An important point that begs repeating: Excessive transitions between state governments

The critique is not new, but El Universal deserves credit for bringing it up at a particularly important juncture in time, namely following the first transitions in 80 years to an opposition party in Oaxaca, Puebla and Sinaloa: The excessive transition period between governments. 


While most other countries allow for a mere few weeks between the election of a new governor and his or her assumption of power, Mexico is an extreme outlier. Some examples :

* Sinaloa: The new governor will have to wait six months to take power
* Puebla: The new governor will have to wait eight months to take power


* Hidalgo:  While the ruling party won (though its victory remain disputed), the new PRI governor will not take office until April 2011 - ten months after the election.


To those who have followed in particular the highly authoritarian and corrupt PRI states that finally switched parties, one does not need much imagination to envision the outgoing party, still in shock from its loss, desperately trying to cover its tracks and/or trying to sabotage the incoming administration. 


In sum: As far as I can see, there are no valid practical arguments for maintaining these excessive transition times, yet plenty of anecdotal evidence that keeping them is a really bad idea. In the paradigmatic case of Oaxaca, for instance, the lame-duck PRI-controlled congress' recent vote to absolve outgoing governor Ulises Ruis for any responsibility for the killings in 2006, as well as attempts to preempt future revisions of the state expenses during Ruis' reign, are very likely only the tip of the iceberg. 


And yet Oaxaca still has months to go. 

What century does the church live in? Ebrard is too kind.

Marcelo Ebrard:

"It's very serious that the majority church in Mexico call for a crusade against any party and and violates with this g Article 130 of the Constitution. This would mean that church is going to tell us who we are to vote for and what laws should be approved, so we would be in the nineteenth century."

Consider the following statement, who made it, and under what circumstances:

"In an interview given before the opening of the Congress of Exorcists, Father Pedro Mendoza Pantoja, coordinator of Exorcists of the Archdiocese of Mexico, said that homosexuality is against God's plan and warned of 'the temptations of the devil and the perversion of natural laws.'" (From La Jornada)

I wonder if Ebrard is being too generous. 

Brinkmanship from the Mexican Church: No apology or retraction, but attack

It is now clear that rather than stepping back from its aggressive rhetoric the past days, the Mexican catholic church is rather going on the attack. 

The Mexican Episcopal Conference, a permanent organization of bishops that make out the official leadership of the Mexican Church, expressed full support for the statements by cardinals Norberto Rivera Carrera  and Juan Sandoval íñiguez, defending its right to "free speech"  and astonishingly referred to its critics as "intolerant."  

To recall, not only is the Church's denigration of Mexican political institutions, its interference in national politics, and call to not vote for the leftwing PRD ("a fascist party") blatantly unconstitutional, but its attacks on gays is nothing but hate speech.

(the story was also just picked up by L.A. Times, which offers a good summary of the controversy).

Yet the church also accused the Supreme Court of having been bribed by no less than Mexico City Chief of Government Marcelo Ebrard (thanks to Mexfiles for an etymological exploration of the word used by the church, "maicedo").

Sandoval, however,  declared he would not apologize or retract the statements, and that "proof" existed.

Ebrard followed through on his warning yesterday that that unless the church retract these very serious accusations - can one even imagine an equivalent situation  in the United States? - Ebrard would take legal action, bringing a complaint to the to the Superior Tribunal of Justice in Mexico City. 

The general perception, judging from the reactions of newspaper editorials and national political actors, is that the church has gone too far with its shrill statements and accusations.  

Nnotable political figures like Enrique Peña Nieto,  Fidel Herrera, Juan Manuel Oliva and José Reyes Baeza Terrazas, governors of Mexico State,  Veracruz, Guanajuato and Chihuahua, respectively, unequivocally stated they would not question the Supreme Court's ruling.

Notably, CONFRATERNICE, the National Fraternity of Evangelical Christian Churches - of ever-growing importance in Mexico - notably distanced itself from the catholic church, noting: 

"it is clear that we disagree with the policies carried out by the chief of government of the Federal District, Marcelo Ebrard, and with with the legal criterion of nine of the 11 ministers who supported the reforms; however, we respect the laws of democratic institutions."

It remains equally clear that the same cannot be said for the Mexican Catholic Church.