Testing times for Mexican democracy
Democracy in Mexico was a long time in coming. The 2000 election of President Vicente Fox brought to an end a period of one-party rule by the Institution Revolutionary Party (PRI) that had dominated the country for seventy years. It was hailed as a breakthrough, and yet already the fledgling democracy is under assault from those who helped to achieve it in the first place.
President Fox is a pro-Washington premier who was wildly popular at his inauguration, a photogenic politician who promised much. His stock among Mexicans has, however, rapidly dwindled, largely due to his inability to tackle Mexico’s endemic problems of corruption, poverty and the flood of workers to the United States. His tenure has further been hampered by a humiliating defeat in mid-term parliamentary elections in 2003, wrecking many of his plans for the second half of his presidency.
By law, Fox will step down after his six-year term. Currently the most popular candidate for the 2006 election is the mayor of Mexico City, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. A left-leaning politician, Obrador came to power in 2000, and during his term has ploughed money into welfare programs and other social projects. Most notably, he has authorised the construction of traffic-easing double decker highways, introduced scholarship schemes for poor children and provided a monthly allowance for elderly and the disabled. Whilst his critics maintain that he has lost control of a spiralling civic debt, Obrador’s populist approach, and his strong stance against the corruption that is endemic in the city, have earned him a status that most politicians can only dream about.
Yet his route to the Palacio Nacional looks set to be derailed before it has even begun. On the 8th of April the Mexican Congress voted to strip him of his mayoral immunity from prosecution, thus allowing him to be prosecuted. Obrador’s crime? Contempt of court resulting from a decision to allow construction of a road to a hospital on a piece of disputed land.
The Congressmen who voted against Obrador are abetted by both Vicente Fox and the White House. What are they trying to prevent? The problem for them is that they can see which way the winds are blowing in Latin America. In the first half of this decade, democratic elections have seen left-leaning governments installed in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. In Bolivia, indigenous groups have used peaceful protests and roadblocks to force the resignation of one pro-US President, and are keeping his replacement in check. Recently in Ecuador, thousands of people spilled out onto the streets of Quito to object to President Gutierrez’ sacking of elected Supreme Court members. Meanwhile in Venezuela, the socialist and US-baiting Hugo Chavez has won two elections and successfully fought a hastily arranged recall vote organised by his wealthy (and Washington-backed) opponents. These are the acts of a continent long used to suffering at the whims of Washington and the international community at large, and starting to settle its own destiny. The White House, preoccupied by the Middle East, has belatedly realised that much of its own hemisphere is now set against the Washington consensus and the IMF-imposed diktats that have brought more misery and equality to the Americas with few of the promised benefits. With the Free Trade Area of the Americas looking stillborn, there is concern emanating from the US that a leftwards shift in Mexico could disrupt the NAFTA treaty and cause a further schism between the two nations that lie across from each other on the Rio Grande.
Right now, despite his overwhelming popularity, it is unclear whether Obrador will be eligible to run in the 2006 election. On the 24th April, a rally in Mexico City brought out nearly a million followers, who marched silently through the streets, eager to demonstrate their support for the embattled mayor. It is clear that the mayor retains the popularity of his huge constituency, although in more remote parts of the country his profile remains relatively low. Whether he will be allowed to exercise his right to run for the presidency – and indeed whether Mexican democracy will survive its first, tenuous steps – remains to be seen.
President Fox is a pro-Washington premier who was wildly popular at his inauguration, a photogenic politician who promised much. His stock among Mexicans has, however, rapidly dwindled, largely due to his inability to tackle Mexico’s endemic problems of corruption, poverty and the flood of workers to the United States. His tenure has further been hampered by a humiliating defeat in mid-term parliamentary elections in 2003, wrecking many of his plans for the second half of his presidency.
By law, Fox will step down after his six-year term. Currently the most popular candidate for the 2006 election is the mayor of Mexico City, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. A left-leaning politician, Obrador came to power in 2000, and during his term has ploughed money into welfare programs and other social projects. Most notably, he has authorised the construction of traffic-easing double decker highways, introduced scholarship schemes for poor children and provided a monthly allowance for elderly and the disabled. Whilst his critics maintain that he has lost control of a spiralling civic debt, Obrador’s populist approach, and his strong stance against the corruption that is endemic in the city, have earned him a status that most politicians can only dream about.
Yet his route to the Palacio Nacional looks set to be derailed before it has even begun. On the 8th of April the Mexican Congress voted to strip him of his mayoral immunity from prosecution, thus allowing him to be prosecuted. Obrador’s crime? Contempt of court resulting from a decision to allow construction of a road to a hospital on a piece of disputed land.
The Congressmen who voted against Obrador are abetted by both Vicente Fox and the White House. What are they trying to prevent? The problem for them is that they can see which way the winds are blowing in Latin America. In the first half of this decade, democratic elections have seen left-leaning governments installed in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. In Bolivia, indigenous groups have used peaceful protests and roadblocks to force the resignation of one pro-US President, and are keeping his replacement in check. Recently in Ecuador, thousands of people spilled out onto the streets of Quito to object to President Gutierrez’ sacking of elected Supreme Court members. Meanwhile in Venezuela, the socialist and US-baiting Hugo Chavez has won two elections and successfully fought a hastily arranged recall vote organised by his wealthy (and Washington-backed) opponents. These are the acts of a continent long used to suffering at the whims of Washington and the international community at large, and starting to settle its own destiny. The White House, preoccupied by the Middle East, has belatedly realised that much of its own hemisphere is now set against the Washington consensus and the IMF-imposed diktats that have brought more misery and equality to the Americas with few of the promised benefits. With the Free Trade Area of the Americas looking stillborn, there is concern emanating from the US that a leftwards shift in Mexico could disrupt the NAFTA treaty and cause a further schism between the two nations that lie across from each other on the Rio Grande.
Right now, despite his overwhelming popularity, it is unclear whether Obrador will be eligible to run in the 2006 election. On the 24th April, a rally in Mexico City brought out nearly a million followers, who marched silently through the streets, eager to demonstrate their support for the embattled mayor. It is clear that the mayor retains the popularity of his huge constituency, although in more remote parts of the country his profile remains relatively low. Whether he will be allowed to exercise his right to run for the presidency – and indeed whether Mexican democracy will survive its first, tenuous steps – remains to be seen.
posted by DN at 10:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home