Milenio reports that AMLO will be accompanied by Horacio Duarte when PRD's former presidential candidate this week will start another tour of each of Mexico's 125 municipalities. It's a strong indication that AMLO has decided on his chosen one to be PRD's candidate for governor (what will he do with Encinas - Mexico City again?). Duarte clearly has a party base in the PRD as part of his GAP group in Mexico State, centered around Texcoco. Yet the problem is that Duarte failed to even get elected as federal deputy representing the district in last year's federal elections. He seems a far less weaker candidate than other PRD cadres such as current PRD Senator Héctor Bautista.
Regardless, AMLO, just like Enrique Peña Nieto, is continuing his offensive against any PRD-PAN coalition behind a common gubernatorial candidate, which to most observers appear the only chance to block Peña Nieto from installing an anointed successor when he steps down next year. AMLO's logic is increasingly tortured: While acknowledging the crucial importance of beating Peña Nieto, he announced that he opposes the alliances because he suspects that President Calderón will betray the PRD and in the end back Peña Nieto. That is, Mexico's national president, who is today more or less in trench warfare with the PRI and is desperate not to be the president who handed power back to PRI, is likely to double cross the PRD, so therefore the PRD should not join with the PAN...
If someone can explain the logic of AMLO's thinking, I would be most grateful.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Peña Nieto's Law steamrolls through Mexico State; PRI breaks another agreement
Governor Peña Nieto claimed that PRI already had the endorsement of 92 out of Mexico State's 125 municipalities for what has been dubbed "Peña Nieto's Law," given that it blatantly favors the governors presidential ambitions. This is more than the 66 required, though reports of irregularities in this signing process abound: Luis Sánchez Jiménez, leader of the PRD branch in the state, relates that rather than being treated in the local town halls, has simply been signed by the town council leader; in one egregious case, in the PRD-run Valle del Bravo, functionaries of the government showed up at 6 in the morning at the house of the regidora, demanding that she sign some important document regarding gender equality. Only later did she discover she had just endorsed, on behalf of the Valle del Bravo town council, Peña Nieto's Law.
Peña Nieto even has the audacity to claim the electoral alliances, which his law goes a long way to impede, make out a "open fraud" to the electorate. Did he simply forget that his candidacy was a product of such an alliance (PRI-PVEM) in 2005, and that PRI and its allies controls the majority of Mexico State's municipalities due to exactly the same type of alliances?
PRD confirms that as soon as the law is promulgated, it will take it to the Supreme Court. I am glad that finally political scientists, such as Alberto Aziz Nassif in today's El Universal, are finally making themselves heard regarding the blatant opportunism and authoritarianism inherent to steamrolling these laws through in the last moment, for the sole purpose of pushing Peña Nieto's candidacy. As Aziz Nassif notes,
Peña Nieto and his backers like to present themselves as the "new PRI," as opposed to the old prinosaurios of the past, who governed Mexico since its Revolution. If anything, Peña Nieto has demonstrated that the "new PRI" is if anything even more authoritarian minded than PRI has been for years.
Peña Nieto even has the audacity to claim the electoral alliances, which his law goes a long way to impede, make out a "open fraud" to the electorate. Did he simply forget that his candidacy was a product of such an alliance (PRI-PVEM) in 2005, and that PRI and its allies controls the majority of Mexico State's municipalities due to exactly the same type of alliances?
PRD confirms that as soon as the law is promulgated, it will take it to the Supreme Court. I am glad that finally political scientists, such as Alberto Aziz Nassif in today's El Universal, are finally making themselves heard regarding the blatant opportunism and authoritarianism inherent to steamrolling these laws through in the last moment, for the sole purpose of pushing Peña Nieto's candidacy. As Aziz Nassif notes,
"The logic of adapting the electoral system to the convenience of one of the actors at the expense of the others, is quite simply an authoritarian regression."Well put. Should there be any remaining doubts, here is PRI's latest move: While it made an explicit agreement with PAN and PRD to share the presidency of the Mexico State Congress - the presidency is a rotating office - it backtracked and reelected by simple majority PRI deputy Ernesto Nemer Álvarez as president.
