interpreting the Edo Mex municipal elections

Earlier this month, the Estado de Mexico held local elections for representatives to the federal congress (diputados) as well as mayors (presidentes municipales). The foreign press is reading this as a major victory for the PRD and an indication of AMLO's strength. I would caution against both of those inferences.

The PRD won in the two largest cities (suburbs of Mexico City: Nezahualcoyotl and Ecatepec). The PRD previously held the mayorship in Neza and last year's PRD governor candidate did well in both cities. Ecatepec had a PRI mayor, but performance had been disappointing, so the PRD capture of that city hall is understandable. What was largely ignored is that three other leading cities were won by the PAN: Tlalnepantla, Naucalpan and Toluca (the state capital).In all three cases, this was predictable: the PAN had these mayorships and a solid record of accomplishment.

In terms of congressional seats, the PRI is down and the PRD is up, and the PAN was stable.

My interpretation of these data is that Mexican voters do not have party loyalty. Last July, the PRI candidate won half the votes in the state (and here in Toluca). These same voters just gave a comfortable margin to the PAN candidate for mayor, Juan Rodolfo, though last year's PAN candidate for governor got only about a third of the vote.

The implications of this for the forthcoming presidential election is that no party can take the voters for granted.

KRAUZE´S CONCERNS ABOUT AMLO

The highpoint of the March 11 seminar at Stanford was the keynote address by historian Enrique Krauze (author of many articles and books, perhaps most notably La Presidencia Imperial). I knew going in that whatever he would say, he would say it well, no matter how mundane or miniscule the content. What I was not prepared for was the profundity: he cut to the heart of this election, and laid it out bare.
In a little over a half an hour, Krauze covered his Aristotelian roots and Mexican political history to bring us the proper philosophical and historical context for appreciating the importance of this election. Mexico has been evolving over at least two decades toward democracy. For example, the power of the president over the central bank has been greatly reduced.

Krauze did not feign neutrality nor did he exhibit the verneere of a dispassionate scholar. Krauze identified himself as a leftist and passionate advocate of democracy, a democracy which is more than holding elections, but a democracy that maintains transparency and sustains accountability. Krauze acknowledged his enthusiastic support for the recent triumph of Latin American leftists such as Bachelet in Chile and Lula in Brazil (I don't think he mentioned Morales in Bolivia). On the side of disapproval, Krauze mentioned Chavez in Venezuela (and by way of historical example, Peron in Argentina). Although these men were leftists in some sense, and may have had the approval of the masses, they cannot be considered democrats, because they sought to consolidate power and weaken those institutions that provide transparency and accountability.
Krauze had very little to say about the PAN or PRI. He dismissed the PAN as having a "genetic" problem. They evolved during the long period of PRI dictatorship. The PAN emphasized being internally transparent and squeaky clean. They have moral authority, but they just don't know how to run a government (analogy: Walensa in Poland). The PRI only seems to know how to win an election when it controls the government (and since it doesn't, it can't). Krauze raised the issue on stage that I have heard mumbled in private over the past year: the PRI goofed in its internal selection process by handing the nomination to the most widely known, least respected, most unelectable candidate, Roberto Madrazo.

From his philosophical and historical foundation, Krauze expressed his judgment (doubts, concerns) regarding Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Is he another Bachelet or another Chavez? The short answer is neither; AMLO is not a female like Bachelet nor a general like Chavez. But, Krauze seemed genuinely concerned about AMLO's charisma, and in reviewing the record as chief administrator of the Federal District, Krauze was not impressed with AMLO's commitments to due process or transparency. "Tengo grandes dudas que el puede representar mi izquierda" ("I have grave doubts that AMLO will can represent my kind of leftism.") Lopez Obrador could blend his personal charisma with a messianic tendency and revitalize the party-based hegemony of Mexico's past institutions as simply as by pulling in the left wing of the PRI. Krauze's conclusion was "un caudillo carismatico ... altamente peligroso" ("a charismatic authoritarian ... highly dangerous"). One of the audience questions (more of a rebuttal) came from PRD representative Saul Escobar who tried to downplay the messianic themes, but Krauze responded "I see the temptation of absolute power."
Beyond the carefully chosen and clearly enunciated words, the gestures, expressions, and tone of Krauze revealed much. This is not someone criticizing a politician out of envy nor the kind of haughty scorn that academics sometimes have for real world practitioners. Krauze's mood was one of disappointment and fear. He desperately wants Mexico to keep on the progressive path, but fears what kind of detour AMLO might take the country on.

PRI DEFECTIONS: behind the scenes

Over the weekend, several U.S. newspapers have carried or reported on a story published March 17 in El Universal: a defection of some PRI leaders from the Madrazo camp. These 18 high profile PRIistas are federal deputies (i.e., members of the national congress).

American newspapers may imply that this is the first crack in the wall for Madrazo support, and that a flood is soon to follow. This prediction may be right, but we must come to the proper understanding of the present defection. The current crop leaving the Madrazo camp are largely members of the teachers union and this is being done in sympathy with Elba Esther Gordillo (who in the opinion of some should have been the PRI candidate for president). Gordillo was the foremost member of the PRI to try reach across the party aisle to cooperate with President Fox (and both of these brave individuals received the censure of the politicos for putting nation above party). I see this defection of the 18 as punishment of Madrazo for his past sins. The loss of this support was expected, and will not trigger anyone else to jump ship.

One question remaining to be answered is what will become of these 18 (and the charismatic Gordillo and the thousands of school teachers that they represent)? Officially, they have created the "Independent Parliamentary Reform Group." Their sights are set well beyond July's election, and it is unclear how their actions will impact that event.

What Madrazo has to worry about now, is not the loss of these 18 who never supported him, but the future defection of current supporters. PRI candidates always built their defacto campaigns around one issue: "I am going to win, so you better support me." As Madrazo's poll numbers fall deeper into third place, he cannot run on that issue, and if there are any other issues out there, they have not gotten any traction so far.

I do predict a mass of PRI defections, but not for Madrazo's past sins of demoting Ms. Gordillo, but for his present sin of demoting himself in the national polls. Don't expect PRIistas to stick with Madrazo "out of principle."

CARLOS SALINAS WARNS OF AMLO

Sometimes the right message is delivered by the wrong messenger (and instead of being heeded, incites open resistance).

Fifteen years ago, Carlos Salinas de Gortari was the darling of the international business community. He was haled as one who understood the multinational, private enterprise, international finance dimensions of third world development. Indeed, there would be no impetus toward free trade today if CSG had not championed NAFTA (as Americans call it).

Unfortunately, toward the end of his sexenio, it became obvious that the Salinas' regime was rife with corruption, and that his free trade and privitization moves had transformed some millionaires into billionaires, but made subsistence farmers, workers, and even certain segments of the middle class more vulnerable. When he left office in 1994, Salinas became an icon of scorn, with cartoon drawings of a chupacabras figure with the head of Salinas, and a caption "se busca" (a sort of wanted poster).

Now, Salinas is warning his countrymen (well, if he still lived in this country they would be his countrymen) that Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador could undo two decades of progress on the international economic front.

If AMLO actually followed through on his promises, that would be the result.
However, Salinas is the wrong messenger. Many poor Mexicans regard this ex-president as a mouthpiece for international bankers, and when Salinas critises AMLO, this may vindicate his standing ("Wow, AMLO is really going to sock it to the bankers, Yeh!").

There is another ex-president of Mexico, at least as well respected by economists worldwide. Ernesto Zedillo lacks much of the Salinas baggage. Zedillo writes a quarterly column for Forbes, but has otherwise chosen a largely academic life during retirement. Perhaps it is time for Zedillo to speak out on the shape of Mexican politics in 2006.

