On the Mexican church's understanding of democracy: A free lesson to Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez

The Roman Catholic church has had a highly ambiguous attitude toward democracy. Historically, it fought tooth and nail against the expansion of the vote, be it to women or to other classes, and as is well known, largely backed the brutal dictatorships of the 1970s. There are notable exceptions - above all the valiant actions of priests and bishops inspired by liberation theology in Central America and elsewhere - but from the high clergy - from the Vatican down to cardinals and archbishops - the church's record as a defender of democracy is hardly stellar. The case of Mexico, to be sure, is no exception.

One would therefore expect the Roman Catholic church in Mexico to tread a tad warily when it comes to issues of democracy. Not so with Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez of Guadalajara. I remain personally convinced that this extreme reactionary falangist does not really want democracy, based on his many extremist declarations over the years. I'll leave that aside and for the sake of the benefit of doubt argue that the cardinal is frighteningly ignorant of what democracy really entails. The most recent case in point: Sandoval Íñiguez  calls the Mexico City government a "dictatorship." Why? Because of the laws the ALDF, or the Legislative Assembly of the Federal District, democratically elected since 1997, has made. Adamantly against the Mexico City laws that allows abortion up until the 12th week and moreover gay marriage and adoption, the cardinal think this is anti-democratic. Why? According to the Cardinal,
1) they are against "natural" law; 2) they damage or contradict the "holy scripture"; 3) they go against majority opinion.

Let's try to  ignore for a moment the stunning stupidity of the cardinal's first "arguments" and focus on this third point : Because the cardinal has in possession opinion polls that state that there is a majority against the law, the fact that the ALDF passed them make the Mexico City government a "dictatorship."

Cardinal, for your information, I take the liberty to pass on the following information, based on concepts taught in my introductory course on comparative politics. I think you ought to sit in on our classes.

1) The ALDF is Mexico City's legislature and consists of 66 elected deputies. This is called electoral representative democracy: These deputies are elected to represent the citizens of Mexico City. Marcelo Ebrard, Government Chief of Mexico City, did not appoint this legislature. You seem to mix up the two by calling the Mexico City government a dictatorship: ALDF is not appointed or controlled by Mayor Ebrard.
2) Ebrard was democratically elected in 2006 with around 47 percent of the vote, more than 20 percent above his closest opponent. Hence, he is hardly a dictator. Yet since you apparently meant that the ALDF is dictatorial, it is worth reminding you that ALDF, ever since 1997, is democratically elected by Mexico City voters. It is therefore not dictatorial, but democratic.
3) A majority of these 66 legislators voted to pass these laws. While a minority may strongly disagree, and while protection for minority rights is also a key quality of representative democracy, in the final instance democracy is about the rule of the majority. Hence, even if we may disagree with the outcome of the vote, the minority must also accept that it lost and respect the decisions made by majority rule in a legislature. You can, of course, take the cause to the Supreme Court and argue it is unconstituti... - never mind, you already know this, because you did complain to the Supreme Court, which did approve the laws, so you know this part already, and clearly will respect the Supreme Court decision, right? Moving on:
3) That an opinion poll that you have in your possesion shows a majority of Mexicans or Mexico City voters reject these changes, does not make the ALDF or the Mexico City Government a dictatorship. To reiterate, Mexico City is a representative democracy: Citizens elect deputies on their behalf, and sometimes they make laws that may be, at some given points in time, against the majority will of the "people" that you refer to. You seem to suggest that ALDF should rather function based on opinion polls. This is hardly a practical undertaking; for example, the majority will is quite fickle and changes many times, and it would be a little tough to have a vote on every law. Moreover, one can also argue that some basic human rights shouldn't necessarily be put out to vote - should we have asked the majority of voters in Mississippi in the 1960s, for instance, whether they though African Americans should have basic civil rights such as the right to vote? Yet to keep it simpler, for the sake of this argument: If these voters feel strongly about it, they can always elect new deputies down the road that will overturn these laws. This is called democracy: We have the right to hire and fire our legislators.

As I noted earlier, I am not entirely convinced you really do support democracy, given other statements you have made in the past. Yet for the benefit of the doubt, I will try to believe that it is rather the case that you simply don't understand it. I hope the above points can serve as a brief, hastily written introduction to representative democracy; the part of the Mexican church you represent seem sorely in need of such a lesson.

On AMLO's authoritarian side: Opposing him is "treason." PRD votes over alliances.

The state council of PRD mexiquense, or the local branch of PRD in Mexico State, are meeting today in Toluca to vote over the proposal to go in an alliance with the PAN for the upcoming gubernatorial election. 


National party president Jesús Ortega, who is a strong proponent of the alliances, has nonetheless promised to abide by the decision of the PRD state branches: The decision to go in an alliance or not is theirs to decide, and Ortega will democratically respect the decision. 


Not so with AMLO. Ahead of today's vote, he has ramped up his activism in Mexico state, deeming it a "treason" should PRD join the PRD with a common candidate, widely considered the only chance the party has to avoid a new PRI governor and thus Enrique Peña Nieto's presidential vicotry and the PRI's return to Los Pinos in 2012. A day after he forced the PT to openly reject an alliance, yesterday he confirmed he will not respect any decision by the official and elected PRD leadership, and openly threatened to present a third candidate and to call upon his followers within and outside the PRD to reject a common PRD-PAN candidate. And to top this off, AMLO is accusing the PRD of "treason" - for not abiding to his will. 


Over the years, AMLO's authoritarian streaks have emerged ever more clearer. He will respect absolutely no dissenting opinion within the PRD, and it is clear he regards the party principally as a tool whose mission is to pliantly back his 2012 presidential bid. Ortega, for his part, called AMLO's threats "inadmissible," and his further declarations clearly marks the contrast with Ortega's socialdemocratic - and democratic - wing of the PRD, and AMLO's highly personalistic - and ever more authoritarian - populist project: 

"To accuse those who think differently of beign traitors, to me is an excess that can not be admitted... that we have differences does not give the right to anyone to disqualify as a traitor those who simply disagree...the leaders of PRD in Mexico State will decide on the policy of alliances; that is the [party] statute, that is what the statute says and what the rules of the party are."

Yet AMLO has already decided that those who do not agree with him are indeed traitors. He is absolutely in his right to reject the alliances, and, as Ortega notes, so is the PRD state council, which today may well reject the alliances, but it is clear that AMLO will absolutely not abide by any majority will. As such, Ebrard should know by now that AMLO will never accept any poll or vote where he is not declared the winner and the left's candidate for 2012.