AMLO « The Mex Files

Entries categorized as ‘AMLO’

Perverse and unnatural unions

21 January 2010 · Leave a Comment

It seems the Church isn’t the only organization in Mexico that wants to decide what is, and what isn’t, “natural” when it comes to associations.

PRI Senate leader Mario Fabio Beltrones sneers that such unions are “unnatural” , and presidential hopeful, State of Mexico Governor, Enrique Peña Nieto called them “perverse. Not THAT – although even the party’s General Secretary hasn’t a clue what the party line is, but the proposed PAN-PRD fusion tickets in the PRI controlled states of Hidalgo, Durango and Oaxaca in this years gubernatorial elections. Other than a PAN’s inistance (which is probably negotiable) that PRD recognize Felipe Calderón as the “legitimate president” of Mexico (which may be negotiable demand), the union would be no more perverse than any other marriage of convenience and could produce off-spring.

Going back to Mexican independence (when Criollo landowners, the church and peasant leaders agreed on a single formula for independence), compromise and mutual interests have always been the way politics works in this country. Historically, the PRI was an outgrowth of Plutarco Elías Calles’ Mexican Revolutionary Party, which united the “Revolutionary Family” of anarchists, peasant traditionalists, nationalists, proto-fascists, communists, socialists, democrats, syndicalists … and opportunists … into a single political machine. With so many moving parts, the machine didn’t always function as well as it should, but gave years of service. Last time I checked, PRI was ostensibly socialist, although with its pure “neo-liberal” and pro-capitalist stances over the last few years, hard to say.

While PAN has always adhered to a fairly “pure” ideology, the intermural squabbles of the last few years (and its disastrous showing in the 2009 Congressional elections) are largely the result of attempting to stay “pure”… the “Catholic” party line never did resonate with large sectors of the electorate, and PAN’s adherence to U.S. style economic theory doesn’t play well outside the north. People tend to forget that Vicente Fox, PAN candidate, did not win the 2000 Presidential Election. Vicente Fox, PAN-Green-Social Democracy “Alliance for Change” candidate captured Los Pinos by appealing for a “useful vote” against PRI that, he argued, would be wasted voting for any of the other opposition candidates (including Cuautémoc Cardenás, running for the “pure” PRD).

PRD — despite the best efforts of Cuauhtémoc Cardenás — never was “pure”. It was, after all, a fusion of minor parties to begin with, and Cardenás’ insistence that the party not compromise with the PRI limited its ability to compete against the machine. Andres Manuel López Obrador — love him or hate him — masterminded the party (and his own political machine)’s spectacular growth, both by emulating Lazaro Cardenas (bringing untapped interest groups into the party, in PRD’s case, street vendors, prostitutes, indigenous migrants to the Mexico city and “persons of the third age” — i.e., old people) AND though strategic alliances with dissatisfied PRI factions and politicians, as well as PAN and minor parties to run candidates under the PRD label.

And, it’s not like these left-right fusions are new. It was only by breaking the “old” PRI that the opposition parties were able to carve out a meaningful political presence. In 1993, the PRD-PAN alliance ran PRD candidate Salvador Nava for governor of San Luis Potosí, and as a way of breaking the “caique” control of Salvador Santos. Dr. Nava, unfortunately was already dying when he ran for office, but his election did seriously weaken the machine. In 1999, PAN candidates ran fro the governorships of both Tamaulipas and Coahuila.

These last two candidates lost, as did Gabino Cué Monteagudo — a PRI operative who lost out in an internal power struggle and joined Convergenica, was the PRD-PRI fusion candidate (along with Convergencia) in Oaxaca in 2004. This time, with PT, which was the only one of the national opposition parties to not join the anti-PRI coalition will be part of the fusion ticket. Cué has a reasonable chance this year, especially given the ambivalence of the national PRI towards the state’s party, and their present governor, the odious Ulises Ruiz, opposed within the party itself as a “dinasaurio” — seen as opportunists avid for money and power, and an embarrassment to the PRI, whatever ideology its espousing today.

Categories: 2000 Mexican Presidential Election · 2006 Elections · AMLO · Beatriz Paredes · Coahuila · Cuauhtémoc Cardenas · Durango · Enrique Peña Nieto · Felipe Calderón · Hidalgo (State of) · Lazaro Cardenas · Manuel Beltrones · Mexican History 1810-1824 (Independence) · Mexican History 1921+ · Minor parties · Oaxaca · PAN · PRD · PRI · Politica (Mexicana) · Provincia · San Luis Potosí · Tamaulipas · Vicente Fox

…over the line, sweet Jesus…

6 January 2010 · 1 Comment

Yikes!

Msgr. Hugo Valdemar, the quasi-official spokesman for Cardinal Rivera, is skirting awfully close to imposing the Church into political affairs. Speaking specifically of the PRD, Msgr. Valdemar said (my translation):

They have no respect for life and have legislated the murder of innocent children in the womb; they are the people who do not respect our faith, as they equate marriage with the union of same-sex couples.

Those who were victims of repression in undemocratic times have now become executioners… and when they unmask some criticism, they ask [the Secretaría de gobernacíon, which has responsibility for regulating religious affairs] to repress us.”

Added the irrepressible Monsignor: “Curious, seeing that they don’t recognize the government.”

Although Msgr. Valdemar — and Cardinal Rivera — as citizens can say what they want, denominations have no rights to political participation (although they do it all the time). Monsignor Valdemar’s closing riposte was a reference to the start of the latest feud (going back a few hundred years) between the Mexican government and the Catholic Church, over an incident back in November 2007. AMLO — as “legitimate president” — was addressing a large crowd in the Zocalo, going about his usual denunciations of the Calderón “de facto presidency.” Someone in the Cathedral started ringing the bells, effectively drowning him out. At that time, I wrote:

Normally, if there is a major event on the Zocalo, the Cathedral does not ring its bells and accommodates their landlord, the Mexican government*. Even during [Stanly Tunick's] nude photo session, the Church cooperated. But, not with AMLO. The Church’s claim is that they always ring the Angelus bells at noon on Sunday. Not for 12 straight minutes they don’t.

… people from the Zocalo crowd — went into the Cathedral, got into a fight with the ushers at Mass and knocked over a few benches — and, according to who you believe, maybe peed on the floor. Your usual anti-clerical action.