THE MURDERS OF JUAREZ WOMEN: LOOKING BEYOND THE STATISTICS

Some Mexican government officials are still trying to quell foreign rancor over the continued murders of women in the biggest border city, Ciudad Juarez. Last month, statistics were released that, over the same decade long period, there were more female homicides in Toluca, than in Ciudad Juarez. Sometimes you just know that the numbers can't be right. Toluca is much smaller, mroe stable, and more prosperous. Indeed, on the scale of recreation being high risk / high excitement, Toluca and Juarez would occupy the opposite ends of the spectrum. Toluca is one of the most family-oriented, sober, and somewhat boring places in all of the Republic, while Ciudad Juarez would only compete with Acapulco and Tijuana for the title of extreme excitement/risk. Bottom line: those numbers coming out of Toluca must represent the entire state of Mexico (of which Toluca is the capital) and probably also include high population, high poverty, high instability areas such as the slums around Mexico City (e.g., Ecatepec, Nezahualcoyotl).

Now there are some new comparison numbers, clarifying the figures by state and city. During 2005 there were 32 reported female homicides in Ciudad Juarez, but 141 in Acapulco. These cities are comparable in size (maybe with Juarez a little more populous) and both with well earned reputations for nightlife and drug wars.
I hope that the Mexican government(s federal, state, and munipipal) put the proper spin on these numbers. The conclusion is not "Juarez has no significant problem" but "other Mexican cities have the same problem of femicide" (though they have been slow to acknowledge the fact).

Juarez must be seen as the canary in the mine shaft. It came to international attention because of its proximity to the U.S., the presence of U.S. companies as maquiladoras, and the unexplained nature of so many of the disappearances (perhaps suggesting a serial killer or killers).

Perhaps Acapulco's murders have not gotten onto the radar screen because few were mysterious (with the exception of the serial prostitute killings mentioned last July). Most seem to follow the age old pattern of domestic violence.

It is laudable that all levels of government have sprung into action over the dozen or so politically related male homicides here in Acapulco last year, but lamentable that twelve times that number of female homicides did not trigger a similar response (perhaps, because those killings do not make the nightly news broadcasts in Cincinnati).

Who will Convergencia Support?

In last year's Mexico State elections, the Convergencia party formed a nominal alliance with the PAN. That did not make much sense for a party which tries to pattern itself on the European socialist model. It certainly did not help Ruben Mendoza, PAN candidate for governor, but Convergencia is still weak throughout most of the country. One big exception is here in Acapulco, where the last two mayoral elections were fought between the PRD-PT alliance and the Convergencia. The PRI and the PAN were not on the radar screen. In both elections, the Convergencia was headed by Luis Walton, and lost in a close race. Between the two elections, Walton ran for Congress, and this year he is running for Senate. He has pretty much become synonymous with this party in GRO, and he shocked a few of his supporters by indicating that he might be supporting Lopez Obrador for the presidency.

From the perspective of both the party and its leader, this makes sense. The PT-PRD-Convergencia are all to the left of the PRI (which is all over, but mostly center-right), and the PAN. Walton needs to support a winner, and AMLO looks like that.

Krauze expresses concerns about AMLO

The highpoint of the March 11 seminar at Stanford was the keynote address by historian Enrique Krauze (author of many articles and books, perhaps most notably La Presidencia Imperial). I knew going in that whatever he would say, he would say it well, no matter how mundane or miniscule the content. What I was not prepared for was the profundity: he cut to the heart of this election, and laid it out bare.

In a little over a half an hour, Krauze covered his Aristotelian roots and Mexican political history to bring us the proper philosophical and historical context for appreciating the importance of this election. Mexico has been evolving over at least two decades toward democracy. For example, the power of the president over the central bank has been greatly reduced.

