The candidates are the absent figures from the campaign. The PAN has based, until now, its campaign on the support of the president; the PRI has a generic message about provocations and its inexhaustible patience. And the conglomerate of parties that supports López Obrador keeps financing the ninth year of his eternal presidential campaign. But of the candidates for deputy and what they could do to make peoples' lives better, almost nothing is said. I mean, their names aren't even mentioned. Later we are amazed at the barest of awareness that people have of the Legislative Branch and its members. They are trivial that they don't matter even in their parties' campaigns.This fits pretty well with the broad historical picture of Mexico painted by Enrique Krauze in Mexico: Biography of Power (as well as many others in many other books): Mexico's path has been determined not by the collective voice of the many, but by the will of the powerful individual. Consequently, even after 12 years of divided government, Mexico's legislature remains an anonymous body of forgettable figures, rather than an equal player in a modern democracy. A quick example: how many of today's presidential hopefuls built their profile in the Senate or in the Chamber of Deputies? Ebrard? No. Creel? No. Peña Nieto? No. Paredes? No. El Peje? No. Gómez Mont? No. Vázquez? No. Beltrones? More than the rest, but, truthfully, no.
This is a deeply ingrained trend, which is unfortunate, because it contributes to government dysfunction at every level.
2 comments:
Does it contribute to disfunction? An argument could be made that as long as the parties are tightly disciplined, the platforms of the individual candidates don't matter. There'd only be disfunction if no party could capture a majority or if none of the party leaderships can compromise on legislation.
The parties do seem pretty disciplined, and so far there have been some major PAN-PRI compromises, so I'm not sure that the system contributes to disfunction.
(BTW, I argued the reverse in Mexico Since 1980. I don't know if I'm devil-advocating or if I've changed my mind.)
Hi Noel, I just started Mexico Since 1980 last night. Just out of curiosity, how is it collaborating with three other authors? Were there ever portions of the book that you didn't agree with so much? Did you all have to sign off on every section?
Dysfunction is probably not the best word. As you mention, the PAN-PRI sort-of alliance accomplished a lot legislatively, although it remains to be seen if that sort of arrangement was an anomaly or if it can be repeated regularly.
Nevertheless, in terms of developing leaders, providing a check on the executive, and representing the local interest of their constituency, a Congress with a bit more prestige would be helpful.
Furthermore, I think the parties are likely to remain disciplined (again, because the foot soldiers are deferential to the party authority), but the executive-legislative relationship is top-heavy: if Calderón and Beltrones aren't getting along, then any chance of collaboration is kaput.
Post a Comment