Peña Nieto and his backers like to present themselves as the "new PRI," as opposed to the old prinosaurios of the past, who governed Mexico since its Revolution. If anything, Peña Nieto has demonstrated that the "new PRI" is if anything even more authoritarian minded than PRI has been for years.
Mexico State/Estado de México: "Government that accomplishes"?
One of the main slogan of Governor Enrique Peña's government of Edomex or Mexico State is Gobierno que cumple, or a government that accomplishes. Yet what exactly is Peña Nieto accomplishing? One may recall that the governor in 2005 loudly presented a list of 600 "goals" his government was to complete by the end of his term, goals whose process of accomplishment have been duly noted at regular intervals.
Yet as local PAN deputy Mónica Fragoso pointed out in her party's response to Peña Nieto's recent informe or constituionally mandated report to the Mexican State congress, the 503 goals the governor boasts of having achieved only make out a fraction of the total state budget - 9 billion 418 million pesos out of 53 billion 857 million, or only 2 percent of the total state budget the past five years. The question remains: What else is Peña Nieto spending money on?
(Jenaro Villamil reported last week in Proceso that Peña Nieto's government may also be spending far more money than the local congress has allowed and budgeted for).
Now, notably, the Mexican NGO Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad, a non-partisan organization dedicated to examining issues of economic competitiviness and transparency of Mexico's 32 entities (31 states and 1 Federal District), has issued a report entitled "The Black Box of Public Spending. (Direct link here). I have yet to study its findings in details, but with regards to Peña Nieto's spending, one factor immediately stands out: Mexico State is the second worst state in Mexico with regards to the lack of transparency in the management of its finances: It is only beat by a state led Peña Nieto's colleague and close ally within PRI, Ulises Ruis, of the state of Oaxaca.
Again: On what is Peña Nieto spending Mexico State's funds?
Yet as local PAN deputy Mónica Fragoso pointed out in her party's response to Peña Nieto's recent informe or constituionally mandated report to the Mexican State congress, the 503 goals the governor boasts of having achieved only make out a fraction of the total state budget - 9 billion 418 million pesos out of 53 billion 857 million, or only 2 percent of the total state budget the past five years. The question remains: What else is Peña Nieto spending money on?
(Jenaro Villamil reported last week in Proceso that Peña Nieto's government may also be spending far more money than the local congress has allowed and budgeted for).
Now, notably, the Mexican NGO Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad, a non-partisan organization dedicated to examining issues of economic competitiviness and transparency of Mexico's 32 entities (31 states and 1 Federal District), has issued a report entitled "The Black Box of Public Spending. (Direct link here). I have yet to study its findings in details, but with regards to Peña Nieto's spending, one factor immediately stands out: Mexico State is the second worst state in Mexico with regards to the lack of transparency in the management of its finances: It is only beat by a state led Peña Nieto's colleague and close ally within PRI, Ulises Ruis, of the state of Oaxaca.
Again: On what is Peña Nieto spending Mexico State's funds?
Rosa Albina Garavito: An academic calls for the dissolution of the PRD
A comment on Rosa Albina Garavito Elías. The UAM Azcapotzalco academic is out with a new book, essentially a collection of newspaper opinion articles and other commentaries, entitled "Apuntes para el camino: Memorias sobre el PRD." In last week's Proceso (excerpt-subscription required) she repeats her favorite theme: The PRD is an empty shell, a carcass, with no future. The only reasonable path for the PRD, she says, is to call for a new constituent assembly and create a new party.
There are many things to comment on here, but I'll limit myself to a few observations.
A former PRD senator, Garavito Elías loudly resigned from the PRD in April 2008, following the PRD's disastrous internal election. Notably, Garavito Elías was the running mate of Alfonso Ramírez Cuéllar, who was a candidate for the PRD presidency.While Ramírez Cuéllar - founding leader of the debtor organization El Barzón, who gained further fame when he entered the national congress on horseback - has so far opted to stay in the PRD, Garavito Elías left the party. Reading her memoirs (of sorts), she strikes me as an example that academics do not always make for the best party cadres, nor do they perhaps fully understand the nature of party politics. More than a tad arrogantly, she "returned" to the PRD in 2008 to run for the party leadership with Ramírez Cuellar (she had done nothing of note in the party since stepping down as PRD national senator in 2000) deeming their candidacy a "last opportunity" for the party to, well, redeem itself. Dismissing the notion that PRDs' internal battles can be traced to the overlapping and significant cleavages between two poles - party builders and movement advocates - she and Ramírez Cuéllar gave the party one last chance to rally behind their unity project.
The problem: the PRD members weren't listening. The Ramírez Cuéllar/Garavito Elías list pulled only around 18,000 votes, or a little over 1.5 percent of the vote total of the election, which was by the PRD mass base membership. Garavito then renounced the PRD, as the aftermath of the election turned really ugly, as both sides claimed victory, and with the outcome only settled in court. It is therefore quite amazing to learn that her running mate Ramírez Cuéllar as recently as yesterday called for a similar type of election to elect its new leader, but that is another story. The point here: Given the outcome of the election, the PRD bases apparently didn't buy her message. Garavito, however, renounced the PRD, declaring it beyond redemption: While she gave it one chance to come to its senses and elect Ramírez Cuéllar and her as party president and secretary general respetively, the party didn't know its own good. So, rather than fare thee well PRD and to each his own, she know calls for the party's dissolution.
Back to the book: I thought it would be worthwhile to read her reflections, but I cannot say there is much to applaud here, as the book presents a radical academic who would rather remain "pure" in her bubbly world, rather than to work for pragmatic solutions in the physical present. For example, in 1995, the PRD took a vast step forward by renouncing the idea of a total break with the regime - a government of "national salvation" is how Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas put it - and rather work in favor of a negotiated transition with the PRI government. That is, renounce the radical, immature, and dangerous ideas of a dramatic system change or regime overthrowal, to rather focus on reforming the country's institutions. These "radicals," to which Garavito belong, refused to even talk with the national government or have any relations at all with Ernesto Zedillo. Thankfully, for the party as well as for Mexico, cooler heads prevailed: Garavito was on the wrong side of history. Yet if you're looking for any acknowledgment of this in her book, keep looking.
And as for 2006? Well, that was a fraud, end of story. I wish I could see her evidence for it rather than merely take her word. If she knows something we don't, please do let us know.
Fast forward to 2009, when Garavito and other discontents called for spoiling the vote in the 2009 elections, in order to "send a signal" of sorts to the other parties. Thankfully, Mexicans have far more respect for the vote than that and the long battle it took them to have real party options, and the blank/spoiled vote only rose from around 2 to 5%. In my opinion, she - and others with her - was again on the wrong side of history. Yet in her book she revindicates this act as an important strike for democracy, against the supposed "partyocracy" choking Mexico.
Her book has received much favorable coverage and Garavito often appears as an "expert" commentator, receiving nods of approval from many an interviewer who buys her critiques of the PRD (and other parties) hook, line, and sinker. Yet I have yet to hear any critical question poised that would address her fundamental irresponsibility, both as a party cadre and an academic, last week's Proceso interview no exception.
Even with a 25% discount, Garavito's book is not worth the 262.5 pesos I paid for it. Nor is it worth the time to listen to her calls to dissolve the party, which failed to redeem itself by electing her secretary general. In the case of Garavito, PRD cadres would do well to reject both the medium and the message.
There are many things to comment on here, but I'll limit myself to a few observations.