Complicating things, it isn’t clear the “action” had anything to do with AMLO. Photos show that the protesters were carrying anti-Cardinal Rivera placards accusing his Eminence of covering up clerical pedophilia scandals. The Cardinal himself was in Rome.

It’s no secret that the Church favors the clerical PAN leadership, and Ironically, pissing off AMLO (if that was the intention of the chimeral chimers) may have lost the Church their last sympathetic leader within the PRD. A privately religious man by all accounts, AMLO — although always careful to uphold the Juarezista anti-clerical political traditions — during his tenure as head of the Federal District, had the clout to hold off reforms like the abortion and same-sex marriage acts from coming up in the District Assembly. He not only wanted to avoid confrontations with the Church… but sought church cooperation (and the Cardinal’s) on projects of common interest like historic preservation and restoration projects within the Historic District, as well as anti-poverty and housing programs**.

Even doubly ironic, is that the Church’s problems with the PRD stem from the PRD’s anti-AMLO wing… the “Chucos”, so-called because so many of their leaders have the same nickname, “Chuy” — which means, of course, that their problem is with Jesus!

Jesús Ortega to be exact… the PRD Party President. Hugo Valdemar was responding Ortega’s statement earlier last week that if they Church had no business telling people who aren’t communicants what they should or shouldn’t do or think… and, come to think of it, in Mexico, the Church shouldn’t be telling people what political party to vote for — or not vote for — in the first place.

* Since the 1850s, the Mexican State has owned the Church properties, and the Federal District IS the Cathedral’s owner, the Catholic Church has, however, exclusive rights to use the property for religious purposes.

**Sorry, no on-line link. My source is Grayson, George W. y Óscar Aguilar Ascencio, Mesías Mexicano: Biografía criítical de Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Mexico: Grijalbo Actualidad, 2006. p. 218 et. passum.

Categories: 2006 Elections · AMLO · Birth Control · Centro Historico · Ciudad de México · Gays · Health · Human Rights · Jesús Ortega · Mexican History 1921+ · PRD · Politica (Mexicana) · Zocalo

I got you under my skin…

29 December 2009 · 1 Comment

I was at a party recently with a naturalized Mexican who still likes to show off his IFE card, which led to some discussion of which political party (if any) he planned to join. One starting with the letter “P” I’m guessing. Which led to the naturalized Mexican introducing me to a rather conservative fellow as a “pinche petista”. Not being a Mexican citizen, I’m not a member of any party, and more bemused than anything by PT (the Workers’ Party)

I am not now, nor have I ever been. nor — even if I decided to become a naturalized Mexican citizen — would I be likely to join a wacky party allegedly founded by Carlos Salinas as a means to split the left, theoretically Maoist and presently allied with the Lopez Obradorista wing of the PRD in the Chamber of Deputies, and his deadly enemy in other places. At least for today.

My politics, or at least my take on politics has been popping up all over the place lately.

The always perceptive “From Xico” blog riffed off a comment of mine in a post yesterday. I basically agreed with Esther’s contention that although the Obama Administration is doing a lot of good domestically, it needs to do more, and its Latin American policy is seen by Latin Americans as somewhere between a disappointment and a disaster. Esther references a recent remark by Carlos Álvarez (the Secretary-General of Mercosur), who was asked by Laura Carlsen about U.S.-Latin American relations.

Carlsen asked if Álvarez expected any change under Obama in Latin American policy. Älvarez was not optimistic. He said, in fact, that he thought Latin America would do best if the US ignored it.

I’m reminded that another Argentine, Ché Guevara, said almost exactly the same thing in 1964. In an interview for ABC’s “Issues and Answers” program, Che was asked what the United States should do about (or, rather, “for”) Cuba, and Latin America in general. His response:

Nothing, just leave us alone.

Esther herself is “left-ier” than most gringos, but is more attuned to domestic issues north of the border than I am. While what happens in the United States is important to me (after all, most of my book sales are in the United States, and I’m a citizen) I write from, and about, Latin America. I do tend to view the “old country”, and it’s president, from the perspective here. Which even among Mexican conservatives is decidedly “left” of that in the United States.

It’s not recent, but a post written in response to some anonymous blogger’s “Six Reasons for not living in Mexico” must have caught his attention. I didn’t notice it until today (there were three hits on this site yesterday from that one) but the guy wrote a “Response to the Response...” — the first time I’ve ever been accused of this:

With all due respect, your take on the “treatment of humans” in Mexico sounds like something Calderon’s government might cook-up right before the elections in order to fool the masses that their lives are, in fact, great.

… and this (in reference to my contention that a car isn’t a necessity for living comfortably here):

Again, sounds like information from a PAN poster sugar-coating Mexican reality before an election.

If anything, I’ve been warned that my remarks about PAN and the Calderón administration skirt terribly close to the line of interfering in Mexican politics. Nah… I’m not writing in any of the 268 recognized legal languages of this country, nor am I doing anything but looking at what is not well reported outside Mexico, for an overwhelmingly foreign readership. Anyway… PAN? Moi?

I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor would I be a member of a party that was founded by fascists, seeks a clerical state, and — in general — strikes me as a bunch of reactionary weenies.

Jason Dormandy takes a bankshot off my assumed political stance on “Secret History” while carving a well-deserved auxiliary anal orifice out of the backside of the Wall Street Journal’s David Luhnow for his ridiculous contention that the recent “drug war” weariness expressed by Mexicans is somehow the fault of the PRI:

Luhnow’s portrait of Mexico is a land where people turn a blind eye to violence and distrust the government? Is he talking about Mexico or Republicans? Hmmm… back in November, David, you told us Mexicans were fighting back against violence – with violence. Now in one month they are just numb? Society moves at amazing speed in Mexico.

The item I wanted to comment on (beyond his total lack of evidence) was his pinning of supposed distrust on the PRI alone. The behavior of the PAN, particularly the Calderon administration’s militarization of society and sock-puppet-for-the-US stance, has no influence on distrust?

Jason points out that Mexican in general don’t trust politicians (a truism throughout the Americas) and gives one reason he sees as more Mexico-specific than otherwise:

PRI, PAN, and (sorry Richard) PRD? If distrust exists, we’re looking at the product of the poor of any party subject to the whims and lawlessness of the wealthy of any party for whom no rule of law exists. Class, not party, is the dividing factor between ruled and ruler in Mexico.

