Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Learning from MexicoIan Bremmer is President of Eurasia Group, the global political risk consultancy, and author of The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall. by Ian Bremmer On July 2, Mexico held a presidential election that triggered what has become a bitter political firefight. After conservative candidate Felipe Calderon was declared the winner by less than 1% of the vote, his populist rival, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, quickly claimed fraud. For the past two months, thousands of Lopez Obrador’s most fervent supporters have transformed the Zocalo, Mexico City’s central square, into a virtual sea oftents – the center of gravity of opposition to the official result. On September 1, dozens of opposition lawmakers created a primetime spectacle inside Mexico’s parliament by occupying the speaker’s podium, thereby denying outgoing President Vicente Fox the chance to deliver his final state of the nation address in person. Four days later, Mexico highest electoral court ruled that Fox had improperly interfered in the election but unanimously reaffirmed Calderon’s victory. Lopez Obrador has vowed to obstruct Calderon’s presidency from the moment he takes office on December 1. You learn a lot about a country’s underlying stability by how it responds to a crisis. Similar electoral conflicts unfolded in the United States in 2000 and in Ukraine in 2004. In the wake of fiercely contested presidential elections, large numbers of voters in each country questioned the legitimacy of the outcome. The nation’s highest courts were compelled to rule on demands for a ballot recount. But US political and economic stability was never in doubt in 2000, because public confidence in the country’s governing institutions allowed them to resolve the conflict peacefully. These institutions proved far more powerful than the political personalities involved. In Ukraine, on the other hand, public outrage, buttressed by international pressure, brought the government to a halt. In a second vote, the election’s loser was crowned the winner. But the initial euphoria that accompanied the so-called “Orange Revolution” quickly faded, and Ukraine is still dealing with the political and economic fallout. What, then, should we make of Mexico and its disputed election? Here, too, a large segment of the electorate told pollsters that they doubted the legitimacy of the official result. The judiciary rejected calls for a full recount, though they did examine roughly 9% of the ballots before ruling that the review indicated no challenge to the election’s outcome. Like Ukraine’s Viktor Yushchenko, who lost the initial vote in Ukraine, Lopez Obrador demanded that the result be overturned. Unlike Yushchenko, he was denied. But the good news for Mexicans is that their country’s political institutions have proven far more stable than did Ukraine’s. Despite Lopez Obrador’s best efforts to create chaos in the streets with public demonstrations involving hundreds of thousands of protesters, domestic and international confidence remains strong. The peso has barely budged since the election—a clear indication that investors have not lost faith in the country. Their resilience is important, because market fears of instability often become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The point is not that public confidence (or lack thereof) in an election outcome doesn’t matter. It does. But the broader picture – whether, as in Mexico, a country is able to continue to go about its business as its political institutions sort out the mess – matters far more. Unlike in Ukraine, investors have shrugged off the noisy demonstrations in Mexico City’s streets and remained focused on interest rates and fluctuations in the global economy. This suggests that governing principles and sturdy political institutions, not powerful individuals, have become the bedrock of Mexican governance. Indeed, while Lopez Obrador continues to denounce the outcome and has threatened to make Mexico ungovernable, Mexico’s growing middle class has taken the political conflict in stride. Many who supported Lopez Obrador’s candidacy do not support the post-election protests in his name. A recent poll in the newspaper Reforma found that Calderon would now defeat him by 19 percentage points. Voters may prefer Lopez Obrador, but they value Mexico’s stability above all. Moreover, during the political standoff, Calderon has worked behind the scenes to form an administration and to settle on a governing strategy. Aware that he must establish a greater sense of political legitimacy, his cabinet is likely to include representatives of other political parties. He will probably introduce measures to tackle poverty and create jobs. Calderon’s task will not be easy. Lopez Obrador and his supporters can be expected to work relentlessly to thwart his plans. But they are unlikely to derail his government. The underlying stability highlighted by Mexico’s post-election crisis is also evident elsewhere in Latin America. Whatever the potential for a leftward shift this year in some Latin American countries, others, including Mexico, Chile, and Brazil, are clearly less vulnerable to the type of populist rule we’ve seen in Venezuela and Bolivia. Elected leaders in these countries face institutional constraints – parliaments that check the powers of the executive and courts that check the powers of both – on their ability to shape policy. To be sure, political and market volatility in a broad range of emerging-market economies will continue. But some of them appear to have “graduated” toward a stability rooted in sustainable governance. Beyond Latin America, several Eastern European countries offer ready examples. In these states, regulatory and taxation issues now affect confidence more deeply and consistently than does political tension. Many in the media may not comprehend that yet. But markets do. Though Mexico’s election saga may continue to make headlines, its true significance is that it reveals just how politically sturdy a place Mexico has become. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2006. [ category: ]
