Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Spring Fund Drive: Keep CounterPunch Afloat
CounterPunch is a lifeboat of sanity in today’s turbulent political seas. Please make a tax-deductible donation and help us continue to fight Trump and his enablers on both sides of the aisle. Every dollar counts!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

A Choice for Change

Mexico´s three major candidates ended their campaigns Wednesday in emotional rallies throughout the country. During the few days left before the July 2 elections all campaigning is prohibited. With the proposals on the table, the test now will be to see if voters can cut through the media hype and mud-slinging to choose a direction for the next six years of the nation’s future.

Never in the modern history of the country has so much been at stake. The rotation of presidencies throughout the rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party was carried out with the trappings of democracy and little of the substance. Policies were guaranteed to continue without a change in course, since the outgoing president hand-picked the incoming one. The 2000 elections offered a change in parties without changing policies.

But this year a candidate has proposed at least modifications to the political and economic orthodoxy. The largest event yesterday was the rally of leading candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador held in the heart of Mexico City. The center-left candidate spoke to over 200,000 supporters waving yellow flags and fervently chanting his name.

Unlike previous campaign speeches and the rallies of his opponents, the speech laid out the policies that would guide his presidency and responded only indirectly to the accusations of his opponents. In the forty-minute address, it hit the obligatory points expected by followers–with special emphasis on programs for the poor–and sought to allay the fears expressed by big business and the opposition.

The message to defend against privatization of the state-run oil industry drew strong cheers as did the program defined for a “new social pact.” The candidate promised to tour the country following elections to draw up a pact based on free healthcare, universal access to public education, pensions for the elderly and recognition of indigenous rights as defined by the San Andrés Accords, which were signed by the federal government but largely rejected in Congress.

Perhaps no message so consistently hit a chord among the dense crowd in Mexico’s central plaza as the call to end the privileges of the rich. The extreme polarization of wealth that has occurred in Mexico over the past decade has fed resentments that found expression in Lopez Obrador’s “first the poor” platform. His calls for lower government salaries, an end to huge pensions for ex-presidents (as usual, the mention of ex-president Carlos Salinas garnered boos and whistles) and elimination of tax breaks for the wealthy clearly resonate among the poor.

Having established credentials among center-left supporters, the leading candidate then offered reassurances to a business community that has accused him of reckless populism.

The ill-defined accusation of populism has been a constant among business opposition both in Mexico and abroad. In its editorial on the Mexican elections the Wall Street Journal used the fear-charged immigration debate in the United States to warn against Lopez Obrador: “(I)f they revert to the populist habits of yore, no American wall will be high enough to keep the flood of desperate workers out.” Lopez Obrador sought lay to rest these accusations to rest during his closing rally. “We will not act irresponsibly, there will be no crisis,” he stated emphatically. He repeated a commitment to control the deficit and inflation, respect the autonomy of the central bank, follow a path of “development without debt” and assure “technical, not ideological, management of the economy.” The alarm sounded by the rightwing of an increase in immigration is ironic, given that to date precisely the opposite has been true. During the period of greatest adherence to “modernization” under the NAFTA, migration to the United States skyrocketed as peasants were displaced by agricultural imports and workers suffered decreases in real wages and rising unemployment.

In referring to foreign policy, López Obrador reiterated the tenets of Mexican foreign policy: non-intervention, respect for the right to self-determination, dialogue and a development focus. He promised a low profile in international affairs, a foreign policy based on an extension of domestic policies and a refusal to be subordinated to outside interests. “We will not meddle in the internal affairs of other nations. The next president will not be a straw man for any foreign country.” President Vicente Fox is widely viewed within Mexico as a sycophant to U.S. interests.

Lopez Obrador holds a slight lead over Felipe Calderón, the candidate of the rightwing National Action Party (PAN). The competition between the two has been fierce, and their supporters form opposing camps in a highly charged debate over the country’s future and the personal character of the two men.

But now that the campaign has ended, for both candidates the real challenge will be fulfilling the many promises they have made should they win. The Mexican public is weary of promises and in a growing democracy either will face a stronger demand for accountability than past governments have.

For Calderón the problem is not in implementing the policies but attaining the results promised for those policies. Since he has proposed a continuation of the same policies enacted throughout the last two decades of PRI and PAN governments, he would have the support of vested national and international interests. But “trickle down” to the majority has been slight or nil and people are highly skeptical of the capacity of current economic policies to satisfy the demands of the poor–with due reason.

For Lopez Obrador, the problem will be implementing the policies announced. With the entire Senate and House also up for reelection, he would face a divided Congress and open hostility from a business class intent on retaining current privileges, as well as external pressures from international financial institutions, the U.S. government and the transnational corporations that now control much of the domestic economy. Inverting priorities from the rich to the poor in a country both economically and politically polarized will require a firm hand, active support from the citizenry and carefully designed and timed reforms.

Mexico faces the question posed in all the Latin American countries now under the mantle of center-left governments-can change in the economic model to prioritize the poor really happen through elections? Lopez Obrador repeated two proposals in his last campaign speech that mark the parameters of political action in this field. They define both the minimum the left can offer to retain credibility among the poor majority and probably the maximum that the Lopez Obrador government would or can offer in a world globalized by the powerful.

