| | |  Editorials | Opinions 
Mexico is Gridlocked by Do-Nothing Partisan Politicians
 Patrick Corcoran - mexidata.info
go to original
April 07, 2010
 |  | The majority advocates ignore the fact that Mexico’s legislative playing field is already tilted toward the winning party. |  | | |
On March 17, Enrique Peña Nieto, the State of Mexico governor and overwhelming early front-runner for the 2012 presidency, authored a column in Mexico City's most influential daily paper, El Universal. The piece sparked interest not only because it was more readable than 95 percent of the self-aggrandizing incoherencies to which politicians typically attach their name; it also addressed a major problem facing Mexico's political system.
Peña Nieto argued that there would be less gridlock in Mexico’s political system if the president could hope to enjoy majority support in congress. At present, the barrier to a congressional majority is substantial: there are three parties that typically earn large shares of the vote, which has, for the past 13 years, meant that no party is able to secure 50 percent of any large national vote.
The result of such a status quo has been manifest for more than a decade. Vicente Fox was unable to pass a single reform that significantly modified the nation’s economy or political system. Felipe Calderón has had better luck, but the majority of the reforms enacted in the past three years have been watered down, and no one would say that Calderón has achieved his legislative agenda. Presumably, had either president been blessed with a congressional majority to support him, the results would have been otherwise.
Nonetheless, a few arguments against the mechanisms aiming to fast-track a congressional majority emerged in the days after the Peña Nieto column appeared. One, delivered by Macario Schettino, was that Mexico’s unfortunately large contingent of backwards politicians are the problem, not the institutions in which they serve.
More critical commentary came from Jesús Silva-Herzog, who argued that changes to make a congressional majority more likely are a “shortcut” facilitated by "historic myopia," and that "gifting a majority to the president … would mean an act of violence against pluralism."
None of these are entirely convincing. As to whether the institutions or the individuals are to blame for Mexico’s do-nothing politics, well, they both are to a certain extent. If congressmen were to ignore their parties’ positions and engage in more cross-aisle coalition building, then the absence of majorities wouldn't be such an obstacle. But, seeing as how Mexico’s party discipline resembles that of a cult and any opposition politician’s default answer to the president is always “No, thanks,” that seems an unrealistically high standard to set. And as it waits for its politicians to try to reach it, Mexico stands in danger of letting the unproductive recent years repeat themselves.
Silva-Herzog’s case is likewise incomplete. With his "historical myopia" line Silva-Herzog reminds readers that in the era when the president did have a guaranteed majority, which is to say from the 1930s until 1997, Mexico's politicians did not distinguish themselves as a forward-thinking, problem-solving bunch.
That’s true, but it misunderstands the PRI era’s shortcomings. It wasn't the inability to implement an agenda that made the second half of the twentieth century so damaging, but the fact that the agenda's philosophical tenants, economic nationalism and authoritarian rule, were deeply flawed. Today’s presidents deserve a similar chance to implement their agenda.
At the same time, the majority advocates ignore the fact that Mexico’s legislative playing field is already tilted toward the winning party (though with some guarantees built in for the losers). The leading party’s congressional representation virtually always outstrips its vote total in the elections; for instance, the PRI earned around 40 percent of the votes in July’s election, yet occupies 47 percent of the seats in the Chamber of Deputies.
Peña Nieto, a member of the PRI, suggested a number of measures to address the issue, such as an automatic majority for any party that wins 35 percent of the congressional votes, to further tilt the system toward the winner. That would certainly work, but offering a party that wins 35 percent of the total votes a congressional majority potentially means giving a party rejected by close to two thirds of the electorate complete power over the entire legislative process. That borders on the draconian, but less severe measures are not likely to work.
The most intractable problem in Mexican politics is that there are three big parties, when a presidential system works best with just two. As such, Mexico is saddled with a system in which pluralism and legislative productivity are at cross-purposes. There’s no easy solution to this. Mexicans can either tilt the system even further toward majorities not earned at the ballot box, or do nothing aside from hoping that the issue resolves itself.
I tend to favor the former option, but neither is very appealing.
Patrick Corcoran (corcoran25(at)hotmail.com) is a writer who resides in Torreón, Coahuila. He blogs at Gancho (www.ganchoblog.blogspot.com). |
|
| |
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us