Proceso (December 21, 2009) By Denise Dresser, translated by un vato for Borderland Beat
![]()
MEXICO, D.F., December 21 [2009].-- Was Mexico able to transition from an authoritarian regime, in place for more than seven decades, to a real democracy? Does the political regime that prevails today fully represent the opinion of the majority and is power exercised from the perspective of the general interest? Did the Mexican transition culminate? Are we still in it, or, in light of what we are living today and the perspective that is glimpsed, would we have to say openly that the transition failed?
Necessary questions that Carmen Aristegui formulates in her new book, Transition. Essential questions that every citizen who worries about his country's fate should ask himself. Definitive questions to be able to take a position on the political reform initiatives proposed by Felipe Calderon.
Translator's note:
Proceso published this analysis by Denise Dresser almost exactly five years ago. Another year has gone by, we have Enrique Pena Nieto in power, but the questions she posed five years ago regarding Calderon's proposals are still very relevant. Is Mexico a democracy yet? -- un vato
Necessary questions that Carmen Aristegui formulates in her new book, Transition. Essential questions that every citizen who worries about his country's fate should ask himself. Definitive questions to be able to take a position on the political reform initiatives proposed by Felipe Calderon.
Because the words used to describe the Mexican political system are a metric and thermometer of disillusionment. Words such as incomplete democracy. Truncated transition. Failed representation. Institutionalized impunity. Simulation. Regression. Instead of responding to public interests, politics promotes private interests. Instead of solving problems, the institutional framework kicks them forward. Instead of generating incentives for representation, current rules prevent that from happening. Instead of empowering citizens, the transition ends up elevating oligarchs.
Like Juan Pardinas suggests, Mexican democracy is a "green dog". It is too exotic. It is the only one in the world -- except for Costa Rica --in which reelection of legislators or municipal presidents does not exist. It is one of the few that do not allow citizen candidacies. It is exceptional for the absence of the referendum. It is unusual for the prohibition against "citizen initiative".
It is extraordinary for its absence of mechanisms that allow the development of stable legislative majorities. It is very Mexican in the way in which it elevates political parties but ignores the citizens. The Mexican dog insists on being exceptional, but not for the better. That's why its fur is such a different color from that of other canines. That's why it limps instead of running. That's why it provokes street fights with such frequency. That's why it is such a dysfunctional species.
Mounted on its back, it carries abusive syndicates, and blackmailing television networks, and irresponsible political parties, and untouchable governors, and privileged oligarchs. All of them, ancestors of the green dog and beneficiaries of its exceptionality. Without reelection, there is no accountability, nor complete political representation, nor professionalism in the political classes, nor any way to weaken local bosses. Without citizen candidacies there is no way to break the monopoly that the political parties and syndicates have over political life. Without referendum there is no way to involve the public directly in great national issues. Without citizen initiative, there is no way to promote public policies that the political class does not want to touch, including combating monopolies.
If we do not raise voting levels to maintain registration, we will continue to finance small political parties -- like the Green Party or the Workers Party -- who sell themselves to the highest bidder or promote shams like Juanito. [Translator's note: Juanito was a clownish populist candidate for president. -- un vato]. Without preferential initiatives it is not possible to compel Congress to legislate on matters it is avoiding, including promoting competition. Without measures such as the ones being submitted to national debate, citizens will continue to be little more than the fleas on a rabid dog.
And, yes, the proposals come from an unpopular president, cornered, weakened, who came to power under questionable circumstances. And, yes, the list is incomplete because it does not resolve all the problems in the economic system or in the political regime. But that should not be enough to disqualify them from the start; hatred of the messenger should not obscure the importance of the message that he sent. Mexico has a broken democracy that it needs to fix. Mexico has a stalled democracy that it needs to get moving.
Mexico has an elitist democracy that it needs to broaden. Opening spaces for the citizenry so that its participation will matter; generating incentives so that legislators and municipal presidents will be forced to render accounts, which they do not do today; granting power to voters so that they can develop social counterbalances against special interests; creating ties of demand and representation between the governed and their leaders. Reforms with the power to air, shake, re-legitimize, diminish the exceptionality of Mexican democracy and normalize its functioning.
Faced with that, the PRI and the PRD have made a mistake by positioning themselves like they have, claiming that the reforms are "a lie'; or that, "they resuscitate a depleted presidentialism"; or, "they do not want anything to change"; or, "they perpetuate electoral patronage"; or, they are "a distraction"; or, the most important thing is "to control the Executive with ratification of the Secretaries of State"; or, "I have serious reservations about models of political organization tested in other latitudes, but that do not have a history, condition or idiosyncrasy such as Mexico has"; or, "the citizens are not ready for that".
