Not Voting and the Onset of Early Alzheimer

Jorge Chabat says that Mexico's prohibition on negative campaigning, which has led to a series of anodyne ads that make the election seem like a sensory deprivation chamber, fosters apathy. I'm not convinced that this is entirely true, since Mexico's problems with low voter turnout predate its recent electoral reform, but I certainly agree that the reform's prohibition on negativity was ill-conceived, has been poorly implemented, and will continue to be a burden on Mexican democracy. He also says that although the reform was driven by the PRD, it won't be the primary beneficiary:

Of course, this legislation can be changed. The problem is that if the PRI obtains a majority in Chamber of Deputies in July, do you know when the electoral laws will be changed? Never. Clearly, the PRD never knew whose bidding it was doing.

I guess the idea is that the PRI, with its long list of skeletons closeted away for now and its checkered history leading authoritarian governments, would have the most to lose from an open airing for the parties' warts. Nonetheless, he may be overstating things; the PRI will be able to block reform for at least three years, but then the electoral map will be scrambled once more in 2012.

César Cansino comes at the same question from a different angle:

The decision not to vote, when it is conscious, is also a legitimate choice: it has a significance that projects itself politically. Nor do I share the interpretation that considers the disenchantment of the citizens lies more with the parties or the politicians than with democracy itself, because they have discovered with reluctance that democracy doesn't resolve their immediate problems. Once more, voters here are labeled and their apathy at the ballot box is presumed to be a product more of ignorance and a misunderstanding of what democracy is, because they endow it with meaning it doesn't have. This supposed candor is misapplied; what the majority of Mexicans want from their democracy is that their representatives represent them adequately, better laws and guarantees, and to truly live under the rule of law. Nothing more or less.

This is a confusing paragraph, but if I may take a stab at untangling it, Cansino is saying that a) vote abstention isn't so bad if it reflects a genuine protest, and b) the parties and the politicians are not the problem, democracy itself is, because it can't provide voters with what they want.

First, I don't buy the idea that any significant proportion of the not voters are not voting in active protest. Such an explanation could be used to retroactively explain a lack of electoral enthusiasm, but it doesn't qualify as legitimate participation. I don't mean to wag my finger at non-voters, but who is Cansino kidding? They don't vote because voting is a pain and no candidate sets them on fire. It's not a crime, but let's not confuse ourselves by pretending it's a virtue. 

Second, I am astounded that he bases his critique on democracy on its failure to obtain meaningful results, and then all but absolves the political actors of any responsibility. Usually, commentators like to humanize their villains, to make them juicier targets. Here Cansino does the opposite; he "abstractifies" them. As a connoisseur of political punditry, I find the script-flipping intriguing, but ultimately it is ineffective, a bit like the wildcat offense. 

Tactics of argumentation aside, I don't understand how he can direct his guns at democracy in general, rather than at democracy as it is practiced in Mexico. Since democracy has produced the world's most liberal and wealthiest societies, and since the results Mexicans want from their government are not lacking in most developed democracies, wouldn't at least some of the blame have to be laid at the feet of the elected officials? To return to another football analogy: if the most effective defenses are 3-4s, but your team's 3-4 has you giving up 42 a game, then don't you have to take a look at the personnel? If Cansino's general point is that it's not fair to blame voters for not voting, well, I agree that such an explanation is limited and unhelpful, but to go from there to blaming democracy in the abstract seems like a step in the wrong direction. 

I read another piece on abstention in the last couple of days, but I can't for the life of me remember who wrote it or where I saw it, so no more comments on this subject as I worry about my enfeebled memory.