Marching on

Despite a small quibble about a questionable assertion (the Zetas may have originally been rogue military personnel, but there is no evidence that they are anything but common criminals, and recruited no differently than any other members of organized gangster organizations), Jason Wallach’s video report on the 8 May “No mas sangre” is well worth re-viewing.

One thing that strikes me is that despite some sense among Mexico watchers that the movement is some sort of failure in that Genaro Garcia Luna has not yet been forced to resign, or that the government suddenly managed to find the presumed assassins of Juan Francisco Sicilia, that the social movement will just fade away… or, as Ganchoblog suggests, needs to become a U.S. style “special interest group” (Patrick seems to be thinking of groups like the Christian Coalition or the Moral Majority) to enjoy success.

On the first point, it appears Javier Sicilia’s call for Garcia Luna’s resignation was meant more as a metaphor for social change, than as a political demand.  While, of course, as the most visible architect of a failed policy (or, more properly, the executioner of the plan) he is more than a symbolic figure.  Had Felipe Calderon given into demands and demanded Garcia Luna’s resignation, it might be seen as a concession to the “no mas sangre” movement, but would have signaled an acceptance of the larger demands for social and political change, and a recognition of the present administration’s failures in other areas like education and national security.  It forced the administration to take a defensive position… in NOT firing Garcia Luna, the administration has been at pains to prove its policies have not failed, and, ironically, to start changing them.  One would expect Juan Francisco Sicilia’s alleged killers would be found.  Which may satisfy (on a personal level) Javier Sicilia, but then forces the government (and Garcia Luna) to start answering questions about the other 34,999+ victims of this adminstration’s militaristic approach to criminal activity.

On the second, it has to be remembered that the U.S. pressure groups had no interest in changing the system, only the agenda.  As it is, groups like the Moral Majority’s tactics were mostly  “under the radar” — running candidates in existing parties (overwhelmingly the Republican Party, which was desperate to redefine itself after Watergate) in local elections, and leveraging local political control to steer private campaign contributions (impossible in Mexico) and voters towards the group’s favored candidates.   Mexican political organization is much more “top down”, but even so, we don’t know how many opponents of the existing political system are running for offices like regidor or presidente municipal, nor on what parties.  The movement appears to have the support of at least the PRD (or a sizable fraction of that party), and in a multi-party state, it it doesn’t require nearly as sizable a faction to take over a party and to drive the national agenda towards a concensus that meets that faction’s demands.

Anyway, it’s becoming more and more obvious that the Calderonista regime is on the way out, and at least conventional wisdom is that the PRI will provide the next President.  Specifically that the Carlos Salinas wing of the PRI will provide the next President.  Which may be true, but even they are running away from the “drug war” and as the situation (both in the world of the political class and in the streets) develops over the next year (the parties haven’t even held primaries yet),  the political elites may realign themselves, if only to guarantee their own survival.

More importantly, the Mexican protests were somewhat overlooked because of protests around the world taking place at about the same time:  in the Middle East, in Greece, and now in Spain.  While it is easy to find the differences in the proximate causation they all are rooted in the same discontent with governments that don’t fulfill their citizen’s expectations of protection and economic security, and a better future for their youth.  And, in all of these countries, there is a sense of revulsion at the impunity enjoyed by the political classes.

Equally important is to remember that these “old world” movements are uprisings against the prevailing economic system.  Egyptians, Greeks, Spaniards and Mexicans may have had different specific grievances, but all were based in their respective state’s administration’s willingness to put meeting the expectations of the world’s economic power-elites ahead of the well-being of their own peoples.

Is “no mas sangre” a simple demand for political change?  Perhaps.  But, perhaps more importantly, in common with the Greeks, the Spaniards, the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Hondurans, and others, it is a world-wide demand for democratization and accountability from the leadership… in short… a revolution.