 |
|
|
 Editorials | Opinions | September 2006 
Mexican Election Dispute Marks a Defeat for Democracy
 José Alemán - swarthmore.edu
| | The PejePollo. "This Superchicken comes equipped with testicles." (The conceptually correct, if literally incorrect translation for Lopez Obrador's nickname "Peje" is "The Kingfish"). |
Mexican politics are going through a tough time. Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the presidential candidate who ran behind the umbrella “Alliance for the Good of All” (which includes the left-leaning Party of the Democratic Revolution [PRD]) in the 2006 Mexican elections, argued that there was major fraud in the elections and that a full recount was necessary. Some of his claims seem to have been clearly unfounded, but even if some were valid, López Obrador should have long ago compromised and refrained from the massive protests that swamped the Federal District and dangerously promoted instability throughout the country. Fraud is a possibility, but López Obrador had and still has better options to challenge the system than those he has embraced thus far.
There is no doubt that the elections were initially “too close to call.” According to the latest official results, Felipe Calderón of the National Action Party (PAN) — the party of current President Vicente Fox — garnered 35.89 percent of the vote, while Obrador garnered 35.31 percent, for a difference of about half a percent. In this context, López Obrador definitely has the right to challenge the elections, but he must also carry the burden of proof. He must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the elections were fraudulent if he wants his party’s claims for a complete recount to materialize. With major international organizations supporting the legitimacy of the elections, this seemed a major challenge in itself. Fortunately, Mexico provides the appropriate mechanism to solve this dispute: the independent Electoral Tribunal. After listening to both parties, the Tribunal unanimously approved the validity of the elections, single-handedly ruling out the possibility of unnecessarily holding new elections. The Tribunal also ordered a limited recount of the specific ballots challenged by López Obrador and announced the official results proclaiming Calderón as the new president-elect of United Mexican States. Calderón’s advantage was extremely small, but this advantage must suffice in a democracy.
Throughout much of the process, López Obrador gradually increased the rhetorical violence of his claims, undermining the general stability of the country. Although Calderón claimed victory too early as well, López Obrador’s actions have to this date surpassed Calderón’s in their virulence. The massive mobilization of Obrador’s followers paralyzed the Federal District and drained its economy. More than a pacifistic manifestation, it seemed a purposeful act of intimidation against the Electoral Tribunal. He claimed fraud everywhere, but he seems to have provided little and vague evidence. He duly presented his arguments in the Tribunal, and the Tribunal took action. His unnecessary acts of verbal violence damaged the young Mexican democracy.
Instead, López Obrador must refrain from further protesting, honor the name of his “democratic revolution” (read “Party of the Democratic Revolution”), consolidate his political force and build an effective political opposition that checks Calderón’s new government, while preparing for the next election. Further protesting and agitation of his followers could catalyze a bloody civil war that should not and cannot be permitted. Here, a war in the name of the poor cannot be justified, for its consequences could be disastrous and millions could die. I do not think López Obrador would be in favor of such a scenario, but his actions have gone too far and he must stop now.
What if, however, there was indeed fraud in the election? What if the Electoral Tribunal was another demonstration of the PAN’s tough grasp of political power? What would López Obrador’s options be if he has been in fact the victim of an institutionalized conspiracy against his political aspirations and the aspirations of the Mexican poor? If this situation were true, it would be no democracy at all. But the modernization of the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE), along with Fox’s earlier victory that finally ended the decade-old quasi-dictatorship of the now weakened Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), makes these questions at least somewhat improbable. Although I believe in democracy, it is obvious that democracies can be misused in certain circumstances to oppress. One has only to remember how the Mexican government attempted to keep López Obrador from running in the election due to questionable accusations of corruption during his term as Mexico City’s mayor.
Yet López Obrador must find the means to build a legal political opposition. The system could be oppressive. The system could be in fact a form of perpetuation of the power of the bourgeois, the oppression of the poor and the status quo of marked class inequality in Mexico. It could be. But rather than risking war and violence based on a “could be,” or rather than risking war and violence based on the valid eradication of obvious inequalities in Mexico through reform, López Obrador must preserve the democratic order that allows him to question the oppression he so clearly despises. A young democratic order that regained momentum after the decline of the quasi-dictatorial PRI could allow López Obrador to consolidate his forces and possibly become president in the next elections. If he wants to change Mexico, he must trust the democratic institutions and the Electoral Tribunal.
A major fraud seems unlikely. And I doubt that a less pervasive fraud could have had enough impact in the results to change the outcome of the elections. López Obrador must remember the young age of the Mexican democracy. His democratic socialism is not impossible, but is a reality in Latin America. It is difficult to implement, it is initially antipathetic, it is an unfinished process wherever it is applied, and it is human and therefore imperfect. But if López Obrador is as pragmatic as he seems to be (“The Economist” compares him to the president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva), his project is full of hope and plausibility. The alliance formed by López Obrador (for López Obrador is and should be merely the face of a broader movement) has the opportunity of defending the Mexican poor from any grievances caused by the Calderón government. If it succeeds, it could grow as a nationally and internationally recognized political force that could finally make its entrance to Los Pinos (the Presidential Palace) in the next election. He should not quit; the alliance cannot quit, but his “democratic revolution” must accommodate the Mexican democracy and not vice versa.
jaleman1@swarthmore.edu. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us