July
13, 2006
Who Won?
Cliffhanger South of the Border
By
Jack D. McNamara
Throughout the entire
past week some of us watched with fascination as the Mexican nation
went to the polls to select a new president and congress.
The result was a cliffhanger, not yet resolved, with charges of fraud
and worse. Massed crowds met in the ancient Zocalo plaza at the heart
of Mexico City. International nannies pleaded for adherence to the rule
of law and the tradition of acceptance of the result.
Felipe Calderón and his PAN party were declared the winner of
the election which involved more than 41 million votes.
Calderón, the energy minister of the current Vicente Fox
administration received about a third of the vote, about 240,000 more
than his principal rival, Andrés Manuel López Obrador of
the PRD party, who also received about a third. We are approximate
because the result has not yet been completed.
Roberto Madrazo of the PRI, the party which monopolized power for 71
years, “the perfect dictatorship” in the words of a Peruvian writer,
ran third with 22%.
The results in the Mexican Congress were approximately the same as
shares of the total vote. No party has a majority of either house.
The superficial response of many Americans was to see this as just
another Latin American mockery of democratic process, men with guns
determining what comes out of ballot boxes.
But that would be false.
There is indeed a serious movement by that sector of the Mexican nation
which is most discontented with the economy and the politics of
globalization. López Obrador’s “perredistas” are located mainly
in the south, farmers rather than industrialists, small businesses
rather than multinational extensions. The principal power of the PAN is
located in booming cities of the north such as Monterrey.
Felipe Calderón ran as a whole-hearted supporter of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). López Obrador vowed to
renegotiate parts of the NAFTA deal, particularly that part which has
lowered tariffs on agricultural products and especially as concerns
corn and beans. That tariff expires in two years.
Which means the richly subsidized U.S. based agricultural
multinationals will then crush the Mexican corn and bean market. Prior
to NAFTA, in the old PRI days, corn and beans, and the small farmers
who produced them, were shielded by high tariffs, government regulation
and massive PRI boodling. The PRI won elections by selectively raising
or lowering the price of corn or beans for its political benefit.
A few days after the Sunday, July 2, election Calderón stated
publicly that maybe the Mexican government he was going to try to lead
ought to take a look at corn, beans and NAFTA.
Corn, we humbly remind our readers, was invented by Mexicans. For more
than a thousand years the mainly Indian small farmers of southern
Mexico have fed themselves and the nation. What Mexico does about corn
is an important national interest as important as Japanese rice and
soybeans. (Yes, dear “free market” reader, the Japanese protect their
rice farmers with tariffs which keep out cheaper rice from all over
Southeast Asia.)
About 60% of Mexico voted so Calderón will have to govern with
less than 24% of the Mexican voters consent and a fractured Congress.
That is, if he governs at all. López Obrador is taking to the
courts, as no presidential contestant has ever done since Mexico
established this particular system in 1992. Elections are conducted by
the Federal Electoral Institute but the results may be appealed to an
election tribunal of judges (www.trife.org.mx). The same establishment
which staffed the election voting apparatus also staffs the court
tribunal so the PRD cannot have overwhelming confidence in altering the
outcome.
Last Saturday López Obrador peaceably assembled as many as
280,000 supporters and as few as 120,000, depending on reports. The
international nannies are tut-tutting that this and previous similar
actions by López Obrador show that he is reckless and does not
accept the “rule of law.”
The “rule of law” in Mexico is similar to that in Florida and Brewster
County. When outlaws rob you you may go to the sheriff but when lawyers
rob you you are supposed to sit down and shut up. López Obrador
and the more than almost 15 million people who supported him are being
told to shut up or — heaven forfend — they might endanger NAFTA.
Readers of the Big Bend Sentinel were advantaged to read a report
directly from Mexico and the Zocalo by former Sentinel reporter Dan
Keane. The Presidio International carried reports in Spanish from
Notimex and Excelsior. The Nimby News posted Internet links to El
Universal. Major U.S. media detached a platoon of reporters to Mexico.
The election irregularities were fully documented in these reports and
include — the misconduct of Mexican President Vicente Fox in the use of
his office as President to influence the outcome of the election,
specifically illegal in Mexico; more votes than voters at 781
precincts; voter turnout exceeded more than 100% in some precincts;
more votes than ballots were counted in 52,000 tallies; registered PRD
voters were denied the right to vote; completed ballots were found in
garbage near Mexico City; vote-buying and armed intimidation in
Tamaulipas; PRD Web sites hacked; two PRD election officials were
murdered in Guerrero state; international and national observers
reported numerous irregularities; the use of social programs to coerce
votes; a telephone tape recording of a corrupt arrangement; accusations
that the Electoral Commissions computers were programmed to produce a
PAN victory … and more.
Mexico has a system in place to investigate and determine the validity
of the PRD charges. We will wait to see what is done, if anything. But
it would be wrong to condemn the Mexican elections as typical Latin
corruption. Even at its worst the election compares favorably with the
presumed gold standard of American democracy. It is a messy business at
best, anywhere.
Why should we care? The Mexican farmers whose lives have been disrupted
by the government-subsidized NAFTA imports are no longer on their
central and southern Mexican farms. They are risking the long trek
north to cross the border into the U.S. where they can make a living
laboring for American agribusiness, thus creating a crisis for a
forthcoming American election.
What goes around comes around. •
|
Archives