Nothing to apologize for, Jason. Of course, party politics tends to be a rich man’s game or is seen as route to wealth and power. And the poor are hapless bystanders in any political system. When I was in Mexico City recently, I bought a copy of “Machetearte”. While relying on Goths and Punketos to handle distribution probably cuts into potential bourgeois — and even working class — readership, it’s worth picking up for the “other” political movement. Although the Zapatistas are better known for rejecting electoral politics, they are hardly alone. The Machetearte folks reject PRD as too “Centerist” (consigning the PRI to the right, and PAN to the outer limits of neo-fascism) — and there’s the huge number of people (as in any country) who just don’t give a shit one way or another. But, it’s the political parties that set the rules for governance here, and — as Molly Ivins once said, “ya gotta dance with them that brung ya.”

The PRD is probably more in tune with my druthers, but it doesn’t make them any “purer” than the other organized parties (and I’m including the Zapatistas here). I think they get a raw deal in the foreign media (and Lopez Obradór was hardly the raving lunatic portrayed in the “mainstream media” both here and north of the border) and had his probable electoral victory in 2006 been affirmed, Mexico’s economic and security situation would have been less dire. I also have found that even well-informed people assume Mexico, like the U.S., is a two-party state or that the President runs everything. When writing, I tend to stress the largest of the “other” parties and, right now, with presidency becoming less powerful as the legislature gains power, it’s important to look at the minority parties. And the PRD is the party that holds the balance of power in the Chamber of Deputies.

Other than that, I agree that PRD rule wouldn’t change the way governance works here all that much. It would mean a different set of professional politicos making themselves rich at taxpayer expense. Just that PRD tends to include a lot of people who I think deserve to steal the money more than some others. And, besides, are guys I’d rather hang with. And tend to agree with me.

Not that I’m a voter, or that I think I’ll be one any time in the near future, and have to be content with cranky quasi-Mexican opinions about the United States and cranky quasi-gringo ones about Mexico. And getting myself talked about.

Categories: 2006 Elections · AMLO · Barack Obama · Communism · Felipe Calderón · Gringo(landia) · Minor parties · PAN · PRD · PRI · Politica (Mexicana) · Zapatistas

Those devilish details: Calderón’s 10 reforms

16 December 2009 · 2 Comments

Perhaps seeking to make the last half of his term relevant, Felipe Calderón has made ten proposals for radically restructuring the Mexican political system. While so far, the proposals are getting a good reception from foreign observers (and seem to be widely supported in Mexico) there are, of course, some objections to the specifics.

Points one and two, allowing for re-election of lower office holders (up to federal deputies, who would be term limited to 12 consecutive years) doesn’t seem unreasonable — in theory making local officials more beholden to the voters for their activities in office. In theory, this will mean local office-holders spend less on rewarding their party, and ensuring their party’s survival in office, but there is a counter-argument that this will just mean the office-holder will be building his or her personal power-base. At the federal deputy level, this could mean building a family dynasty in office, not that there aren’t political dynasties here now.

Re-election has the advantage of building “institutional memory”, one complaint about our legislative system being that deputies are always “freshman legislators”. On the other hand, expecting to leave at the end of three years, they aren’t, as in the United States, working on their re-election from day one.

Point three would reduce the size of the Chamber of Deputies (from 500 to 400) and the Senate (from 128 to 96). The argument here is for “efficiency” although I’m not sure efficiency is the standard by which democratic representation is measured (a unitary single executive — i.e., absolute dictatorship — is extremely efficient). In practice — together with point four which would raise the threshhold for proportional representation in the legislature and for party registration from 2.5 percent of the voters to 4 percent — this will stifle minority representation, and marginalize dissenters.

Although the complaint that point three is stilling minority voices would seem to be answered in point six — opening up the process to independent candidates — independents would have to be self-financing, or with strong outside backers. As it works now, candidates are vetted in some fashion by the parties — even mini-parties like the PT — and have equal media access to voters (something the “mainstream” media, like Televisa, would dearly love to jettison). And serious non-establishment candidates — like Cuautémoc Cardenas in 1988, or Andres Manuel López Obrador in 2006 — only had viability by garnering support from the mini-parties, and probably would not have had the impact they did running as independents, or on a single major party ticket.

Secondly, look at the potential “independent” candidates that have cropped up: “Dr. Simi” and Jorge Casteñeda. Both were ostensensively on the “left” but their campaigns were designed to siphon off votes from more electable leftist candidates. In the situation where the party’s “official” candidate is rejected by a sizable portion of the electorate, the standard operating procedure now is for the dissidents to back another party’s candidate. There have been a few disasters (see Juanito, the joke of Iztapalapa), but generally, this is the usual practice in democratic electoral processes. In New York States (one of the few in the United States with a multi-party system), dissatisfaction with Republican Senator James Goodall led to the election of Consefvtive James Buckley to the United States Senate (and Buckley wasn’t a bad Senator by any means) and the defeat of the Conservative’s candidate in a recent by-election, but with a candidate more matching the dissident’s choices. I’m not sure independent candidates in Mexico would give dissenters a reasonable shot at success with a defacto limited party system.

Point five would allow for legislation by citizen referendum. Based on those places where this is done — Venezuela and California, for example — one can presume that referendum drives will be well-financed operations (either by the State, or by private interests). As it is, point nine specifically allows the Presidency to propose referendums, by-passing the legislature.

And, the most likely referendum drives would be reactionary: to redefine “personhood” as starting at conception (as several states have done in response to liberalized abortion laws in the Federal District) or to limit marriage to persons of the opposite sex (in response to Coahuila’s 2005 passage of a same-sex marriage bill, and the Federal Districts expected passage of a bill by the District Assembly this year).

Point seven — having presidential run-offs if no candidate receives 50 percent plus one of the vote — makes sense, but the left is quick to point out that the practical result is that a dubious electoral victory like Felipe Calderón’s in 2006, would be less investigated than it was, and a run-off (which he would have won with PRI support) would have worked to his personal advantage.

Point eight gives the Supreme Court the power to initiate legislation. I’m surprised none of my foreign colleagues have used the phrase “legislating from the bench” in reference to this. It’s not necessarily a bad idea, but I haven’t seen the whole proposal. Even if such legislative proposals would require a majority of justices, there is suspicion that the intention is to strengthen the Presidency. It’s easier to persuade six judges than a majority of one’s party in the legislature (especially if you are an unpopular president with a legislative minority, like Felipe Calderón).

