It turns out that all of Mexico is politically interesting past, but morally this is unacceptable
Who can interest our example?
The size of the political failure of Mexico today lies in the fact that no one considers the current Mexican process as a case to follow. However, it is that someone somewhere will find it interesting review of the future, the previous model, that we thought was discredited and passed: the authoritarian PRI! It follows a small but revealing reference appeared in the foreign press.
In his time, the Mexico of the Revolution and his regime were considered inspiring by some nationalist and progressive trends in Latin America. The post-revolution attracted the interest of the other end, on the right, as a result of the emergence of the Cuban Revolution. Then they saw some American circles in Mexico in the 1960 an alternative to Cuba, as their system was presented as a revolutionary but democratic, with an appropriate mix of market economy and state with an independent foreign policy. Today there is no such thing. Neither right nor left, or what is between them seems to be something original and positive impact on a country came late to the democratic transition and that what was done thereafter lacks quality and even viability.
Currently, Mexicans who are interested what happens beyond the borders are fully aware that our country can not be seen as a paradigm for anyone and instead, watch with interest and some envy the Brazilian process. Actually, that envy afflicts from Mexican businessmen to ordinary citizens against the Brazilian success and it shows a lot. For example, The Economist (17-23 October) noted with some irony that today, "In Mexico the envy with Brazil is more intense than ever." And is that while the South American giant has many of the problems we have, it dominates the optimism and a future project, while pessimism abounds here and a sense of drift.
The root of the difference in attitudes in Brazil and Mexico is explained not only because the economy going forward first of our backs, but also because Brazil has a high-quality political leadership and Mexico do not. In the resumption of democratic life Brazilians came across a huge failure called Fernando Collor de Melo and corrupt right-of-but could be overcome by his dismissal in 1992. Then the two presidents since 1994 has lived in the Palacio do Planalto, Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has been exceptional. The first, a world-renowned academic who became a man of action, the second, a labor leader without formal education but with a formidable personality and sensitivity enabled him to get to a position previously denied to their class. Both figures were up to their historical challenges. In contrast, the last two Mexican chief executives simply amazed at the mediocrity of his personality, his idea of \u200b\u200bpolitics and his collaborators for their lack of social awareness and tolerance of corruption and injustice.
Under current conditions, our country can not be of interest to anyone. And yet, the Financial Times (19 October), when addressing the case of another country that was a model for many but that no longer is, "Russia says it in this enormous country that currently buoyed its oil wealth and the hard fist of Vladimir Putin who is interested in studying the successful Chinese model, a communist party that has total control of politics and a successful economic system, a mixture of unbridled capitalism and statism. But besides the Chinese model, the circle of Putin is interested in two other cases: Japan, where one party-the Liberal Democratic-dominated the political scene from 1955 until just weeks ago, and Mexico's PRI, which also one-party dominated political life since its creation in 1929 until 2000. It is, as noted by the British newspaper, a pair of countries where, under a democratic appearance, ran a one-party system: the ideal of Putin! The
copy of Mexico's authoritarian
start
The question: Who can take the Mexican model?, Has the answer: those interested in the system that prevailed in Mexico to before 2000, the old model still attracts interest between authoritarian. And is that the PRI system was one of the longest running and most undemocratic, in that sense, the more successful of the twentieth century.
The group that would create the PRI in 1929 came to power 13 years earlier, for armed and mounted on the victory of Carranza. Under the previous we can say that monopolized power for 84 uninterrupted years, a feat unmatched in the last century by any other political group in the world. The Russian Bolsheviks, for example, took power in late 1917, ie shortly after the Carranza and lost in 1991, nine years before the heirs of Carranza.
From the above perspective, the longevity of authoritarian PRI is greater than that of Soviet totalitarianism, hence the understandable interest of some in Putin's circle to know the nature of the political system of the last century. And that interest should increase if the Russians take into account that while the Soviet CP ceased to exist when it lost power, the PRI, since more than half the states have survived intact. Finally, unplug-tran interested in the secrets of long stroke authoritarianism were more impressed by the Mexican case if they take into account the recovery of the PRI in the elections of 2009 and, especially, if the old party created by Plutarco Elias Calles recovers power in 2012. And this is where the issue is of great importance and not for the Russians but to the Mexicans.
Does PRI or the past as future?
is understood that in today's Russia can be considered a forward pass from totalitarian stability of Stalin or Brezhnev to a possible authoritarian stability, but in Mexico it would mean a setback. However, the electoral triumph of the PRI in the midterm elections this year, combined with the weakness of a divided left open the possibility that a majority of citizens, so far only relative, PAN decides to react to failure by accepting as true an old adage Conservative: "devil you know is better than good to know."
is possible that in the 13 or 14 elec-tions next year's state PRI progress in his recovery. However, the really dramatic, and traumatic, that circumstance would be the announcement that the majority will vote on who wins the ongoing internal strife PRI. And at this point all of PRI candidates for the 2012-Enrique Peña Nieto, Manlio Fabio Beltrones, Beatriz Paredes, etc.-were forged in the old forge undemocratic. The 2000 defeat of the PRI failed to change its essence. The former State party continues to behave according to their original nature. One proof of this we have to consider how to process the current political crisis PRI governments of Puebla and Oaxaca. Marín and Ulises Ruiz acted in their critical junctures in the same way they did once every PRI governments. In the state of Veracruz or Mexico, another couple of notable strongholds PRI-daily politics does not differ more about what was the national standard by 2000.
is true that if within three years, the PRI were to regain power at the national level, his conduct as a responsible government could no longer be an exact replica of the past because it would act in a different political environment existing at the time PRI's classic. However, we must not become complacent. The great institutions of democracy as the IFE or IFAI are not what they were: they have lost quality. And the Mexican society, with a political culture shaped by history and influenced by undemocratic means electronic information of a similar nature, would not necessarily be in the possibility and the will prevent the return of the PRI's traditional practices, especially if they are presented as a precondition to recover the lost security, employment, stability and long-term project.
0 comments:
Post a Comment