What she said (about the Informe)

Felipe Calderón’s tenure in office has borne more than a few resemblances to that of George W. Bush.  Beginning with a dubious electoral victory[1], there has been an on-going claim of a “national security” threat used to justify violations, large and small, of civil rights, attempts to gut 1930s economic and social changes as “reforms” and increasing attempts to isolate the President from critical opinion.

While the opposition made it difficult for Calderón to present his Informe, absenting himself from the exercise has not put him above the fray, but may have energized his opponents.  He, of all people, might recognize the irony in that:  the mounting carnage in the “war on drugs” is said by his administration to be an indicator of success, and the bloodshed is something to be celebrated, yet the resident of Los Pinos turns squeamish when it comes to facing potentially rude behavior in the Chamber of Deputies.

Given that the Informe — even when presented in person — has, at least since Carlos Salinas finally recognized that he could not just give a “speech from the throne”, but had to actually try to sell his agenda, never been a fully detailed program, but is an executive summary of what the Administration hopes to accomplish and a precis of the reasons for whatever innovations are intended.

While a bullet-pointed summary, and  infomercials are easier to digest than the whole 500-page document, I think something has been lost in avoiding the rough and tumble of legislative dissent.  Neither the President, nor the public, receives immediate confirmation of what parts of the program are likely to be rejected or accepted… and which groups will be accepting or rejecting them.

By only speaking with those in the press who are reliable Administration supporters, the President is — as was Bush — likely to find himself in an echo chamber, and find himself supported by a shrinking minority and making decision that are counterproductive.  I am not a Mexican citizen, so don’t presume to tell Mexicans what to do.  I leave that for Mexicans, like Denise Dresser.

She is, among other things an Associate Editor of the Los Angeles Times, a regular columnist in the main conservative newspaper, Reforma, a professor of political theory at Mexico’s prestigious private university, ITAM, and about as mainstream, “inside the Periferico” as you can get.

However, being one of those holding a critical opinion of the Calderón Administration, she was specifically not invited to interview the President after his informe.  This translation is from an article appearing, not in one of her usual outlets, but on  Blogotitlan.

A few days ago, President Felipe Calderón criticized his critics, calling on them “Speak well of Mexico and its advantages … this is the way to build the country’s future.” Following his own advice, he proceded to celebrate our homicide rate per 100 thousand inhabitants —  lower than that in Colombia, Brazil, El Salvador and New Orleans…

I ask my readers to do exactly the opposite of what the President demands. I remind you that the stoicism, resignation, complicity and silence of all too many explains why a country as majestic as Mexico has been as badly governed. As Günter Grass pointed out, it is the citizen’s duty to live with his mouth open.  Speak well of the country – of its clear rivers… but speak ill of its dirty politics…

The job of a good citizen is … to tell those who have plundered the country that they have no right to continue doing so,  to look to Mexico with the honesty, to show that we are better than our politicians and we will have the government we deserve. To live permanently anchored in indignation: criticizing, proposing, shaking our fists — to raise the bar and to speak truth to power…. Being a citizen means understanding one’s intellectual obligation to pay tribute to your country through criticism.

…

Being a good citizen in Mexico is a vocation that requires commitment and courage. It is having the courage to believe in something deeply and be prepared to convince others about it.  It is an ongoing challenge to half-truths, mediocrity, political correctness, and mendacity. It is resistance to co-option.  It is living with the upheavals and shocks of life.   resisting the cooptation.   It is living producing small earthquakes and shocks and jolts. Living, as suggested by George Orwell, by telling others what you do not want to hear.

…

The critical citizen must possess a great capacity to withstand conventional images, the official narratives, justifications powerful television or circulated by Presidential cheerleaders. … When you take on critical thinking, you do not perceive reality as a given – immutable and unchanging — but as a contingent situation, the result of human decisions. The country’s crisis becomes something that can be reversed, which can be altered through decisive action and intense public debate.  Criticism becomes a way of giving hope to the nation. Speaking ill of Mexico means to aspire to better country.

This vital position — extremely useful, but unorthodox – is only slowly becoming acceptable.  …Octavio Paz put it well: “If we are not all stoic and impassive, like Juárez and Cuauhtémoc, we at least try to be resigned, and suffer patiently.  Resignation is one of our popular virtues…” Our propensity is to compare ourselves downwards, and like Felipe Calderón congratulate ourselves that at least “Mexico is not as violent as the city of New Orleans.”

Given this tendency to conformity I invite you to speak ill of Mexico: to become a citizen who refuses to accept the logic of “at least.”  Practice critical citizenship.  Hold up a mirror for the nation to look at itself.  Say “no.”  Resist the arbitrary use of authority.  Take on the challenge of free intelligence. Think differently. Declare that the emperor is naked. Be involved in causes and issues and movements larger than yourself. Do not remain neutral in a time of great ethical dilemmas. Refuse to be a spectator to injustice or stupidity.  Be one of those who criticizes Mexico for what Carlos Pellicer called the absence of grandeur.  …