| | |  Editorials | Opinions | April 2009 
Jokes and Charades
 Fernando Dworak - The News
go to original
| | (Jorge Del Ángel/The News) | |
One of the many things Mexicans feel chauvinistically proud of is our witty, sharp and often cruel sense of humor. We have long been prone to creating jokes about anything from foreigners to national disasters and laughing about them all.
This tendency is recognized by foreigners such as surrealist author Andre Breton who once declared after a visit here that Mexico was the privileged homeland of black humor.
But if we are so willing to laugh when the joke is on others, we ought to be expected to keep laughing when the joke is on us.
An examination of two recent incidents might give us much to laugh about: the Texican Whopper Affair, and the Chamber's rejection of the 2002-2003 public spending accounts.
Last Tuesday, Burger King Corporation put an end to its "Texican Whooper" campaign in Spain after Mexico's Ambassador Jorge Zermeño complained that it "improperly used the stereotyped image of a Mexican." He also argued that the ads violated our national laws regarding the use of the flag.
After looking at the ads, and especially the TV spots, I found nothing that might insult Mexicans despite Zermeño's - and other hyper-nationalists - have claimed.
As a matter of fact, the campaign transmits a message of teamwork and cooperation. Neither the Texan nor the Mexican is portrayed as inferior to the other - just different in their abilities.
So were our cruel and crude jokes about Spaniards taken into consideration when we objected to this light-hearted characterization. Our attitude should be that it doesn't matter how others might portray Mexicans, they are more vulnerable than we are and we should easily be able to exploit that fact.
The best reaction would have been to laugh at the ads, then sit back while our publicists designed wittier campaigns against Spaniards.
On the other hand, by playing victim we make ourselves the butt of the joke. I can only imagine what the Spanish public might think about Mexicans after this childish tantrum.
But what concerns me most is that Zermeño invoked the violation of a Mexican law that can only be applied in our country. That is a basic principle of lawmaking. By asking for the ad to be withdrawn using this argument is to expose us to further ridicule.
And let's not forget that Zermeño was a legislator for many years - a federal deputy from 1991-94, a senator from 2000-06 and deputy again in 2006 when he served as Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies before going to Spain.
It seems that the joke has fallen even harder on him. Let's hope he retains his dignity.
Speaking of legislators, let's go to the second incident .
Last Wednesday, in a show truly fit for the Roman Colosseum in its heyday, opposition deputies rejected the public spending audit for 2002 and 2003, claiming the Vicente Fox administration was corrupt. They are threatening to repeat the show next week when they analyze the public accounts for 2004 and 2005.
Spectacular as this event seems, were opposition deputies really calling for accountability, or they were mounting just another charade as a campaign ploy? Unfortunately, evidence suggests it is the latter.
écording to the Constitution (article 47, fraction VI), the Chamber of Deputies revises the public accounts of the previous year - that is, a year after a budget is exercised. The document is elaborated by the federal auditor.
Based on this rule, the deputies should be analyzing the 2007 audit, which was recently presented to them by the Comptroller. But they don't dare do that since it might expose some governors from their own parties for misusing federal funds.
And following this argument, it gets even worse. The 2002-2005 public accounts should have been analyzed and voted on in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, respectively. This means they have been neglecting their responsibility for years, saving it for a special occasion - a federal midterm election.
I'm neither making an apology for the Fox administration nor condemning the politicization of a constitutional tool. But I am against selective abuse and that is what happened here.
Unfortunately, the electorate has no means to demand responsibility. The deputies now rejecting the public accounts of the Fox administration are not the same who approved those budgets.
Furthermore, these same deputies will soon be leaving their posts. They can't be called to accounts since they do not stand for re-election.
Before getting swept up by spectacular charades, it is best to analyze what's behind them and their full context. If you don't, you might be swayed by them.
And then you are the butt of the joke. |
|
| |
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us