Point nine I discussed above.

Point ten has been reported as just increasing Presidential veto power. Patrick Corcoran (ganchoblog.blogspot.com) suspects it’s a “line item veto” and it does seem to give the President authority to revise the federal budget without legislative approval.

Mexico is undergoing a transition from Presidentialism to a more balance of powers system, which was hailed in the United States when the often anti-U.S. PRI had all the marbles. Now that PAN holds the presidency, even with a weakened resident at Los Pinos — and the likely PRI candidate is “malleable” to U.S. interests — there is support for re-invigorating the presidency from North of the Border.

These proposal are, so far, popular within Mexico (and the benefit the two large parties), and are likely — with modifications — to actually give Calderón a good part of what he’s proposing for once.

Categories: 2006 Elections · AMLO · FAP (PRD-PT-Convergencia) · Felipe Calderón · Minor parties · PAN · PRD · PRI · Politica (Mexicana)

Split the difference: Social Democrats, Dr. Simi and AMLO

26 November 2009 · 3 Comments

If there really is a drug dealing “family” seeking to control the Mexican state, it’s the one headed by Dr. Simi… the cartoon mascot of Farmacias Similares and Best Laboratories.

Victor Gonazles Torres and alter-ego

The hugely successful — and profitable — generic pharamceutical company, which pioneered the concept of walk-in medical clinics attached to pharmacies, is owned by the Gonzales family. CEO Victor Gonzales Torres has plowed much of the company’s profits into his own non-governmental organization, (Grupo Por Un País Mejor), which distributes a well-written nationwide newspaper (though the pharmacies) calling for generally non-controversial populist causes like anti-corruption measures in the legislature, environmental cleanup and … of course… cheaper prescription drugs.

Victor has been on the outs with his brother Jorge — founder and first party chair of PVEM — the Partido Verde Ecologista de México (Green Party). When Jorge resigned as party chair, and was replaced by his son Jorge Emiliano, and the party moved from its original position as an ally of Vicente Fox to a junior party of PRI (and Jorge Emiliano was caught soliciting bribes in return for Green support for yet another fly-by-night Cancun resort development) — and the party was eventually forced to change its statutes, Victor turned his interests towards his cousin, Patricia Mercado’s political organizations.

Mercado — a well known feminist — has a history of involvement in unsuccessful start-up parties. Partially financed by the Reagan Administration’s “Foundation for Democracy”, Mercado was a founder of Democracia Social in 1999. Led by Gilberto Rincon, the physically challenged ex-Communist human rights lawyer, DS would never receive enough votes to keep its party registration. However, as part of Vicente Fox’s “Alliance for Change” coalition in the 2000 election, as were the Greens, it gave credibility to Vicente Fox’s claims that a vote for him was a “useful vote” for political change.

Patricia Mercado

Although the Greens were never rewarded with cabinet positions (nor did Fox adequately address Green demands, leading to their defection to PRI partnership), DS was rewarded, with two of its most conservative members — Jorge Casteñeda and Xóchitl Gálvez being appointed to the cabinet (as Foreign Secretary and Secretary for Indigenous Affairs respectively). Rincon was eventually given a administrative position overseeing handicapped access programs.

The Greens — and Jorge — on the outs with Victor, “Dr. Simi” turned his attention to Patricia Mercado again. After her second failed attempt with a start-up party (Mèxico Posible, which tried to appeal to feminists, gays, Protestants, the physically handicapped and the indigenous ) failed to obtain enough votes to maintain registration and only captured one seat in the Federal District Assembly in the 2003 elections, she returned to the Social Democratic formula, the Partido Alternativa Socialdemócrata y Campesina. Recognizing that her two previous parties had little support outside of what one pundit sniffed were “Mexicans who read the New York Times”, Alternativa sought a broader coalition, appealing to rural workers and the urban working class. Both are groups who depend on, and appreciate, “Dr. Simi”

A drug dealer for president?

Victor, making the argument that he could self-finance his own presidential campaign, appealed to the “Campesina” (peasant) wing of the largely urban middle-class party for support for the presidential nomination. By-passed in favor of cousin Patricia, he mounted a independent campaign… even though votes for independent candidates are considered “null” votes by Mexican election officials.

Although Victor raised some serious issues (mostly in his pharmacy-distributed literature) about public health care, environmental issues, corruption and economic reform, he used the publicity mostly for a “merry prankster ad campaign for “Simi-condons” — his company having recently gone into the condom business, and selling them at about a third the price of “name brand” condoms.

As “Dr. Condon”, he attempted to force his way into the third (and last) nationally televised presidential debate, wearing a hat festonned with Simi-condons. and accompanied by scantily-clad female “campaign aides”.

He received a few votes (which, of course, were nullified) but Alternativa had slightly more success than DS or México Posible, managing to capture a few legislative seats, although its overall vote was too low for permanent party registration.

Which leads to the intriguing “what if?” question. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador — who was the target of much of Dr. Victor Gonzales Torres criticism was, of course, not elected by less than half a percentage of the total vote. How much of that vote was “drained off” by Dr. Simi (uncounted) and how much by Alternativa (1.6 percent of all Presidental votes) is an unanswerable question. Possibly more than half a percent.

Which leads to the big “Why now?”. With PAN discredited, and the PRI having no appealing candidate on the horizon for 2012, Lopez Obrador’s release of a “10 point program” (already under attack by the “mainstream media” which is just looking at bullet points, and not the details… much as they did his 50-point program for 2006) strongly suggest another leftist coalition run is in the offing.

He's baaaaaaack

So… up pops Patricia Mercado with ANOTHER party… or rather, Alternativa 2.0. The rump of the party changed their name to the simpler Partido Socialdemócrata (PSD) for their legislative group, and now is openly soliciting prominent PRD legislators and activists — who lost out in earlier interparty squabbles between the Lopezobradoristas and the “chucos” to jump ship.

The virulence of the early attacks on AMLO and a potential second run for the presidency indicate that he is taken seriously as a threat (Gancho, who doesn’t see Lopez Obrador as nearly important as I do, even finds the fear of one point — greater media access — a bit excessive). I haven’t really paid much attention to Dr. Simi (other than buying his products and sometimes reading his very written free paper), nor to the PSD up until now, nor had I considered the connections. Which may or may not be there, but make for an intriguing “drug connection” to the Mexican political class.

