When it was defeated by Fox in 2000 and fell to third place with Madrazo in 2006, the collective wisdom of the analysts opined that the so-called uber-party had to renovate itself from the bottom up if it wanted to avoid its disappearance. The PRI hasn't renovated itself, and nevertheless not only has it not died, it is atop the polls.It's easy to attribute losses to deep, structural flaws rather than bad circumstances or tactical errors or just plain bad luck. (See the Republican Party right now.) In Mexico as in the United States, whatever the parties' relative strengths and weaknesses, the big ones are never so screwed that the party brand will cause a good candidate running a good campaign to lose to a bad candidate. This means that the abiding sense of doom conveyed in any discussion of the losing party is often overstated. (See the Democratic Party in 2004.)
More Loret:
It turns out that the best electoral offer of the PRI isn't a new face, but old tricks. From the PRI, the electorate doesn't seek democracy, transparency, openness, or more respect for human rights. It seeks results.This is kind of odd in that it separates "results" from democracy, transparency, and the rest. Many of the Mexicans who voted for Fox in 2000 thought that democracy, transparency, etcetera was the result in and of itself. I don't dispute that Mexicans who switch from the PAN or the PRD to the PRI next year will be following the basic pattern of logic that Loret outlines, I just don't think that pattern is going to lead to any long-term PRI success.
Above a certain level of economic and security chaos, "results" is a concept distinguishable from the others that Loret mentions. But if the security situation and the economy stabilize, or if a PRI presidency offers Mexicans a reminder of how little it cares about democracy, transparency, openness, and human rights, then the PRI's lack of concern for those concepts will become increasingly significant.
No comments:
Post a Comment