Pax Gaea Human Rights World Post

Why Mexico's Presidential Election Matters To America

Category: News and Politics

In the closest election ever, Mexico is in the process of recounting the ballots from last week's Presidential Election. For political watchers like me this is a very exciting event on a number of levels.

First and foremost, this recount of the ballots harks back to our own 2000 Presidential Election. The two major contestants, Felipe Calderon of the National Action Party (PAN) and the heir apparent of Vincente Fox, Manuel Lopez Obrador of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), may very well be heading to a showdown in court over the narrow difference in votes, 80,000 or 0.2f the vote counted. There have been numerous accusations of voting irregularities. To boil down how close this vote is, the contested difference is 35.5f the vote for Obrador versus 35.7or Calderon. The story that is being overlooked is the third most popular of the five candidates running for President. Roberto Madrazo, of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) that, until the election of Vincente Fox in 2000, had controlled the Mexican presidency for 71 years, garnered only 22.27 percent of the vote. The Mexican people have pronounced loud and clear that they want progress and change. The question is ... what is the meaning of progress and change to the Mexican people?

Calderon is appealing to Obrador not to take this to the courts and has suggested bring Obrador into his cabinet so that the unified voice of the Mexican majority would be represented in the executive. Were that to be possible, what that would say for the Mexican people is that the interests of business and economic progress -- the hallmarks of the Calderon PAN Party -- and the interests of the common and poor people, -- as expressed in Obrador's PRD -- would unite in one common administration, and the potential of real reform could be possible in Mexico.

The concern, of course, is that, in the six years of a a Calderon presidency, Obrador and the PRD would be marginalized and the interests of the peasant and lower middle classes would be compromised for the sake of business. Vincente Fox's victory over the PRI was to bring modern practices to the business environment and transparency and reform to a very corrupt political system.There was great faith that Fox would put his vast exective experience (he was the President of Coca Cola Mexico prior to entering politics) would help make NAFTA of true, tangible value to the Mexican worker. With the election of George Bush to the United States presidency, there was great faith that real economic opportunity would come to Mexican business. Had not 9/11 occurred, there is solid evidence to suggest that those reforms and opportunities would have been realized and this heated fight over immigration would not be occurring today in the United States.

Unlike Fox, Calderon, a Harvard educated Attorney, has spent nearly his entire career in politics, most recently as Secretary of Energy and the President of a development bank in Mexico. While solid in administrative functions, there are questions as to whether or not he possesses the vision and insight to relate to the common Mexican.

Obrador, too, is a professional politician but enjoys great popularity as the Mayor of Mexico City. When Fox's Attorney General attempted to impeach him over a minor land dispute and bring an end to his presidential candidacy, hundred of thousands took to the streets to support him. In the end, the legal action was stopped and Fox was forced to dismiss his Attorney General, thus providing a major populist victory for Obrador. He has been branded as anti-capitalist as he has stressed a priority to increasing social spending, recognizing indigenous rights including land reforms and crack downs on tax evasion, a common accusation toward the Mexican elite.

Politically, Calderon and Obrador are polemics, so could a national coalition government be possible? Would conceding the loss to Calderon put Obrador in favorable standing with those who so adamently oppose his policies and be viewed as an olive branch -- or would it be viewed as a sign of weakness and that olive branch snatched from his hand to be used as a beating switch? And, would Obrador really be given any voice in a Calderon administration, or would his presence be used to weaken the PRD and its populists stance and secure a victory for PAN in 2012? Would this not set up the Mexican people to be dominated by one party for years to come and, thus, re-empower the PRI who would be viewed not as the previous overlords of Mexico, but, ironically, as the sole opposition party to power?

Mexican politics directly affect American politics in that the feelings of hope and opportunity to the common Mexican helps them make the critical choice to either stay and work for a better Mexico or to flee north for the chance at a better life. If Mexicans are choosing to stay in Mexico and to take advantage of economic opportunities in their own country, our fears of a Mexican invasion and, with it, the power of accompanying political rhetoric to combat it, wither and blow away. Likewise, lower paying, less prestigious jobs on this side of the border are forced, by virtue of an evaporated labor pool, to become better paying and, thus, more attractive to American workers.

Calderon brings hope to a desperate Mexican business community and Obrador brings hope to a desperate segment of the Mexican populace. How this election finally turns out may very well determine whether or not immigration or trade dominate the range of issues in our own election in 2008.

posted by Dave Carroll @ 7/06/2006 03:18:00 PM