Arjan Shahani argues at Americas Quarterly that Mexico needs a presidential runoff, so that winning candidates have a stronger mandate than 35 percent of the votes, and some 20 percent of the total electorate. True enough! A second round would certainly alleviate that somewhat unseemly facet of Mexican politics, and would certainly an improvement. (It would also give journalists an easy topic to write about for another several months.)
However, that lack of mandate in and of itself isn't Mexico's foremost problem; the real issue is that weak presidents have a hard time enacting any agenda. But that's not so much a factor of the lack of support for the president as it is a product of a tripartite political landscape existing over top of a presidential system. If Calderón (who had approval ratings brushing up against 70 percent for much of his year, you may remember) had won a second round against AMLO, presumably the PRD would have emerged less intransigent, but he still would have had to deal with a majority-opposition Congress, one in which the incentives for the opposition were still to block or water down any presidential agenda item that comes down the pike. That's the problem that needs to be addressed, and I don't see any easy way to do so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Weak presidents, or a balance of powers? The usual complaint about the pre-1996 reformed electoral system was that the President had too much power... and was the premise of Enrique Krauze's "Biography of Power". While run-offs might avoid situations like the dubious legitimacy of the present administration, they also just move the political horse-trading into the executive branch.
Thank you for reading and further discussing my Americas Quarterly blogpost. You are completely right with regards to Congress turning Presidents they oppose into lame ducks. This happened to Fox and to Calderón and unless Peña Nieto wins the 2012 election, it will happen to the next president as well.
Two variables to consider as well: Do you hold the congressional elections on the first round, or the second? If the former, you risk a ton of fragmentation - why not have a go at the presidency, and a separate congressional list, to jockey for the horse trading in the second - and on the second, you will likely have a convergence effect where options crystallize around a 2-party system, despite some splitting of the vote. And second, do you move toward a single-member district in the US, which in Mexico also very likely would manufacture a majority and kill off anyone but the two strongest parties
Aguachile, the only problem with having them in the second your is that what if it doesn't go to a second round? Do you make a second round mandatory even if one candidate gets 45 or 50 percent? As far as the single district candidates, I think that might be good for what Mexico needs, but neither one is without its problems. I like the idea of a party being able to have a safe, nationally focused seat for its most talented members, and also being able to balance some of the ridiculous single-district issues from affecting issues of national import, ie Ben Nelson and Nebraska in the HRC debate. However, it's probable worth the trade-off in Mexico's case--anything to get the system down to two big parties.
Arjan, thanks for reading and thanks for the comment. I think it will probably even happen if Enrique Peña Nieto wins, though of course everything depends on the composition of the Congress.
Richard, I remember having a slightly different reading of Krauze's book. Not that it was too much power, necessarily, but that Mexico is defied to a large degree by whether the man at the top grabs and embraces the power (and all that entails) or whether he shrinks from it.
Single-member districts for the entire country a la the United States would then likely turn Mexico into a two-party system, but that will not be without its costs, as it will drastically reduce representativeness and we risk, as AMLO would say, a "PRIAN." But it is interesting to note that the anti-party, civil society-esque, voto nulo etc (casting wide here) is arguing in favor of more single member districts in the name of representativeness - but that the left in Europe for the longest time wanted proportional representation. Kind of turned upside down. One could also, on the contrary and persuasively argue for cancelling ALL single member districts in favor of larger PR lists, but it seems to me the debate is heading in the absolute opposite direction. PRI and EPN in particular speak of reducing the PR list to 100 or even get rid of it completely - it sure would benefit the PRI right now.
Here's a strike for something completely unrealistic but something that would force the parties to work together: A parliamentary system with a prime minister, and a constructive vote of no confidence (you can't kick out PM until you have a majority coalition ready to take his/her place). Now I hardly think that will happen - but I'd love to see it..
Why is there the assumption that two party system are better than a multi-party system. Other than the United States, I can't think of a single country where this is the norm. If anything, it's one reason the U.S. is so reluctant to consider political and social innovation except in the most incremental fashion. The exceptions were either during the early20th century (when the U.S. had three major parties, and a couple of regional ones) or when there was an overwhelming majority for one party (the Ds in the 1930s, and the Rs during Reagan's administration).
The other problem with highly limited party states (as Mexico was before the 1990s, and which the main parties would like to force it back into) is that substantial legitimate minority groups are forced out of the political process... dangerous in a country with a history of political violence. Whether the ELZN would pay any attention to Marcos' abstention campaign if they were a party, and able to win at least plurinomial seats is something I tend to doubt.
Anyway, not being a voter here (though I expect I will be shortly), it's all academic and this doesn't seem to be a particularly hot button issue with anyone.
"One could also, on the contrary and persuasively argue for cancelling ALL single member districts in favor of larger PR lists, but it seems to me the debate is heading in the absolute opposite direction." Definitely seems to be true to me. I'd be willing to bet a dollar at even money that there will be less pluris six years from now. Takers?
Richard, I think the issue is not that it has to be more like the US (again, I rather like elements of the plurinominal process), but rather that three parties in a presidential system tend toward obstruction, which I think Mexico since 97 certainly demonstrates. The way around that is the disappearance of one party, or the creation of a parliamentary system, in which the winning party has a coalition partner. Personally, were I starting from scratch, I'd probably go with the second, but I'm not sure I feel that about Mexico in 2012.
As to whether or not it's a hot-button issue, I'm not sure I agree with that. Obviously political-system debate isn't going to get as much passion as, say, abortion, but the amount of attention paid to these issues in recent years in many circles has been pretty striking IMO. Beltrones political reform proposal (with a Sec de Gob who would function more like a prime minister and be approved by congress), Imagen media's campaign against the pluris, Calderón's own reform proposal in Dec. 2009--I think there a pretty strong amount of interest in non-ivory tower settings about how Mexico needs to reorient its political system.
Not ivory-towerish, but simply that any prescriptions I might offer are purely theoretical, not being a voter, nor even a citizen. As far back as Miguel Alemán's presidency, the party in power has proposed various changes that they see as being to their advantage.
When you come down to it, there's no reason legislators have to be chosen by geographical area, as opposed to say, economic sector or some other social commonality (Bolivia elects senators by cultural affiliation). Not that I'd recommend Mexico adopt something like this, but that one can make innumerable proposals that are said to confer legitimacy on a government.
All these are perfectly decent proposals, but I don't see where any of them actually confer more legitimacy on any particular government than any other structure.
Being a little ivory towerish myself, I'd rather they concentrated on delivery rather than packaging... less patronage and more merit-based civil service positions, and professional legislative support staff.
I think the thing for me is that it's not primarily an issue of legitimacy; it's one of being able to enact legislation and pursue an agenda. It's one of basic democratic function. And here also I'd point out that in many ways the US is specifically not a model here, with all its chokepoints and silly Senatorial procedures. It doesn't matter who the president is--if they have no more than 40 percent of the Congressional seats, they are going to have a hard time accomplishing anything.
Post a Comment