The first is the promise to cancel a clause in NAFTA that liberalizes corn and beans in 2008. The U.S. government has adamantly refused to reopen this clause. Not only is Mexico an important market for its surplus production in these products, but also renegotiating the clause would set a precedent that violates the U.S. government’s trade strategy to call the shots for economic integration. While legally possible, it will be an early showdown in relations with Mexico’s major trade partner and a test of presidential will and strength for Mexico’s long-suffering agricultural sector. Renegotiation of the liberalization clause in agriculture forms part of a reorientation away from an economic policy based solely on market forces to greater state involvement and includes proposals to offer guarantee prices on some agricultural products, preferential credit rates and support to small producers.

The second is the promise not to privatize the oil industry. Here popular resistance to privatization is so strong that success is virtually assured, as evidenced by the failure of a pro-privatization Fox government to carry out this constitutional change. But maintaining state control over oil resources will face strong resistance from international lending institutions, part of the national private sector and the U.S. government. In this area, however, Mexico will find support from the south among Latin American governments seeking to gain greater control and benefits from national resources.

In the end, winning the election may prove to be the easy part. A “new social pact” will have to be built within a society that has been divided by the elections and by economic policies that have even more starkly separated the interests of the top and bottom rungs. Years of false democracy and empty promises have created a lack of confidence in formal politics that cannot be overcome in the short term. Higher expectations will build pressure from the majority that have been excluded from the benefits of globalization. If Lopez Obrador wins, powerful forces on the right will regroup to oppose many of his policies.

If Lopez Obrador wins the election on July 2, he sets out on a tight-rope walk that will require both balance and audacity. The challenge is huge but that doesn’t mean that stability means remaining on the platform. The current platform is anything but stable. With policies oriented to national development and the active backing of the majority of the population, Mexico’s determination to change has a good chance of leading to a stronger, more just society.

LAURA CARLSEN directs the Americas Program of the International Relations Center. She can be reached at: laura@irc-online.org

 

 

More articles by:

Laura Carlsen is the director of the Americas Program in Mexico City and advisor to Just Associates (JASS) .

Weekend Edition
May 25, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Melvin Goodman
A Major Win for Trump’s War Cabinet
Andrew Levine
Could Anything Cause the GOP to Dump Trump?
Pete Tucker
Is the Washington Post Soft on Amazon?
Conn Hallinan
Iran: Sanctions & War
Jeffrey St. Clair
Out of Space: John McCain, Telescopes and the Desecration of Mount Graham
John Laforge
Senate Puts CIA Back on Torture Track
David Rosen
Santa Fe High School Shooting: an Incel Killing?
Gary Leupp
Pompeo’s Iran Speech and the 21 Demands
Jonathan Power
Bang, Bang to Trump
Robert Fisk
You Can’t Commit Genocide Without the Help of Local People
Brian Cloughley
Washington’s Provocations in the South China Sea
Louis Proyect
Requiem for a Mountain Lion
Robert Fantina
The U.S. and Israel: a Match Made in Hell
Kevin Martin
The Libya Model: It’s Not Always All About Trump
Susie Day
Trump, the NYPD and the People We Call “Animals”
Pepe Escobar
How Iran Will Respond to Trump
Sarah Anderson
When CEO’s Earn 5,000 Times as Much as a Company’s Workers
Ralph Nader
Audit the Outlaw Military Budget Draining America’s Necessities
Chris Wright
The Significance of Karl Marx
David Schultz
Indict or Not: the Choice Mueller May Have to Make and Which is Worse for Trump
George Payne
The NFL Moves to Silence Voices of Dissent
Razan Azzarkani
America’s Treatment of Palestinians Has Grown Horrendously Cruel
Katalina Khoury
The Need to Evaluate the Human Constructs Enabling Palestinian Genocide
George Ochenski
Tillerson, the Truth and Ryan Zinke’s Interior Department
Jill Richardson
Our Immigration Debate Needs a Lot More Humanity
Martha Rosenberg
Once Again a Slaughterhouse Raid Turns Up Abuses
Judith Deutsch
Pension Systems and the Deadly Hand of the Market
Shamus Cooke
Oregon’s Poor People’s Campaign and DSA Partner Against State Democrats
Thomas Barker
Only a Mass Struggle From Below Can End the Bloodshed in Palestine
Binoy Kampmark
Australia’s China Syndrome
Missy Comley Beattie
Say “I Love You”
Ron Jacobs
A Photographic Revenge
Saurav Sarkar
War and Moral Injury
Clark T. Scott
The Shell Game and “The Bank Dick”
Seth Sandronsky
The State of Worker Safety in America
Thomas Knapp
Making Gridlock Great Again
Manuel E. Yepe
The US Will Have to Ask for Forgive
Laura Finley
Stop Blaming Women and Girls for Men’s Violence Against Them
Rob Okun
Raising Boys to Love and Care, Not to Kill
Christopher Brauchli
What Conflicts of Interest?
Winslow Myers
Real Security
George Wuerthner
Happy Talk About Weeds
Abel Cohen
Give the People What They Want: Shame
Douglas Valentine
Memorial Day
May 24, 2018
Gary Leupp
Art of the Dealbreaker: Trump’s Cancellation of the Summit with Kim
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail