Marcelo Ebrard yesterday said that Mexico needs a constitutional reform so that a coalition government is possible.
This is highly relevant, but begs the question(s): What exactly does he have in mind?
A parliamentary regime? A semi-presidential regime?
Ebrard suggests "to separate the head of state from chief of government," which sounds very much like a variation of one of these two regimes. Does it also refer to a coalition government of PRD-PAN?
He also speaks of the need for legislative majorities. Indeed, no governing party has had a majority in Congress since 1997. Does that mean a more formalized legislative alliance? A common program, common legislative slates?
Hopefully more is to come here, as this is potentially really significant stuff.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
AMLO's Wilson Center appearance: A wasted opportunity
I watched AMLO's presentation at the Wilson Center in DC today, via Web cast, and can't say I'm too impressed. As expected, the speech was very general in character and contained nothing new - summaries can soon be found elsewhere. Two quick commentaries on what bothered me in particular.
1) One the one hand, AMLO at times clearly states what he is "going to do" - as president. One act will be to get rid of Elba Esther Gordillo as head of the teachers union, building refineries, etc. Great - and applause followed. But almost in the next breath, when confronted by an El Universal reporter who point out that this sounds like his official presentation of his campaign platform, AMLO is very quick to respond that, oh no, this is not a campaign act at all, he is merely presenting the program of MORENA, his civil association. He again demonstrates that the laws that bind other candidates simply do not apply do him.
2) The Q & A was also a completely wasted opportunity. The quality of the questions left much to be desired (and Peter Hakim took far too long to get to his point, which I and it seems AMLO as well lost) - and the last "question" was particularly embarrassing, as some academic, rather than using the important occasion to ask a concrete question, wasted the privilege by just expressing how she is honored to be with AMLO. But even those questions that did have some nutritional content and were quite concrete, had no effect on AMLO rather than eliciting long-winded, meandering banal generalities. "Will you pact with narcos?" "What the country needs is education, values, spiritual values, bla bla bla."
Given that AMLO was quite concrete earlier when he spelled out what he would do, it seems to me that it is not for fear of being accused of campaigning that he cannot give a straight reply to any concrete questions, but rather, when called out in front of an audience, he simply does not have any good answers.
1) One the one hand, AMLO at times clearly states what he is "going to do" - as president. One act will be to get rid of Elba Esther Gordillo as head of the teachers union, building refineries, etc. Great - and applause followed. But almost in the next breath, when confronted by an El Universal reporter who point out that this sounds like his official presentation of his campaign platform, AMLO is very quick to respond that, oh no, this is not a campaign act at all, he is merely presenting the program of MORENA, his civil association. He again demonstrates that the laws that bind other candidates simply do not apply do him.
2) The Q & A was also a completely wasted opportunity. The quality of the questions left much to be desired (and Peter Hakim took far too long to get to his point, which I and it seems AMLO as well lost) - and the last "question" was particularly embarrassing, as some academic, rather than using the important occasion to ask a concrete question, wasted the privilege by just expressing how she is honored to be with AMLO. But even those questions that did have some nutritional content and were quite concrete, had no effect on AMLO rather than eliciting long-winded, meandering banal generalities. "Will you pact with narcos?" "What the country needs is education, values, spiritual values, bla bla bla."
Given that AMLO was quite concrete earlier when he spelled out what he would do, it seems to me that it is not for fear of being accused of campaigning that he cannot give a straight reply to any concrete questions, but rather, when called out in front of an audience, he simply does not have any good answers.
Javier Sicilia, to his discredit, dismisses the next elections
Here is where we part: Poet, writer, and activist Javier Sicilia, head of the Movimiento por la Paz con Justicia y Dignidad, dismissed the upcoming national elections as an "ignominy," or a disgrace, as no parties are listening to the citizenry, and so on.
Say what you want about Mexico's parties - or those of any country - but what on earth do we have for alternatives to electoral democracy? Dismissing elections beforehand simply because you reject the existing party options - or that the parties are not immediately accepting your agenda - is irresponsible, pure and simple.
I accept that Sicilia has a right to dismiss all the parties and the upcoming national elections in Mexico.
I also have a right to dismiss that message.
Say what you want about Mexico's parties - or those of any country - but what on earth do we have for alternatives to electoral democracy? Dismissing elections beforehand simply because you reject the existing party options - or that the parties are not immediately accepting your agenda - is irresponsible, pure and simple.
I accept that Sicilia has a right to dismiss all the parties and the upcoming national elections in Mexico.
I also have a right to dismiss that message.
Wife of murdered Guerrero federal deputy accuses mayor
Lucía Leyva Rojas, widow of the murdered PRI deputy Moisés Villanueva de la Luz, all but accused mayor Willy Reyes Ramos of Tlapa de Comonfort of being behind the murder.
Granted there is no concrete evidence and everything is guilty until proven, but Reyes doesn't exactly inspire too much confidence or empathy: His response, rather than saying something along the lines of "I understand she is hurting and want to find the guilty, but it is not me," etc, has instead responded by asking the authorities to investigate the next-of-kin, meaning Villanueva's and his murdered driver's widow.
Not exactly a class act.
Granted there is no concrete evidence and everything is guilty until proven, but Reyes doesn't exactly inspire too much confidence or empathy: His response, rather than saying something along the lines of "I understand she is hurting and want to find the guilty, but it is not me," etc, has instead responded by asking the authorities to investigate the next-of-kin, meaning Villanueva's and his murdered driver's widow.
Not exactly a class act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)