The Center for American Progress, which has an “Americas Project,” was host to a program today, shown on C-SPAN: “Mexico’s Presidential Election Results: What do they mean for the United States?”
Dr. Jorge Castaneda, Foreign Minister in Mexico 2000 – 2003, gave the keynote address, speaking in Spanish and English. He is a a renowned public intellectual and political scientist, currently a professor at NYU. I recommend his “Latin America’s Left Turn” published in the May/June 2006 issue of “Foreign Affairs” in which he identified two lefts in the region, one populist and narrow-minded, the other with radical roots, now modern and internationalist.
Panelists:
- Arturo Valenzuela, Director, Center for Latin American Studies, Georgetown University, and former Special Assistant to Pres. Clinton, expert in U.S.- Latin American relations, he headed a delegation to Mexico to monitor campaign fairness. I recommend his editorial, “El estado de la democracia en México”
- James R. Jones, Co-Chairman, ManattJones Global Strategies, and former United States Ambassador to Mexico 1993 – 1997
- Joy Olson, Executive Director, Washington Office on Latin America
- Armando Guzman, Wash. Bureau Chief for TV Azteca.
I wish Congress could be forced to see it. Maybe the lights would finally go on for those who collectively have pressed upon the American public an image of Mexico as a country of groseros who litter the desert on the way to Home Depot.
It may surprise some, Mr. Guzman said, but not everybody wants to work in the fields in the United States. The most important word in Mexico today is “jobs.”
The speakers agreed we have vital interests in a strong hemisphere, with a stable Mexico and growing economy. Yet, the U.S. has ignored these interests. We have failed to think about Mexico strategically.
Dr. Valenzuela said much the same thing when he spoke in May on a panel at the American Enterprise Institute about U.S.-Mexican relations. His remarks are worth the read.
What does it actually mean to think about Mexico strategically? One is to understand what’s going on there and to take steps here that will in fact help to produce what would be the best outcome. For the United States, with a country like Mexico, 100 million people, proud traditions, proud institutions and so on, the last thing you want is some kind of clumsy interventionism… We’re talking about strategic alliance with a country, which is something we’ve been forging…
Into the void have fallen the shallow distractions of domestic politics such as the immigration debate. No interest is taken in whether the U.S. is meeting its NAFTA obligations, or in a safety net for the regions where NAFTA has had a negative impact. No discussion addresses the big picture of stability.
U.S. policy should recognize that the half of the Mexican population which lives in poverty, with no benefits, should be brought into the system, Amb. Jones thinks. This requires economical competitiveness and stability. We should support — with actions, not rhetoric — a system which gives hope: education on the Asian model, health care, infrastructure, and rule of law in which both the people and investors can have confidence.
Among too many in Washington, there has been a discounting of the views of the poor, said Ms. Olson, an assumption that if they were more educated they wouldn’t vote populist. Fear-mongerers called Mexico City’s mayor and presidential candidate Lopez Obrador “a danger to Mexico.”
In fact, democratically-elected governments in Latin America are bound to have a left tilt. Dr. Castaneda described three reasons in his article:
The first was that the fall of the Soviet Union would help the Latin American left by removing its geopolitical stigma. …
The second point was that regardless of the success or failure of economic reforms in the 1990s and the discrediting of traditional Latin American economic policies, Latin America’s extreme inequality (Latin America is the world’s most unequal region), poverty, and concentration of wealth, income, power, and opportunity meant that it would have to be governed from the left of center. …
Third, the advent of widespread democratization and the consolidation of democratic elections as the only road to power would, sooner or later, lead to victories for the left — precisely because of the social, demographic, and ethnic configuration of the region. …
Overall, this makeover of the radical left is good for Latin America. Given the region’s inequality, poverty, still-weak democratic tradition, and unfinished nation building, this left offers precisely what is needed for good governance in the region.
Because the victory margin of 200,000 votes is so slim, and 64% of the voters opposed him (it was a three-way race), president-elect Felipe Calderon has a difficult challenge. Ms. Olson said that serious unification requires more than appointments from the other parties. The new government must hear the voice of the opposition voters. Dr. Valenzuela observed that Calderon must find a grand coalition to make the necessary changes, the institutional reforms. “De la diversidad política se requiere la capacidad de transar en búsqueda de consensos.” This is the significance for the United States of the election in Mexico.
Lopez Obrador is popular, obviously, but he didn’t necessarily embrace the future. Dr. Castaneda wrote:
López Obrador has stated that he will not allow private investment in PEMEX, Mexico’s state-owned oil company, or in the national electric power company. He has given away money right and left in Mexico City, financing his magnanimity with debt and federal tax revenues.
Often using democratic means, [the populist left] has often sought to concentrate its power through new constitutions, take control of the media and the legislative and judicial branches of government, and perpetuate its rule by using electoral reforms, nepotism, and the suspension of constitutional guarantees. …López Obrador has already committed himself to “cleaning up” Mexico’s Supreme Court and central bank and opposes any autonomy for the country’s infant regulatory agencies.
Perhaps Lopez Obrador’s pragmatism would have overpowered anti-American sentiments at times. Perhaps, too, the more centrist Calderon will sweep his broom too softly at times.
The elections in Mexico are important because of confidence in the process. This is, after all, a country with only 12 years of real democracy. In Dr. Valenzuela’s words:
We tend to be too much worried about individuals in foreign policy and leaders in foreign policy than we are concerned about structures, processes, institutions. It’s not an issue of leaders, it’s an issue of whether or not in fact Mexico can become governable. Frankly, the relationship with the United States is going to be affected by whether or not Mexico is being viable.
A coalition in Mexican government is now more necessary than ever, Dr. Valenzuela wrote.
Reformas al sistema presidencial que incentiven la conformación de gobiernos de coalición son ahora más necesarias que nunca, como también el fortalecimiento del estado de derecho y de las instituciones democráticas. La transición se dio con Fox, el éxito de la transición se dará con su sucesor.
If Mexico were as well-off as Canada, the new dynamic would bring respect — respect which is missing, now. So long as U.S. politicians focus myopically on building a wall, rather than on the complexities of a helpful partnership, they do a great disservice to both countries.
NPR’s July 8 story about Lopez Obrador supporters claiming fraud and demanding a recount is here.