Krauze did not feign neutrality nor did he exhibit the verneere of a dispassionate scholar. Krauze identified himself as a leftist and passionate advocate of democracy, a democracy which is more than holding elections, but a democracy that maintains transparency and sustains accountability. Krauze acknowledged his enthusiastic support for the recent triumph of Latin American leftists such as Bachelet in Chile and Lula in Brazil (I don’t think he mentioned Morales in Bolivia). On the side of disapproval, Krauze mentioned Chavez in Venezuela (and by way of historical example, Peron in Argentina). Although these men were leftists in some sense, and may have had the approval of the masses, they cannot be considered democrats, because they sought to consolidate power and weaken those institutions that provide transparency and accountability.

Krauze had very little to say about the PAN or PRI. He dismissed the PAN as having a “genetic” problem. They evolved during the long period of PRI dictatorship. The PAN emphasized being internally transparent and squeaky clean. They have moral authority, but they just don’t know how to run a government (analogy: Walensa in Poland). The PRI only seems to know how to win an election when it controls the government (and since it doesn’t, it can’t). Krauze raised the issue on stage that I have heard mumbled in private over the past year: the PRI goofed in its internal selection process by handing the nomination to the most widely known, least respected, most unelectable candidate, Roberto Madrazo.

From his philosophical and historical foundation, Krauze expressed his judgment (doubts, concerns) regarding Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Is he another Bachelet or another Chavez? The short answer is neither; AMLO is not a female like Bachelet nor a general like Chavez. But, Krauze seemed genuinely concerned about AMLO’s charisma, and in reviewing the record as chief administrator of the Federal District, Krauze was not impressed with AMLO’s commitments to due process or transparency. “Tengo grandes dudas que el puede representar mi izquierda” (“I have grave doubts that AMLO will can represent my kind of leftism.”) Lopez Obrador could blend his personal charisma with a messianic tendency and revitalize the party-based hegemony of Mexico’s past institutions as simply as by pulling in the left wing of the PRI. Krauze’s conclusion was “un caudillo carismatico … altamente peligroso” (“a charismatic authoritarian … highly dangerous”). One of the audience questions (more of a rebuttal) came from PRD representative Saul Escobar who tried to downplay the messianic themes, but Krauze responded “I see the temptation of absolute power.”

Beyond the carefully chosen and clearly enunciated words, the gestures, expressions, and tone of Krauze revealed much. This is not someone criticizing a politician out of envy nor the kind of haughty scorn that academics sometimes have for real world practitioners. Krauze’s mood was one of disappointment and fear. He desperately wants Mexico to keep on the progressive path, but fears what kind of detour AMLO might take the country on.

STANFORD UNIVERSITY HOSTS SEMINAR ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: great quality, poor attendance

On Saturday, March 11, Stanford University hosted a seminar on the upcoming Mexican presidential election. There were three sessions: one on the role of the media, the keynote address by Enrique Krauze, and the electoral agenda of the (three main) political parties.

The morning session on the media was moderated by Leo Zuckerman (most famous for his column in El Universal and work on Radio Formula). Panelists included Marco Antonio Gomez (of IFE, the Federal Electoral Institute), Javier Corral (PAN senator), Martin Espinosa (radio Grupo Imagen), and Roy Campos (Consulta Mitofsky). It was the presentations by Campus and Krauze that were most profound, and merit separate entries on this blog.

The afternoon session was moderated by Stanford Professor Alberto Diaz-Cayeros who deserves high marks for keeping the discussion focused and on time. The PAN was represented by Federico Doring, the PRD by Saul Escobar, and the PRI by Roberta Lajous. Doring was content to repeat the PAN positions and quantify the nation's progress over the Fox sexenio. He largely ignored the other two panelists, and they ignored him. Lajous and Escobar traded barbs on issues such as crime and corruption. Both tried to do extreme makeovers on the perceptions of their candidates. Lajous tried to portray Madrazo as an experienced and competent former governor and dedicated internal reformer of the PRI. Escobar tried to portray the PRD as seeking to reduce Mexico's traditional, authoritarian corporate state mentality by adopting a more European Parliamentary governmental structure.

