The starting point
Inertia can be defined as the resistance of an object or situation to change position or, if moving direction. In social processes, inertia are neither good nor bad in themselves, depending on the context. However, when the target of a political actor individual or group is to change the course of a society, inertia, they tend to favor special interests, can be a formidable obstacle. So far, in Mexico and in the political and social inertia winners have come from attempts to change. However, resistance to the transformation occurs in all societies. A textbook example of what we see now with a neighboring country: USA. It examines the case of neighbor and then look back on our own experience.
Obama: its scope and limits
There is no doubt that the decision to support Sen. Barack Obama, an American born in Hawaii to an African father, as a candidate Democratic Party's presidency over other characters available in early 2008-the others were former Senator John Edwards Governor Bill Richardson going for Senator Hillary Clinton was an undeniable proof of the will and a thirst for change part of American society. With the candidacy of Obama, the most enlightened Americans to overcome centuries of discrimination against African Americans while ruled by a different policy to the parent, one who would lead the country of the great recession that had fallen, to support at the least and had to leave the military quagmire in which the neocons had gone after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama's opponent can also be seen as expressing a desire for change within the Republican Party, as Senator McCain was not the most conservative candidate and, above all, it was most identified with the policies of the outgoing president.
the foregoing and after Obama's victory, there was reason to believe that the change in the U.S. would be the hallmark of the new administration, and that progressive change could spread to other countries. However, a year away it is clear that this was not the case. Obama himself has meant a positive change, but not to the extent that he promised. The severity of the economic crisis forced the new president to give priority to the rescue of the powerful financial groups responsible for this crisis and the automobile industry and the fight against unemployment remained in second place. The major project to reform the health system has found a total resistance from Republicans and conservative Democrats. If this reform is finally approved, it is not safe because the Democrats have just lost a seat in the Senate, will benefit 30 million Americans, but still left unprotected for several million was not achieved universal coverage desired. Immigration reform demanded by the Hispanic community for illegal immigrants has been in the drawer of postponed. In
foreign policy, the situation is similar. Obama has improved relations with Russia and China and has pledged to leave Iraq and allow that country to fend almost destroyed as possible. However, in Afghanistan and endorsed Obama an impossible war, it is a struggle not only against al Qaeda but against a force greater and deep-rooted native: the Taliban. The offer of an America that claims to seek a rapprochement with the Arab world was left without support because Obama can not prevent Israel from continuing to build settlements on Palestinian land. In Iran and North Korea their respective governments reacted to the settlement offer made by the new American leader.
In Copenhagen, the promised fund Obama fight for a policy that addresses the causes of global warming ended in a compromise so limited that it was a triumph of the status quo. In Latin America, Venezuela and Cuba is not considered sufficient or adequate U.S. offers to change the harsh tone of their relationship. In Washington, Republicans will gain Obama forced to compromise with the coup in Honduras. Really only in the case of the unexpected and unbelievable tragedy of Haiti, a situation where there is no resistance from vested interests, Obama has been able to move quickly and decisively to avoid repeating mistakes like those in New Orleans in 2005. Mexico
In our country's will for political change was felt in a vigorous but limited in 1968, then expanded with episodes of electoral insurgency of 1980, the Indian rebellion of 1994 and finally to the vote in 2000, where opposition to the authoritarian regime did as a whole, supporting 60 percent of voters. However, did not change and, in relative terms, the power of inertia was so strong as in the U.S. although most negative effects.
In the Mexican case the inertia is imposed as a result of a combination of factors: the conservative nature of the opposition that came to "Los Pinos" combined with their inexperience, ineptitude and low moral quality, the absence of a genuine project of transformation of institutions and practices, the absence of a majority in Congress and, finally, the persistence of PRI control in more than half the states . The above combination resulted in a process where conservative inertia soon be positioned as the dominant forces of the political process. Thus, a policy change that was initially called the new regime, very quickly began to resemble more and more to the old. The conditions under which took place the following presidential election, 2006, made it clear that the "spirit of 88 "had not died: the triumph of the right" by any means "was presented as necessary to prevent the triumph of a" danger to Mexico ", which is very similar to the so-called" patriotic fraud "of 1980. If among 1988 and 2000 worked as an explanation of the political process "concertacesión" between the PRI and the PAN from 2001 to present the same role he has played the "concertacesión" between the PAN and the PRI. Today there are no "state party" nationally, but remains at the state level when they had a number of entities which are conspicuous examples Oaxaca, Puebla, Veracruz and the state of Mexico.
Since 1977 the President of the Republic left to be the source of initiatives and major decisions of Mexican politics. A big change, no doubt, but that did not entail altering the oligarchic character of Mexican society. Instead, this character is emphasized. Today is even greater capacity for action of large economic concentrations of so-called "powers", so the unjust concentration of wealth in the old authoritarianism remains intact in the "new regime." Influence peddling and corruption have been killed but remain key factors in explaining why Mexico is where it is today.
The Supreme Court is now a power than before was not, but the nature of the delivery of justice - or injustice must be said? - no better than before. The growing insecurity, coming back, just accelerated. The crowd of police has changed its name, but their inefficiency is similar to the past. The citizen lives as or more vulnerable than before, and organized crime so brutal brand of everyday life in Ciudad Juárez and many other parts of the country.
Mexico's sovereignty was always relative, but from the implementation of the neoliberal model independence from the United States weakened further. This feature is not changed with the 2000, but worsened because they lost what remained of the "national project." In short
In Mexico, the desire for political, economic, social and cultural remains, but the country has run hopefully to do with the breadth and depth required. The accumulated energy for change and led to 2000 and today wasted no change plays in favor of the forces of status quo. In short, the old adversary, inertia, aided by the lack of quality leaders, continues to control our collective life.
0 comments:
Post a Comment