequence of starts and stalls toward
democracy. No matter what the outcome, the convention will go
down in history as a defining moment in the nation's political
development. What it will define, however, is still anybody's
guess.
The conservative camp that
supports the presidency of Felipe Calderon, who has been officially
certified by electoral institutions and backed by mainstream
media conglomerates, big business, and much of the U.S. press,
has portrayed the convention as the last-gasp attempt of a losing
candidate to attain power.
But try telling that to any
of the delegates straining to hear the proceedings over the rain
and crowd noise on Mexico's Independence Day. For them, "their"
president not only deserves office by right of having won elections
stolen through fraud, but also because he represents their interests.
Running on a pro-poor platform, Lopez Obrador has gained the
confidence of millions of Mexicans. The poor form the backbone
of a movement that has rapidly evolved into a widespread rejection
of the status quo.
After months of protesting
fraud, the convention represented a change in direction. Amid
the morass of unexplained discrepancies and manipulated results
that have characterized Mexico's presidential elections, the
distinction between the demand for a fair vote count and the
need to redress deeply felt social wrongs has been subsumed into
a general movement for fundamental reforms.
From Fighting Fraud to Fundamental Reforms
It would be a mistake to write
off Mexico's post-electoral conflict as a battle between legality
and sore losers. Mexico's current political crisis developed
out of the lack of public confidence in an exceedingly tight
and contested presidential election. The Electoral Tribunal's
declaration of Felipe Calderon as the official winner on September
5 failed to restore credibility in representative government
for three fundamental reasons: a bad count, a lack of transparency,
and the belief of poor Mexicans that the new government will
not represent their interests.
The problem with the count
is straightforward-no one can say with certainty who won the
Mexican presidential elections. The official system of preliminary
results showed such obvious flaws in functioning-including the
original exclusion of 3 million votes-that the matter passed
to a full review of tally sheets amid growing suspicions of foul
play. Later, the judicial electoral tribunal rejected the demand
for a full recount of ballots despite ample indications of irregularities.
In this context, the tribunal's
decision to legally proclaim Felipe Calderon the victor by a
half-percent margin over Lopez Obrador was more a matter of expediency
than a measure of justice. The tribunal acknowledged arithmetic
errors and electoral law violations but concluded, somewhat speciously,
that they did not change the outcome.
In the absence of a full count,
the tribunal's decision reflected wishful thinking rather than
a clarification of what really happened on July 2. Evidence that
included numerical differences between tally sheets and actual
ballots, additional and missing ballots, and adulterated official
results cast a pall over the first elections held under the rightwing
National Action Party (PAN).
The political will of the majority
of Mexicans on July 2 may never be known. Electoral officials
have unaccountably refused any public review of ballots. The
Federal Electoral Institute has rejected several freedom-of-information
petitions to allow public access to ballots and tally sheets.
Likewise, the information released to date by the Electoral Tribunal
has inexplicable and unjustifiable gaps. By admitting a recount
of only 9% of the precincts and nullifying certain polling place
results without releasing clear, specific data on where and why,
it raised more questions than it answered.
An election is not a technical
exercise but a civic ritual that serves to renovate and legitimate
powers. When it does precisely the opposite, as it has in Mexico
today, it fails to serve its purpose. A democratic election cannot
be declared by fiat, whether legally sanctioned or not. It has
been done-in Mexico 1988, in Florida 2000-but that doesn't make
it right. Transparency is a prerequisite for elections in a democratic
society, not only so the electorate can be sure the votes were
counted, but also to ensure public confidence in the outcome.
Unrepresented Poor
The vast majority of the poor-the
core of the over 15 million who voted for Lopez Obrador-do not
believe that Calderon will hear them, much less represent their
interests.
Part of the problem is Mexico's
major obstacle to democratic transition-the power of the presidency.
Once elected, Vicente Fox, like his predecessors in the Institutional
Revolutionary Party (PRI), used presidential powers to force
unpopular measures through the back door in the form of executive
decrees. Instead of limiting this power, Fox used it to consolidate
neoliberal reforms.
Another problem is that Mexico's
political system has few mechanisms of accountability to constituents.