Questions from the audience were permitted. Some of them seemed like mini speeches, and none succeeded in raising any issues that the panelists could not address.

If there was one theme which could be found in all the presentations, it was that no one is making a confident prediction as to the outcome. Things are still fluid.

The presentations were in Spanish (except for some introductory remarks by Stanford Professor Larry Diamond) and very few people in the audience requested headphones for translation. Indeed, only about hundred people (mostly of student age) dotted the Kresge Auditorium.

This seminar was presented by "Mexicanos at Stanford" and the John S. Knight Fellowships for journalists and Yost House. Other sponsors included the Center on Democracy, Development, and Rule of Law, the Center for Latin American Studies, New Student Initiatives, Bechtel International Center, El Guiding Concilio, El Centro Chicago, Camacho Fund, Associated Students of Stanford University Speakers Bureau and United Airlines.

Aznar meddling?

When I lived in Spain back in 2000, one of the highpoints was to attend a Partido Popular campaign rally in Salamanca. Aznar arrived a half hour late, but the packed crowd in the convention center cheered him on. Not since the halcion days of Ronald Reagan had I heard such confident and conservative prose. The self-assured Aznar had his eyes focused on his future vision for Spain, and he never took a glimpse to the side to consider how his poll numbers were doing.


Aznar came to Mexico and lent his moral weight to the PANista cause. This Madrid Catholic prep school grad is a soul mate of George Bush in many areas, and naturally gravitated to the PAN (as Chavez gravitated to Lopez Obrador).

Now, some have suggested that Aznar should be kicked out of the country.

Here is what he said back in February in Mexico.

Querido presidente Manuel Espino;

Querido secretario general del Partido Acción Nacional;

Queridas amigas y amigos.

Muchas gracias por recibirme en esta casa, muchas gracias por invitarme a esta casa, muchas gracias por lo que se acaba de leer, menos mal que solamente ha salido una parte, tampoco hay mucho más de currículum, solamente me permito añadir dos cosas, que lo más importante de mi currículum en este momento son dos cosas que no se han dicho, o tres:

Una que tengo dos nietos, lo cual es muy importante y la otra que soy amigo de México y del PAN.

Para mi es una gran alegría estar aquí una vez más en México, estar en la sede con mis amigos del PAN, tengo muy buenos amigos en México, pero mis amigos más amigos están en esta sede, como es natural.

Entonces quiero decirles que para mi es muy grato volver a esta casa, a esta sede y recibir esta invitación porque como ha dicho Manuel Espino, sí recuerdo que hace cinco años fue elegido presidente de Internacional Demócrata Cristiana, que aquí la modernizamos y también la adecuamos en nombre para llamarla Internacional Demócrata de Centro y se hizo en esta misma sala, todavía no existía esta mesa, esto es sólo para gente importante, nosotros estábamos abajo todos.

Se hizo todas las reuniones, se hizo la escena abajo, ahora vengo aquí y vuelvo cinco años después, no en la condición de presidente de la Internacional sino en condición de expresidente de Internacional, era presidente hasta 15 días pero dejé de ser presidente hace 15 días también voluntariamente, yo voy renunciado a las cosas voluntariamente y siguiendo la doctrina de un viejo político español que decía: que lo más importante de ser presidente es que ya nunca te van a poder quitar la condición de ex presidente y esa es una circunstancia siempre ha sido importante.

Ahora soy presidente de honor del presidente de honor del partido (..), ahora soy presidente de honor de la Internacional, ahora soy ex presidente del gobierno de España, ahora solamente soy presidente de la Fundación FAES y con eso estoy muy satisfecho y muy contento pero evidente el no estar en la primera línea política no quiere decir que yo no esté preocupado, que me preocupan mucho naturalmente los asuntos políticos, los asuntos políticos de España y los asuntos políticos de todo el mundo y especialmente también aquí en México.