Categories: 2006 Elections · AMLO · Birth Control · Economy & Business · Gilberto Rincón Gallardo · Health · Media · Minor parties · PAN · PRD · PRI · PVEM (Green Party) · Patricia Mercado · Politica (Mexicana) · Victor Gonzales Torres

Southern Exposure

18 November 2009 · 1 Comment

The Woodrow Wilson Institute for International Scholars Mexico site picked up an article from El Universal that has captured what I think is one of Mexico’s greatest challenges… facing north when it should be looking south:

Mexico was once boasted as a leader in Latin America, but is now an observer of the development of other nations. Academics and specialists confirm that the country has found itself stuck in several areas stymieing its competitiveness.

The majority agree: the country wasted its potential, never looked south to reassert itself as a leader, and squandered the advantage of oil resources and neglected science.

(Original article in El Universal 16-November 2009)

I’ve talked before about the disadvantages of Mexico’s too-close ties to the United States economy, which has worked to discourage trade with the rest of Latin America and other parts of the world. At the same time, despite my continual carping on the lack of attention the United States pays to Latin America, Mexico does receive attention… just not the kind that allows for creative and independent policy-making.

Narrow concerns with “stability”, coupled with the unfortunate co-incidence of the timing of the last presidential campaign during the United State’s own bout with extremist political and economic attitudes probably did have more to do with with the questionable outcome of that election than it should. Not that a López Obradór administration would have necessarily have been more successful than the Calderón administration, but AMLO was more interested in pan-Latin initiatives, and his program was more focused on the basics — like educational and agricultural reform — than the incumbent is.

Secondly, Mexico’s willingness to fight the United State’s “war on drugs” — or rather, the Calderón administration’s willingness to use the “mano duro” against “instability” (which includes not just the narcotics exporters, but political and social dissent as well). Basic judicial reforms, as well as social programs which would have ameliorated the need for so much dissent (as well as the need to make a living working in the narcotics industry) have been put on the back burner.

Third, while the PAN people are not incompetent per se, they are ideologically bound to the wrong issues. This wouldn’t have been a problem had the U.S. economic house of cards stood up a few more years, but it didn’t. While the United States could make some mild reforms thanks to an election at the right time, Mexico is stuck with the same mindset when it comes to economic responses as the Bush Administration in the U.S. I thought it a good sign when Augustín Carstens was appointed Secretary of the Treasury, although — today — an orthodox World Bank type is exactly wrong.

And, of course, shit happens. Mexico isn’t “exotic” — or exciting enough to rate the pres that Brazil does right now. And, our stability may be working against us. People like Felipe Calderón are kind of dull… even AMLO, or Beatriz Parades just don’t have the star appeal of other Latin American politicos like Bolivia’s Evo Morales or Ecuador’s Rafael Correa, And, outside the “drug war” and quasi-crises like the flu epidemic, there hasn’t been any “change to believe in” that really captures one’s attention since the Oaxaca protests.

While it looks, on the surface, that nothing is going on… there are signs that something will give. The cynical dismemberment of Luz y Fuero del Centro (and the union) hasn’t quite sunk in yet, nor has the Calderón administration’s coddling of the corrupt union boss, Esther Elba Gordilla… nor the seeming lack of ideas from the administration on how to respond to the economic situation. There will be national elections in 2012… and although it appears for now that the likely winner is a Carlos Salinas protege, nothing is ever for certain in Mexico. As Porfirio Dias said, just before everything changed, “Nothing changes in Mexico… until it changes.”

Categories: 2006 Elections · AMLO · Agriculture · Agustín Carstens · Alternative Presidency · Americas (outside U.S. and Mexico) · Bolivia · Brazil · Crime and Punishment · Drugs · Economy & Business · Ecuador · Education and educators · Ester Elba Gordillo · Evo Morales · Felipe Calderón · George W. Bush · Gringo(landia) · Human Rights · Mexican History 1921+ · Oaxaca en luche (2006) · PAN · Politica (Mexicana) · Rafael Correa · Trade agreements and issues · World Bank

The Revolution will be twittered

24 October 2009 · 1 Comment

For the last several months, Mexico has been discussing new taxes. The original proposal from the Calderón Administration, for a two percent increase in the sales tax, spun as a beneficial to the poor, was widely derided. There were the usual bombastic speeches by the politicians, the outraged editorials in the media and a few street demonstrations… but it was clear the proposal was doomed in Chamber of Deputies (the lower house of the Mexican Congress) where the President’s party, the conservative PAN, lacks the votes to pass any bills without support from one of the main opposition parties.

Some tax bill had to be passed, and – several compromises and alternatives later, one did make it through the Chamber last Wednesday, just after five P.M. The bill only raises the sales tax one percent, and exempts food and medicine, but to make up the difference in revenue, includes several other taxes, including a three percent tax on telecommunications and internet connections.

By six PM, la revolución online — led bya vanguard “movimiento twittero” — had an organized resistance underway. Mexicans, even the most avant-garde cybergeek, tend to assess their present though the lens of their history. With the centennial celebration of the 1910 Revolution gearing up, it’s natural los twitteros and their allies have looked to that Revolution for guidance.

In 1908, Porfiro Diaz, who had been elected president every four years since 1884 with only token opposition and was dictator in all but name, made the mistake of mentioning to a foreign reporter that he might consider retiring in 1910. Diaz had no intention of actually giving up power, but Francisco I. Madero, a wealthy landowner and eccentric, took it upon himself to publish and distribute La sucesión presidencial en 1910 — in effect, going outside the traditional media to launch what would, indeed, be a revolution.

José Merino, a doctoral candidate, sometime newspaper and TV journalist and founder or director of several web-based sites, writes in “El Defe”:

Madero launched a revolution with a book in a country where 72.3 percent of adults were illiterate.

Why can’t we initiate a change in the relationship between the people and their legislators over a three percent tax on internet use in a country where only twenty-five percent are regular users?

…

Within a day, without blocking streets or resorting to mass media (print and electronic), Twitter and Facebook users had generated so much noise that the Senate — the revenue bill is now in the upper house — held hearings on the issue today.

