40-year-anniversary of death of Mexico's greatest president: Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas calls for unity

In a commemoration of the the 40th anniversary for the death of his father, Lázaro Cárdenas del Río, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas Solórzano called for the unity of left, democratic, and progressive forces. Flanked by Leonel Godoy, governor of the Cárdenas' home state Michoacán, and Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, the PRD founder declared:

"We are proposing the elaboration of a unifying proposal that contains the agreements of those who identify themselves as revolutionaries, democrats, and/or progressives... Let's put aside personal aspirations or aspirations of groups. Let us not complicate this task with electoral matters, for which time will come to make decisions."

Three quick comments, and a question:

1. As always, the issue is not so much who was there but who was not: AMLO.
2. Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas denouncing personal ambitions? Boy, do you look black, teapot!
3. AMLO already proposed his "Alternative National Protect."
4. A unifying proposal  - who will be the unifying personality, ingeniero?

PRD takes Ley Peña to the Supreme Court.

The PRD yesterday presented their official case of complaint to the Mexican Supreme Court regarding the presumed unconstitutionality of "Ley Peña" or Enrique Peña Nieto's law, the hastily passed amendment to Mexico State's electoral law that directly seek to sabotage a broad multi-party alliance to compete against the PRI in next year's gubernatorial election. Most famously, the legislation prohibits parties from running a common candidate while maintaining separate legislative lists, and drastically reduces party funds and representation at the state electoral institute for electoral alliances.

PT and Convergencia also signed on to the complaint, though this should not be interpreted as if the parties had a change of heart regarding their opposition to joining an alliance that also includes the PAN. Rather, they are upset with the clauses where the parties, even if they end up only allying with with each other and the PRD, will equally lose funds as the coalition will "count as one" rather than assigning funds, media slots, etc to each individual party.

I am not sure how far they will come with this. The manner in which Peña Nieto rammed through the anti-alliance legislation was highly disrespectful of the democratic process and filled with irregularities. It exposed the Mexico State governor as an opportunistic Machiavellian who will do everything he can to have PRI successor elected to replace him, even if it means undermining democratic institutions and poisoning the political climate by riding roughshod over the opposition. Every step of the process was filled with irregularities, though whether they will "add up," of sorts, in order for the Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional, is a different matter. The fact that PAN didn't join them in doing so - at least not yet - may be a sign the PAN knows the case is far from waterproof legally speaking.

Regardless: Should the Supreme Court find the "Ley Peña" unconstitutional, and in time for it to affect the 2011 gubernatorial election, it will be a big blow against Peña Nieto.

Julio César Godoy Toscano is out of PRD. Guilty until proven innocent?

Godoy Toscano claimed he renounced from the PRD in order to avoid the party being a "scapegoat."  Yet it isclear the PRD leadership, first and foremost its national president Jesús Ortega, but also andresmanuelistas such as Alejandro Encinas, and, to be sure, Michoacán governor and half-brother of Godoy Toscano, Leonel Godoy, in unison demanded that the federal deputy leave the party, following the leak to the media of audio recordings where Godoy Toscano is apparently engaging in jovial conversation with a capo from the La Familia Michoacana gangster outfit.

How much the case has damaged the PRD is clearly far too early to tell, though I  take issue with the implications drawn from today's editorial in El Universal. Entited "The Naivety of the PRD," it argues,

"the PRD committed a very grave error in politics: To put their hands in the fire for a person whose incorruptibility was not guaranteed"

So because the PRD was not 100% sure of its innocence, it should not have backed Godoy's legal right to assume his seat as a federal deputy? This seems to me to turning the principle of presumption of innocence thoroughly on its head. Why on earth should the party not have backed the deputy until this point, when his corruptibility was far from guaranteed, not his incorruptibility? Following the release of the tapes, the PRD acted pretty swiftly to detach themselves from Godoy Toscano; to have done so earlier to me would have been to abdicate the very principle of presumption of innocence.