In his book of interviews, Carmen Aristegui leads the reader with agility and intelligence through the mazes of a transition that does not gel
A book reading of 26 interviews conducted by Carmen Aristegui (beautifully illustrated by 52 pictures Ricardo Trabulsi) about the recent political history of Mexico, and published under the title Transition. Conversations and pictures of what was done and left to do for democracy in Mexico (Grijalbo, 2009), is a basic map of the road, and obstacles, above all obstacles-tour of our country from 1988 to date in his dramatic quest to find the political formula to replace the one that was in force since the victory of Carranza until 1982. Reading is rich in ideas and interpretations abound, assumptions (some presented as certainties), the accusations and justifications, the proposals but also the uncertainties, doubts, opposition, antagonism, frustration and, especially, fears.
barely History yesterday and not yet concluded
The story more or less distant past is written on the basis of documents and works of those who preceded us in this task. In contrast, recent past history, and where the reader and even actor witnessed what is reported to have to deal with the lack of perspective and that many files are not yet open.
return of the drawbacks has an advantage: You can use their own memories and to interview those who were or are actors or witnesses of what is to find stories. And this is where the good offices of journalists as Carmen Aristegui, who to ask relevant questions, based on a knowledge of the subject, and insist on them to deepen and expose what is important, gives life to an information in itself is already a rich history but also a source for those looking to recreate and perform in the future that is the Mexico of today.
The starting point
Aristegui decided to take the troubled 1988 election as the beginning of the Mexican transition from authoritarianism to a new regime, the democratic principle. And start giving its meaning. Manuel Bartlett, then-Secretary of the Interior, there was no fraud or electoral system "fell", but who won, Carlos Salinas, failed to make credible their triumph in this statement will obviously accompanied by former President Miguel de la Madrid. Jorge Carpizo, however, contends that Salinas won but there was fraud and that fraud was to raise the percentage for the PRI candidate by 0.71 percent exceeded the symbolic 50 percent of the votes cast. In contrast, the majority of respondents assumed that the Mexican transition was a fraud. Of course, that's the point of view of Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, Rosario Ibarra and Carlos Monsivais, but even Manuel Camacho admits that 88 "There were multiple irregularities" and, pressed, he finally accepted: "Yes [there was fraud], there were things very serious election. "
In the beginning: the agreement Salinas-PAN
If the transition began with the crisis of 88, his nature was defined from then until now by an agreement between Salinas and the PAN that was knitting in the 100 or 200 interviews that Diego Fernandez de Cevallos had with Salinas (on average, an interview every 22 or every 11 days, whichever is applicable). The then leader of the PAN, Luis H. Alvarez, now says that "convinced me" that, despite its illegitimacy, it was better to negotiate with Salinas as President to oppose it. But in light of what happened, "I frankly do not know if we were right." Roger Bartra, Salinas, "an extraordinarily intelligent, clever, [and] without scruples" PAN consolidated with the "modernization partnership" of rights. For Bartlett, there is nothing in modernizing the alliance where the technocrats and the PAN simply "[took] the decision to slaughter the people of Mexico to move forward." Camacho, at the time, Salinas proposed to try to negotiate with the left, but the Agualeguas refused and chose to build "the covenant conservative" constitutional "changes around the ejido, the Church, etc., demanded by the PAN - that continues today and has resulted in what Porfirio Muñoz Ledo defined as "oligarchic coagulation.
Miguel de la Madrid, the head of Salinas came to the presidency, finally regretted his decision. "I was wrong," he says, leaving power in the hands size of an immoral and his family. For the former President, "may" even have pocketed Salinas is half the secret account in its possession as president (in the end, Aristegui explains how Salinas led his former boss to back). The 2000
Miguel Angel Granados Chapa does not give any credence to Ernesto Zedillo as an architect of change in 2000, because he just fell on him transition. And Fox, the winner, defines it as "a nonpolitical, an ignorant man in public life" simply frivolous benefited citizens are fed with the PRI and became President. Fox was only "assistant chief for Coca Cola de León," Monsivais said. Anyway, the "conservative pact" was maintained and the change is reduced to Los Pinos stay with the PAN and the rightist opposition by the PRI.
According to Jorge Castañeda, Fox suggested he use his enormous legitimacy to move against the PRI via a reform of the state to dismantle corporatism, but Fox chose to support the PRI as an ally and that the large capital-design the cabinet got Roberto Hernandez Gil Diaz in Finance. A Fox was her big change, having made the "transition" was sufficient. San Cristobal man himself confirms this dramatically view: no chances to interview him, Carmen Aristegui Salinas and Zedillo also agreed to be interviewed, but sent a letter. In that document, Fox basks in the run, but on reaching the moment of truth, when he had the power, all you have to say it sums up in a couple of lines!: "And so six years passed. And now Martha and I are both riding together again. " And boy does it ride, but as the most frivolous and irresponsible couple who has held power in Mexico.
In 2006 the Fox administration's failure resulted in the 2006 elections. For Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the oligarchy stole that election and has hijacked the state. Carlos Ugalde, was not only fraud, but those were "fairer elections that Mexico has had" an opinion shared, essentially by Alonso Lujambio and José Woldenberg. Miguel de la Madrid, however, leaves open the door to fraud with a "can be."
Where are we?
For Denise Dresser, the Mexican political system has not changed its essence as now "there are more players but the game remains the same", which accepts Francisco Labastida to note that alternating "... nothing happened. The problems became much more serious. " Fernandez de Cevallos says the old "...¡ system has never gone away! "and that and only that, consistent with López Obrador, that just because the old has not gone away, says that Mexico is a" disguised dictatorship. " Carlos Fuentes does not go so far and simply concludes that the Mexican "[e] s a transition out of luck ... It's an unfortunate transition." Granados Chapa interrupted calls that transition that ultimately failed the only thing that can justify: a redistribution of power in favor of the majority.
What to do? Manuel Camacho
fears that there may not be headed by a left hand to stop bias and learn to negotiate, "the conservative bloc" ends with consolidated and rule for many years. Hence Monsivais concludes: "What [that] you see very bad today, tomorrow will be worse." For Granados Chapa, in the absence of a change in social structure, the country itself "can break." López Obrador
here turns out to be an optimist, he has no doubt: it is possible to shape a large peaceful social movement, like the Cardenas era, to regain political power to the majority. Bartlett agrees with this position but Muñoz Ledo goes further to point out the possibility that the size of the failure of the transition, this administration does not end normally and has a reversal of position, which does not mandate, Felipe Calderón and then open the possibility of change postponed.
worth the citizen read this work of Carmen Aristegui and reach its own conclusion. Anyway, Manuel Espino is right, yet left the transition and the government of Felipe Calderon in Mexico is polarized.
0 comments:
Post a Comment