And, in less than twenty-four hours created two sites dealing with the topic: internetnecesario.org that summarizes the Twitter activity on the issue and the marvellous internetnecesario.info — showing that creative people, despite the ridicule of the “mainstream media”, can synthesize the relevant information clearly and .. for lack of a better word… beautiful manner.

The Senate Science and Technology Committee heard from internet industry executives, academics and the users… in the hearing room, and several thousand more who participated in the first ever interactive hearing in Mexican legislative history. An estimated five thousand twitters were received opposing the tax increase.

The Committee President, Francisco Javier Castellón Fonseca said the anti-tax movement’s spontaneity demonstrated the ability of the internet and social network to bring together thousands of people for consultations.

About the unprecedented structure of the hearing, Castellón was quoted as saying “This meeting was designed for sending messages on the network, mainly in Twitter, on the prevailing situation in the discussion of the Revenue Act, especially as it applies to telecommunications excise taxes.”

The Senator needs to learn to limit his statements to 140 characters, but it’s a start. His party, the leftist PRD (Revolutionary Democratic Party) is apparently ready to join “la revolucíon online”. Livestreaming Internet Necesario protests are being posted on Noticieros SPD , a website originally set up in support former PRD Presidential candidate Andres Manuel López Obrador’s “alternative presidency”, but has become an alternative media source for several progressive and leftist causes.

Moviemento Internet Necesario — so far — has been limiting their action to killing the communications excise tax. But, as José Merino noted, Mexicans have the among the slowest broadband access speeds, and highest access rates in the world. La revolución online may spread well beyond the narrow concerns of the twenty-five percent of Mexicans who use the internet, much as Madero’s revolution — concerned only with the specifics of presidential succession — spread when the instigator failed to recognize the thirst for radical social change.

The Movement is already starting to go viral, showing up on Global Voices. Today, the internet tax… tomorrow, free WiFi. Geeks of the world unite… you have nothing to lose but your web-links!

Categories: AMLO · Economy & Business · Felipe Calderón · Francisco I. Madero · Internet Necesario · La Raza (Mexican cultures and peoples) · Media · Mexican History 1910-20 (Revolution) · PRD · Politica (Mexicana) · Real Mexico

Banamex sale back on?

21 October 2009 · Leave a Comment

Jornada (my translation):

The Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) could force the U.S. bank Citigroup to sell its profitable and highly regarded Mexican subsidiary Banamex, according to today’s (19 October 2009) Financial Times [registration required].

The case before the court is of vital importance because Banamex is estimated by the Financial Times and others to be worth at least 20 billion U.S. dollars, and accounts for 15 percent of Citibank’s net profits.

At issue before the court is a challenge to a finding by Secretarío de Hacienda (Treasury Secretary) Augustín Carstens, that the laws forbidding foreign GOVERNMENTS to have a major stake in Mexican banks “does not cover emergencies derived from the global crisis.” Well, no… the law was written back in the early 1990s when Mexican banks had collapsed in part BECAUSE the government had followed the same policies that the United States pursued, but was able to continue for another several years, heedless of the warning signs from the south.

Although Carstens claimed — on his own authority — in March 2009 that “government aid” (even when the government in question did become a major shareholder of the institution) was different than direct ownership, the Administration sent to Congress a bill that would regularize the Banamex exemption, but would force Citibank to offer 25 percent of the Banamex shares on the Mexican stock exchange IF the United States government was still a shareholder of the parent company after three years. And an additional 25 percent in six years. Of course, there were no guarantees that those purchasing Banamex stock would be Mexicans.

Mex Files was not the only one to question the logic of the ruling. Inca Kola News predicted “this story will create open season on a Felipe Calderon (allegedly) selling out la patria to the gringos. Lopez Obrador and company will milk this one for all it’s worth; and it’s worth a lot.” The Inca was ALMOST right.

It was seen as selling out la patria to the gringos… but then again, everything the Calderón Administration has done, is doing, or ever will do, is selling out la patria to the gringos, per “Lopez Obrador and company”.

But, Lopez Obrador, et. al. are only one (although a major) political force in what is still a largely leftist and nationalist country — the “leftiest” of the bunch, but that bunch includes about 2/3rds of the electorate. The PRI — usually described as “centerist” by foreign papers, simply to suggest it isn’t quite as lefty as the better known Lopez Obrador groups — has surged in recent by-elections, in good part because the former ruling party has consciously set out to reclaim the leftist and nationalist vote.

Now in the legislative majority, it’s no surprise that the PRI, with the backing of the parties to the left brought the case to the Supreme Court.

Guillermo Ortiz, governor of the Bank of Mexico, (and Secretary of the Treasury during the financial crisis of 1994 which led to the strict Mexican banking regulations) has suggested that ALL foreign-owned banks should be listed on the stock exchange, not just the one that in theory will be 25% listed in 2012, “if present trends continue”.

It’s not just the lefties that are rooting for a forced sale of Banamex in this instance. The Financial Times says “some influential bankers” (from Mexico or elsewhere isn’t clear) claim a partial sale (via stock listings) would also benefit Citibank, which claims it is focusing on repaying the U.S. taxpayers who bailed it out.

My own quasi-lefty take is that a forced sale has a possible secondary positive effect. If you look at Latin American economies, the ones with the best growth (Brazil, Ecuador, and — surprisingly enough — Bolivia) are those that have broken out of the mindset that sees the United States as the only possible market for their goods and services. Those economies still in the dumper — Mexico and Peru — are those that still follow the discredited “neo-liberal” line and have seen the United States as their main (and often only) foreign market. Breaking the most visible symbol of U.S. financial dominance (even though the banks are mostly controlled by Spanish and British companies) — especially if there were a Brazilian or Mexican-Brazilian corporate buyer (as mentioned last time there were rumors of a Banamex sale), it might convince Mexican business to look south for their financing, or… like those successful (and mostly leftist-led) other Latin countries, begin focusing on internal markets and diversified trade (Asia, Europe, the rest of the Americas).

The irony is that the economic cliche was that when the United States got a cold, Mexico got pneumonia. But, this very severe cold was caused by poor U.S. banking oversight, and Mexican banks are in good shape. But, dependence on the United States for export sales, and for financing are have left Mexico seriously weakened and isolating itself from the vector of its infections might not be such a bad move.

