2008 Woodie Awards
A presidential election too close to call. Rumors of voting irregularities. Mandated recounts while the populace waits to find out who their next leader will be. A court decision issued to determine the winner. Sound vaguely familiar? Although frequently compared to Bush v. Gore and the 2000 election debacle, the fallout from the 2006 Mexican general election is an attention-grabbing event in its own right.
Since the July 2 vote, millions of people have protested conservative candidate Felipe Calderon’s supposed victory. On several occasions, civil unrest threatened to bring business and government to a halt. For many Mexicans, the future remains uncertain as leftist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador rejected Tuesday’s court decision awarding Mexico’s presidency to the National Action Party (PAN) and many refuse to recognize Calderon’s legitimacy citing apparent corruption in a number of voting districts.
According to a poll conducted by the conservative newspaper Reforma, 65% of individuals surveyed believed fraud occurred and that there should be a full recount. A full recount did not materialize but a partial one did and Calderon appears to have won by just over half a percentage point (.56%).
Whatever misgivings the citizens of Mexico may have, the rest of the world seems to have at least tacitly accepted Calderon as Mexico’s new president. A White House spokesperson issued a statement congratulating the president-elect and said the US looks forward to “broad, deep and productive” relations with the new administration.
One apt and crucial similarity to America’s situation is that, without question, Mexico’s population is divided down the middle. As a result, Calderon’s immediate goals must include defusing the widespread discontent in order to unify the nation. If he cannot quell tensions, a country deeply in need of progress and reform will remain stuck in a political quagmire.
I know that north of the border the Canadians have the Canadian Football League (CFL), but who knew that south of the border – in a land where soccer, or futbol, reigns supreme – fans get just as riled up over a pigskin game?
An article on the NFL in Mexico makes some interesting observations on the differences in popular consumption (think hotdogs versus tacos) which, when juxtaposed with the importation of America’s biggest sport, present a picture of a land that maintains a distinct heritage and yet, seems poised to accept much of what western democratic culture has created.
As paradoxical as it may sound, similar rhetoric was used almost six years ago when the Partido Acción Nacional (PAN) secured the presidency thus terminating over 70 years of Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) rule.
It seems Mexico is about to make history again, in a way that should please most Americans and in particular the Bush administration. Why? Because López Obrador, the former mayor of Mexico City, and leftist Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD) candidate is the favorite to win in the upcoming election.
Leftist + Bush administration = Happy?
Aside from the fact that Obrador is hardly an ideologue, the Bush administration, which constantly espouses the virtue of true democratic governments, should be ecstatic over the dramatic change that has occurred in a political system that was considered by many to be a joke given its rampant corruption.
Not only have the Mexican people said “no” to hegemonic PRI rule, but they now appear ready for yet another turnover in parties. Such change is a positive sign of democratic growth and maturity. After all, it is not enough that a state simply call itself a “democracy.” One of the best indicators of democratic health is frequent turnover because it provides evidence that the party machines are not wielding excessive power and that the populace is considering alternative platforms and policies.
While the Bush administration may view Vicente Fox and the right-wing PAN as more suitable allies for long-term US-Mexico relations, the Mexican people’s disapproval of Fox’s performance is indeed a strong indication that at least in some parts of the world, cultures are primed to embrace what are often considered “western” (and some believe Americanized) ideals.
Reading the machinations of Mary Anastasia O’Grady in the WSJ today (subscription only), and then reading Dean Slaughter’s post at TPMCafe, I’m struck by the need to adopt a more balanced, measured approach to the presidency of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Most of those on the Right would like to paint Chavez as basically another anti-democratic Fidel Castro, as O’Grady tries to do, but I think this is grossly at odds with what scholars have found about the real impact of Chavismo. Sujatha Fernandes, an up-and-coming scholar at Princeton, has done some truly fascinating work on the pros and cons of the Chavez revolution- and has revealed its impact to be far more complicated than both the anti-populist Right AND the apologist Left have made it out to be.
Read the rest of this entry »
Just another WordPress weblog
RSS 2.0