A former PRD senator, Garavito Elías loudly resigned from the PRD in April 2008, following the PRD's disastrous internal election. Notably, Garavito Elías was the running mate of Alfonso Ramírez Cuéllar, who was a candidate for the PRD presidency.While Ramírez Cuéllar - founding leader of the debtor organization El Barzón, who gained further fame when he entered the national congress on horseback - has so far opted to stay in the PRD, Garavito Elías left the party. Reading her memoirs (of sorts), she strikes me as an example that academics do not always make for the best party cadres, nor do they perhaps fully understand the nature of party politics. More than a tad arrogantly, she "returned" to the PRD in 2008 to run for the party leadership with Ramírez Cuellar (she had done nothing of note in the party since stepping down as PRD national senator in 2000) deeming their candidacy a "last opportunity" for the party to, well, redeem itself. Dismissing the notion that PRDs' internal battles can be traced to the overlapping and significant cleavages between two poles - party builders and movement advocates - she and Ramírez Cuéllar gave the party one last chance to rally behind their unity project.
The problem: the PRD members weren't listening. The Ramírez Cuéllar/Garavito Elías list pulled only around 18,000 votes, or a little over 1.5 percent of the vote total of the election, which was by the PRD mass base membership. Garavito then renounced the PRD, as the aftermath of the election turned really ugly, as both sides claimed victory, and with the outcome only settled in court. It is therefore quite amazing to learn that her running mate Ramírez Cuéllar as recently as yesterday called for a similar type of election to elect its new leader, but that is another story. The point here: Given the outcome of the election, the PRD bases apparently didn't buy her message. Garavito, however, renounced the PRD, declaring it beyond redemption: While she gave it one chance to come to its senses and elect Ramírez Cuéllar and her as party president and secretary general respetively, the party didn't know its own good. So, rather than fare thee well PRD and to each his own, she know calls for the party's dissolution.
Back to the book: I thought it would be worthwhile to read her reflections, but I cannot say there is much to applaud here, as the book presents a radical academic who would rather remain "pure" in her bubbly world, rather than to work for pragmatic solutions in the physical present. For example, in 1995, the PRD took a vast step forward by renouncing the idea of a total break with the regime - a government of "national salvation" is how Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas put it - and rather work in favor of a negotiated transition with the PRI government. That is, renounce the radical, immature, and dangerous ideas of a dramatic system change or regime overthrowal, to rather focus on reforming the country's institutions. These "radicals," to which Garavito belong, refused to even talk with the national government or have any relations at all with Ernesto Zedillo. Thankfully, for the party as well as for Mexico, cooler heads prevailed: Garavito was on the wrong side of history. Yet if you're looking for any acknowledgment of this in her book, keep looking.
And as for 2006? Well, that was a fraud, end of story. I wish I could see her evidence for it rather than merely take her word. If she knows something we don't, please do let us know.
Fast forward to 2009, when Garavito and other discontents called for spoiling the vote in the 2009 elections, in order to "send a signal" of sorts to the other parties. Thankfully, Mexicans have far more respect for the vote than that and the long battle it took them to have real party options, and the blank/spoiled vote only rose from around 2 to 5%. In my opinion, she - and others with her - was again on the wrong side of history. Yet in her book she revindicates this act as an important strike for democracy, against the supposed "partyocracy" choking Mexico.
Her book has received much favorable coverage and Garavito often appears as an "expert" commentator, receiving nods of approval from many an interviewer who buys her critiques of the PRD (and other parties) hook, line, and sinker. Yet I have yet to hear any critical question poised that would address her fundamental irresponsibility, both as a party cadre and an academic, last week's Proceso interview no exception.
Even with a 25% discount, Garavito's book is not worth the 262.5 pesos I paid for it. Nor is it worth the time to listen to her calls to dissolve the party, which failed to redeem itself by electing her secretary general. In the case of Garavito, PRD cadres would do well to reject both the medium and the message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)