Categories: AMLO · Agustín Carstens · Americas (outside U.S. and Mexico) · Banking · Bolivia · Brazil · Economy & Business · Ecuador · Ernesto Zedillo · Felipe Calderón · Guillermo Ortiz · Mexican History 1921+ · PRI · Peru

They came to bury, César

19 October 2009 · 3 Comments

Given the wide-spread rejection of a two percent rise in IVA (the value added tax), PAN President César Nava has been whistling past the rapidly filling graveyard of dead Calderón Administration proposals when he said yesterday that

We have not yet received a formal proposal, nor received a final and formal refusal to the our proposed “two percent anti-poverty contribution” and are waiting for PRI to define their position and give us their final approval.

Nava’s comments (my translation) were posted on El Universal’s website shortly before 10 PM (Mexico City time). Just after 11 PM, the same paper published a statement from the Secretaría de Hacienda (Treasury Department) reading (again my translation, both from Spanish and trying to tone down the bureaucratic bullshit):

After reviewing various proposals, there is no viablity to any government submitted plan to combat widespread poverty through a two percent tax rise, that the PRI will accept.

Any alternatives? Some trouble-maker running around in rural Oaxaca is hinting at one, noting there are four hundred companies in Mexico that each have a net profit of at least five billion pesos a year, but collectively paid only paid 80 billion in taxes, when “under a normal system, they should have paid 800 billion. Tax evasion on this magnitude is a privilege reserved for the wealthy in Mexico.

As with other Calderón Administration “take it or leave it” proposals, the two-percent tax hike (weirdly, and, perhaps Orwellianly (if that’s a real word), described as an anti-poverty tax, has led the opposition to says “no thanks”. With Calderón’s party in a minority (and rejected more and more, as in Sunday’s PRI sweep in Coahuila state and municipal elections), and the PRI both needing the leftist parties to pass legislation as well as needing to brand itself as a true alternative to PAN (and not, as the left likes to sneer, just part of a larger PRIAN neo-liberal front that still follows the conservative Washington tune), radical solutions like higher corporate taxes and a “normal system” are likely to get a second look.

Categories: AMLO · Bureaucracy · César Nava · Economy & Business · Felipe Calderón · PAN · PRI · Politica (Mexicana)

The little devils in the details

17 October 2009 · Leave a Comment

Sean Goforth, Foreign Policy Association Mexico Blog has been uncovering interesting material this week. It’s the second time I’ve found something for the MexFiles on his site in as many days.

He has been something of a cheerleader for the Calderón Administration, but the surprise takeover of Luz y Fureza de Cento (LyFC) has him asking WTF…

… Mexico is in the midst of its worst recession since the “lost decade” of the 1980s, and, unlike Brazil, it isn’t clear the end of the recession is at hand. No matter the size of the severance package, such a move is brashly pro-cyclical. The government should mark time, or even hire more workers to help address Mexico’s unemployment. Inefficiency should be targeted once the economy is growing again. Keynesianism is enjoying a revival elsewhere, why not in Mexico?

This blog has been largely supportive of Calderón. Recent news warrants serious circumspection. Laying off state employees in times of recession requires gumption or lunacy. Or maybe this is just a move of sage politics. Having lost Congress to the PRI in July’s election, Calderón’s can now spread the blame if recovery is delayed or tepid. Mr. Calderón is right to pursue economic modernization, but does he have to do so right now?

The same mind set that sacrifices working class jobs rather than look at efficiencies at the top is at work in the renewed attack on “diablitos”.

In an unsigned editorial in the weekend edition of The [Mexico City] News quotes Augustín Carstens (who might take references to bloated management structures personally) as claiming:

…stolen electricity amounts approximately to $25 billion a year.

He said that now, without the Union of Mexican Electricians to protect the vendors, new management company the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) will make it an objective to “eliminate irregularities” and bring increased income to the financially-strapped company.

The most common method of stealing electricity is making a direct connection, popularly known in Spanish slang as “diablitos,” a word that literally translates as little devils.

… Just walk down any Mexico City street where street vendors peddle their wares and you’ll notice hundreds of wires connected to the nearest electricity pole and all the sales people listening to blaring radios or televisions, light bulbs lit up all night ..and all of it for free.

Left unsaid, of course, is that diablitos are everywhere, not just in Mexico City, and not so much “protected” by LFyC employees as “protected” by everyone, While a lot of consumers have diablitos (a friend of mine lived in room built on top of a house in an ejido that, surrounded by wealthy colonias, supplemented their income by building irregular “all electric” apartments on the roofs of houses and rented them to a motley crew of slightly irregular foreign teachers, though how much electricity was stolen from the rich to power a couple crock pots and TVs was nowhere near enough for the folks down the hill to even care about), most are powering micro-businesses (taco stands, little puestos in informal markets, and the like) that are marginal businesses at best, but do create employment. They also create those great heroes of conservativism, the ownership class. You know, people that invest in their communities and their families, want their kids to grow up educated, and have a stake in safe streets. People with middle-class values.

It was, ironically enough, the “dangerous populist” Andres Manuel Lopez Obradór who tackled the diablito problem — or at least put a dent in it — during his tenure as Jefe de Gobierno in the Federal District. Responding to complaints both from LyFC and from tourism-related business owners about the aesthetics and safety of those irregular connections, his administration killed two birds with one stone: they replaced the jerry-built newsstands that dotted the Zona Histórica with kiosks that answered the aesthetic demands, and included power connections, lights and, a METER. The kiosks have a bank of all weather outlets, and the news vendors could work out payment arrangement with their neighbors (or through their unions) to tap into the safer source.

“Stolen” electricity is a sort of government subsidy, and that’s not exactly the best way to foster enterprise, which may be what conservatives really want: a free market for those that already have the capital to invest; limited consumer choice; and — perhaps most important of all — workers with no alternative source of income).

And, of course, those small merchants don’t generally vote PAN. Higher priced power to the people.

Categories: AMLO · Augustín Carstens · Ciudad de México · Economy & Business · Felipe Calderón · Informal economy · La Raza (Mexican cultures and peoples) · Organized Labor (Sindicatos) · Politica (Mexicana)

Power surges

14 October 2009 · 2 Comments

When the President went on television Sunday night to justify the takeover and forced merger of Luz y Fuerza de Centro, he spoke of it as a necessary cost-cutting measure. True enough, the company was hemorrhaging money at an alarming rate, and some sort of restructuring was inevitable.