Under this system, one has
to have power to leverage power. Most of the millions who voted
a second time for Lopez Obrador on September 16 have, for the
most part, only the two feet they stand on for leveraging power.
They believe that Calderon's PAN is the party of the rich and
powerful. The government-in-resistance is their bid for a voice
in a political system that has systematically excluded them.
Democracy reduced to electoral
representation has always been a frail form of "rule by
the people," since the people often wind up far removed
from their representatives. But when its ability to represent
its citizens is in doubt, the system moves from frail to farcical.
Mexico's system has now clearly fallen into this category.
Institutional reform has been
a plank of Lopez Obrador's campaign since his original proposal
for a new social pact. The civil resistance plan approved at
the convention calls for protests at every public appearance
of the "spurious" president, but also incorporates
campaigns against the privatization of petroleum and electricity,
as well as in defense of public education. The program adopted
for the parallel government includes battling poverty and inequality,
defense of natural resources, the right to information, an end
to the privileges of the few, and profound reforms in national
institutions.
Mexico's constitution sanctions
the right of the people to exercise sovereignty beyond the institutions
of the government. Article 39 of the constitution suggests that
altering the form of government is not only an inalienable right
but also an obligation when the institutions no longer operate
in the public interest. The government-in-resistance claims that
the nation's institutions have been manipulated through pseudo-legal
and illegal ways to benefit a very small minority of the population.
The poor have been left out. And now they want back in.
Mexico's Political Crisis in the World
For the United States, Mexico's
political crisis hits close to home, literally. Not only is the
nation located on the U.S. southern border, the conflict affects
U.S. interests in the fundamental areas of trade relations, immigration,
and security.
Mexico was the laboratory for
the U.S. strategy of free trade agreements based on open access
to markets, favorable terms for international investment, and
intellectual property protection. The North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) negotiated in the early 90s forced Mexico to
compete with the world's wealthiest and most powerful nation
and led to millions of jobs lost in national industry and small-scale
agriculture.
Instead of examining the negative
impact of NAFTA, the U.S. government has insisted on more of
the same. It refused to renegotiate the agricultural chapter
of NAFTA that calls for complete liberalization of corn and beans
in 2008. Calderon supports the liberalization, despite studies
that predict a profound negative impact on approximately three
million small-scale farmers.
Lopez Obrador has made the
derogation of the NAFTA agricultural clause a constant, and much
applauded, point in his recent speeches. While he supports NAFTA
and open markets, he has also drawn up economic policies that
reclaim the direct role of the state in generating employment,
protecting strategic domestic markets, redistributing income
by eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy, and guaranteeing a
basic standard of living for those at risk-the elderly, single
mothers, persons with disabilities, and small farmers.
The plan is far from radical,
but it has drawn the fire of powerful business interests at home
and abroad. The Bush administration would rather not have another
defection from the ranks of economic orthodoxy at a time when
much of Latin America shows signs of leaving the fold.
Following the official pronouncement
of Calderon as president-elect, conservative analysts eagerly
placed Mexico in the ranks of nations loyal to U.S.-style economic
integration. With Mexico again assured as an unconditional economic
and political ally, the "Pacific Axis" of Mexico, Central
America, Colombia, Peru, and Chile seemed secured at its northern
end.
But with the current divisions,
the Mexican elections can hardly be hailed as a major ratification
of neoliberal policies in the hemisphere. The political crisis
also complicates the Bush agenda in areas of counter-terrorism,
immigration, and drug trafficking, although the basic terms of
cooperation will continue.
Even if Calderon were miraculously
able to consolidate power over the coming months-a scenario that
looks increasingly unlikely-a broad movement calling for major
institutional reforms will be on the political scene for a long
time to come. Whether as a parallel government, a grassroots
social movement, a partisan opposition, or some combination,
the movement will weaken the new presidency and strengthen hopes
for a real and inclusive democratic transition.
Laura Carlsen directs IRC's Americas Program, www.americaspolicy.org,
from Mexico City, where she has worked as a political analyst
for two decades.
Now
Available
from CounterPunch Books!
The Case
Against Israel
By Michael Neumann