By responding like this, Carlos Navarrete and Jesus Ortega and Enrique Pena Nieto and Beatriz Paredes reveal where they stand: close to the status quo and far from the citizenry; close to the party rule system they want to preserve and far from what Mexico needs to do to dismantle it; close to the spurious argument of "exceptionalism" and far from the democratic normality that the country demands.
Training the green dog will require more that what has up to now been proposed, but the contemplated measures help place a democratic leash around its neck. To force the dog to obey the citizens instead of biting them, it is imperative to discuss: opening up the media, political party financing, eliminating legislative immunity, public demonstrations, strengthening autonomous agencies, combating corruption, and everything else that will allow Mexicans to protect their rights. Everything that will force political parties to surrender some of their power.
Everything that refreshes political representation. Everything that can pull Mexico out of the pack of exotic democracies and put it in the litter of more normal democracies. And that way, tame the green dog.
It is extraordinary for its absence of mechanisms that allow the development of stable legislative majorities. It is very Mexican in the way in which it elevates political parties but ignores the citizens. The Mexican dog insists on being exceptional, but not for the better. That's why its fur is such a different color from that of other canines. That's why it limps instead of running. That's why it provokes street fights with such frequency. That's why it is such a dysfunctional species.
Mounted on its back, it carries abusive syndicates, and blackmailing television networks, and irresponsible political parties, and untouchable governors, and privileged oligarchs. All of them, ancestors of the green dog and beneficiaries of its exceptionality. Without reelection, there is no accountability, nor complete political representation, nor professionalism in the political classes, nor any way to weaken local bosses. Without citizen candidacies there is no way to break the monopoly that the political parties and syndicates have over political life. Without referendum there is no way to involve the public directly in great national issues. Without citizen initiative, there is no way to promote public policies that the political class does not want to touch, including combating monopolies.
If we do not raise voting levels to maintain registration, we will continue to finance small political parties -- like the Green Party or the Workers Party -- who sell themselves to the highest bidder or promote shams like Juanito. [Translator's note: Juanito was a clownish populist candidate for president. -- un vato]. Without preferential initiatives it is not possible to compel Congress to legislate on matters it is avoiding, including promoting competition. Without measures such as the ones being submitted to national debate, citizens will continue to be little more than the fleas on a rabid dog.
And, yes, the proposals come from an unpopular president, cornered, weakened, who came to power under questionable circumstances. And, yes, the list is incomplete because it does not resolve all the problems in the economic system or in the political regime. But that should not be enough to disqualify them from the start; hatred of the messenger should not obscure the importance of the message that he sent. Mexico has a broken democracy that it needs to fix. Mexico has a stalled democracy that it needs to get moving.
Mexico has an elitist democracy that it needs to broaden. Opening spaces for the citizenry so that its participation will matter; generating incentives so that legislators and municipal presidents will be forced to render accounts, which they do not do today; granting power to voters so that they can develop social counterbalances against special interests; creating ties of demand and representation between the governed and their leaders. Reforms with the power to air, shake, re-legitimize, diminish the exceptionality of Mexican democracy and normalize its functioning.
Faced with that, the PRI and the PRD have made a mistake by positioning themselves like they have, claiming that the reforms are "a lie'; or that, "they resuscitate a depleted presidentialism"; or, "they do not want anything to change"; or, "they perpetuate electoral patronage"; or, they are "a distraction"; or, the most important thing is "to control the Executive with ratification of the Secretaries of State"; or, "I have serious reservations about models of political organization tested in other latitudes, but that do not have a history, condition or idiosyncrasy such as Mexico has"; or, "the citizens are not ready for that".
By responding like this, Carlos Navarrete and Jesus Ortega and Enrique Pena Nieto and Beatriz Paredes reveal where they stand: close to the status quo and far from the citizenry; close to the party rule system they want to preserve and far from what Mexico needs to do to dismantle it; close to the spurious argument of "exceptionalism" and far from the democratic normality that the country demands.
Training the green dog will require more that what has up to now been proposed, but the contemplated measures help place a democratic leash around its neck. To force the dog to obey the citizens instead of biting them, it is imperative to discuss: opening up the media, political party financing, eliminating legislative immunity, public demonstrations, strengthening autonomous agencies, combating corruption, and everything else that will allow Mexicans to protect their rights. Everything that will force political parties to surrender some of their power.
Everything that refreshes political representation. Everything that can pull Mexico out of the pack of exotic democracies and put it in the litter of more normal democracies. And that way, tame the green dog.