However, no one for a second believed that… not even members of the President’s own party. Those who applauded the move — like influential journalist Carlos Loret de Mola — saw both the timing (on a Friday night, at the start of a three-day weekend in the Federal District, after the all important World Cup playoff game between Mexico and El Salvador) and the police-strike method, as meant to be even an unfriendly merger, but a strike against the company union, SME.

Of course, the bloated payroll figures that have been floated around (“on average, the electrical worker receives blah, blah, blah” are — like all averages — highly misleading. The company had a hugely bloated, and ridiculously compensated, management. As it is, liquidating those supposedly overpaid workers will require a buyout of their jobs at somewhere between thirty and thirty-three months salary.

The same day the buyouts of the “bloated” salaries was announced, by the way, the León Guanajuanto city government decided to pay out 19 million pesos to former elected and appointed officials from the previous administration. Managers had a way of taking care of their own.

Of course, with LyFC the company management were often SME members, which makes the “corruption” and “overpayment” stories somewhat valid, as well as boosting the “average” figures. But, having become the center of the rationale (as opposed to Felipe Calderón’s interest in privatizing the company during his time as Secretary of Energy during the Fox Adminstration, in whole or in part) as opposed to SME’s support for opposition parties ) there are questions being raised about other, “corrupt and inefficient” unions less hostile to the present adminstration. Like Esther Elba’s Teachers’ Union, among others.

Not surprisingly, Ana María Salazar, in her Mexico Today news briefs, notes ” PAN said that closing down Luz y Fuerza was not a measure aimed at attacking unionized workers but rather because it was so inoperative… PAN leader ruled out similar measures against the PEMEX or Teachers union, the SNTE.

At least PAN’s former president, Manuel Espino Barrientos, is out of the closet on this… he says “all unions are corrupt”… but then, that’s a article of faith for his wing of the party.

Pablo Trejo Pérez, a PRD Delegate from working class Itzacalco, writing in a (badly translated) editorial in The [Mexico City] sees a “privatization” issue (and a union one) that hasn’t been much discussed. The fiber-optics sytem owned by LyFC:

Behind the government’s onslaught against [LyFC] lies the dispute of what to do with a 1,100-kilometer long fiber optic network that belongs to the liquidated company. We are talking about a system that makes the transmission of voice and data over any domestic power line or low-voltage source possible, which made the company a major competitor with two more economically powerful companies: Televisa and Telmex.

The arguments the government has cited as reasons to liquidate the [LyFC] are meaningless and should be cause for reflection because the federal government has just declared war on electrical workers.

After three years in office, Calderón should understand that the strength of a government lies not in the strength of its police or armed forces’ ability to enforce authoritarian rule, but rather in the government’s moral authority. A strong state is maintained not by the use of force, but with social consensus that comes from legitimacy.

One possible protest suggested by an SME spouse involves getting people to turn on their lights, radios, televisions, space heaters, air conditioners, etc…. and try to cause a surge. Power to the people takes a whole new meaning in this fight.

Categories: AMLO · Economy & Business · Ester Elba Gordillo · Felipe Calderón · Organized Labor (Sindicatos) · PAN · Politica (Mexicana)

Today we have to correct those things that don’t work in the country

12 October 2009 · Leave a Comment

(One update at end)

… or so said Don Felipe, justifying the dissolution of Luz y Fuero de Centro, the Mexico City metropolitan electric company (the rest of the country is served by CFE, Comisión Federal de Electricidad.

While I’m waiting for the snarky responses from those that are going to list other government entities that “don’t work in the country”, I was struck by Calderón’s calling attention to the amount of money lost by LyFC compared to other government programs… which would indicate a management, not a labor problem.

If I heard right, the workers — whom, if we take Calderón at his word, are losing their jobs because of poor management — are going to receive assistance finding jobs with “small enterprises”. How that jives with his statement that there were no plans to privatize the national power company makes me wonder if he doesn’t, as the union claim, simply want to break contracts, and destroy the union movement… something his party has always stood for (and, until recently, the other parties wouldn’t).

Electrical workers' protest (photo: El Universal)

Electrical workers' protest (photo: David Jamarillo, El Universal)

While privatization may be technically off the table, I wouldn’t be surprised to see introduction of a PEMEX type “reform” that allows for outside contractors to bid on subsidiary services, and which will pit the laid off 15,000 union workers who took to the streets in protest Sunday.

At the same time, there are legal questions. For starters, a union contract with one employer is still valid when another owner takes over the business… in this case, when CFE takes over LyFC. Sindicato Mexicano de Electricistas (SME) is not going down without a fight, with other unions and several political leaders (notably AMLO) arguing the Calderón Administration’s end game is the destruction of the independent union movement… something well in line with both PAN’s more recent “neo-liberal” policies that assume a public utility should turn a profit (something alien to political traditions that hold the utilities to be a public service, not a business) and its historic roots in anti-labor movements (including fascism).

Photo: Alberto Lopez, El Universal

Ironically, CFE is raising its electrical rates, which have led to protests by business groups, manufacturers, consumers and tourist operations throughout the country. Protests, like this one by Tehuana women, are becoming more common.

Laura Carlsen, as usual, provides excellent background and overview:

The decree follows a union conflict that the government fueled and then took advantage of to eliminate the company and its union. The union elections last June were contested by the losing group amid rumors that the federal government was actively fomenting division. In a warning sign, on Oct. 5 the Secretary of Labor, Javier Lozano, rejected registration of the new union leadership without waiting for a decision from the Labor Tribunal…

…The Mexican Electrical Workers Union (SME, by its Spanish initials) is among the most active and independent unions in a country that has been dominated by government-affiliated unions. Its membership has led the many battles for defense of labor rights and standard of living in the country. SME leader, Martin Esparza, declared the Calderon takeover “unconstitutional” and has vowed to fight against the liquidation of the company and of the union contract. In a joint interview on MSVRadio, he spoke alongside the defeated union candidate, Alejandro Munoz, in which both declared common cause to fight against the administration’s union-busting move.

Categories: AMLO · Economy & Business · Felipe Calderón · Human Rights · Manifestaciones · Oaxaca · Organized Labor (Sindicatos) · PAN · Politica (Mexicana) · Provincia · Real Mexico