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Learning, Knowledge, Wisdom and Power
I do believe, Angela, that in the countries we call democracies, voters are in fact in charge. If they do not exercise their power, it’s due to one or more of several factors: apathy; lack of consensus; failure to think critically; immorality….. The fundamental problem is ourselves, and there is little point blaming politicians, the media, capitalist systems….. We join parties and elect our politicians, choose what media to trust, decide what we spend money on……
I suspect that what incites Muslim youth born here is that they grow up naively believing all this crap they are fed about Aussie values of Democracy, Fair Go, Mate-ship and all the rest, only to finally realize that what people profess is not how they actually behave. Australia is certainly further along the path to democracy and personal freedom than say Malaysia, Thailand or Iran, but this is at most only a step or two ahead and there is still a long way to go. It is arrogant of John Howard to preach to Thailand. Yes, Thailand’s previous coup was a bit messy, but nothing like the 100,000 Iraqis we have murdered bringing democracy to Iraq.
Is there something Australia can learn from the Mexican and US elections? There but for the grace of God go us.
In another thread, we have arguing angrily about things half a world away. I suspect, that whether they see the other side as being the ‘Far Left’ or the ‘Far Right’, they agree on far more than they disagree on. I think that everybody agrees that though Australia is a pretty good country to live in, there is certainly room for improvement.
Where and how should Australia improve, what should we concentrate on? I think it’s ourselves. We as a society need to learn to (i) think critically; (ii) build consensus; (iii) behave ethically; and (iv) stay motivated. Whether we’re on the Left or Right; revere John Howard or hate him, doesn’t really matter. Arguing about them simply gets in the way of real progress.
Being the Knowledge Society is now the catch-phrase. Shouldn't we rather strive to be the wise society?
What is the lesson to learn from Mexico ?
There are many ways to influence an election.try google Mexican election fraud,there are over 3million links,cute. Even more than
C Parsons' conspiracy theory.
Here is a rather careful one with ballots and data that gives an indepth look at the election. There certainly is a smell.
http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article1967.html
Many observers have compared the post-electoral conflict in Mexico 2006 to that of 2000 in the United States. While there are indeed parallels (as well as distinctions) to be drawn, there is a very important difference in the equation, and it is societal: That part of the electorate in the United States that was robbed did not see any way to fight and overturn the fraud, or simply was too gullible or afraid to do so. In Mexico, however, the path exists, a critical mass of the Mexican populace understands exactly what was done to them and is ready to assume the ultimate risks to overturn the crime.
At stake for global capital and its increasingly simulated “election” processes not just in Mexico but throughout the planet is the manufactured belief that nothing can be done. As occurred a century ago, with the Mexican revolution of 1910, Mexico is on the verge of, as Zapatista Subcomandante Marcos has often said, “amazing the world again...."
Is it not bizarre that someone should be praising the stability while not being outraged at the failure of the democratic institution? As long as the money flows in the Right direction ,it doesn;t matter whether the election was completely fraudulent.
What an insight to this man's character and his values. How clearly he is Bush's whipping boy and plays nice words for the Mexican stooge. Mexico has a critical position at present, internationally.
This is the same mentality that says Florida or Ohio Frauds do notmatter ,as long as the dollars flow.So what is the difference then between such and a dictatorship? If there is electoral fraud there is no democracy. iF one fails to denounce this then one sides with totalitarianism,even in the name of stability.
Again the words:"At stake for global capital and its increasingly simulated “election” processes not just in Mexico but throughout the planet is the manufactured belief that nothing can be done"
One can only hope there will be a good lesson for democracies to learn from Mexico.
Cheers
Mandarin Power
Does one detect a faint whiff of praise for bureaucracy?