 |
| Enrique Peña Nieto welcomed at Los Pinos by Felipe Calderón |
The documents [compiled by López Obrador] challenging [Peña Nieto´s] election had hardly been deposited with the TEPJF when President Calderón received Enrique Peña Nieto at Los Pinos, the official presidential residence, as a candidate that, according to the final IFE count, won a majority of votes. If Felipe Calderón were actually a head of state concerned with the dignity of his office and not with a political arena where he is defending his own interests, he would be obliged to respect the absurd time periods and procedures imposed by law to declare the president-elect.
It will be said that realism and current world circumstances require that the president act quickly, because in a world so interdependent and unstable, it is not possible for the presidential succession to occur through steps subject to the rhythm of medieval monarchies. But that's the law in Mexico: there is no president-elect as long as the Electoral Tribunal of Judicial Power of the Federation [TEPJF] has not declared the validity of the elections and made the corresponding declaration [which it will not do until early September].
It is true that this procedure, with its lapses of time, was thought up in another epoch, in order to ensure a "transition" without turbulence, between the outgoing government and the new, but untested, president. But it has been the will of the parties to keep it unchanged. This is one more of the poisonous legacies of the old presidential system, such that in the process of transition to democracy, they have refused to reform the process with an eye towards the future.
Nevertheless, the hypocrisy of those who call themselves guardians of the rule of law is delusional at this point--as well as not in conformance with the rules--to recognize the winner before the end of the procedure and demand that the "losers" cheerfully "accept" defeat, as if that were a condition of the legality of the process. For their convenience, they act as if the conflict, irritation or discomfort were fake or bad passengers without objective reasons worthy of consideration. They are very formal, but they despair if López Obrador decides to go all the way that the law allows him to challenge the results. Because if it is not possible to attribute to [López Obrador] any illegal acts and, even less, promotion of violent protests, they then turn to the trite line of political "responsibility" or "common sense" that they adopt in imitation of a certain "democratic normality" that, nevertheless, for obscure reasons (i.e., the existence of stubborn opponents), does not flourish in our laws.
López Obrador is criticized for using the court to keep alive his political offer, as he was criticized six years ago for promoting resistance in the streets. To his opponents, they are the same. But it is his right, and unless the laws and the Constitution are changed, he does not have to give up such initiatives. In short, respect for the law is required, but not to the point of questioning the legitimacy of the process.
We'll see the extent of the evidence presented and the evaluation that the judges make, but, in fact, to anticipate the verdict is a luxury that the President cannot give himself without sending a partial message. At least that may be the purpose of his meeting [with Peña Nieto]: to tell the citizenry and the world that "this rice is already cooked", and what the court does or does not do will not change in any important sense what Calderón already announced on the night of July 1. He is still playing with fire. If Peña and the President wanted to "reassure" the minds of their mutual partners, perhaps they may feel satisfied, but the photo and the statement to the press rightly stirs up distrust among large segments of citizens for whom it says that legal channels are not for everyone.
As for the progressive forces, the most that can be expected without illusions is that the Court will take on the depth of the questions and seek to clarify, as much as possible, the process in several important areas--the role of the major mass media, the overspending of the campaign limits--so that these issues are put on the national agenda as issues requiring reforms, without which democracy will be put into question. Publicly and reliably, the elections proved not only the collusion between the TV networks and the construction of a candidate, but also the obscene participation of local authorities in vote "buying" and coercion, which is perhaps the worst burden of the authoritarian tradition, and which, incredible as it may seem, is not among the grounds for annulment of the election.
PAN agrees with denunciation of these scourges, although PAN is playing palace games in order to have the cards in hand to play when needed in the future--for a coalition or alliance [with PRI] in Congress. For the Left, however, the issue of inequality is inseparable from the critical issue of the inequality that transcends the political-electoral environment. The inequity begins with the objective situation of misery and weakness in which millions of citizens find themselves, who are granted social "assistance" instead of exercisable rights. It is grounded in the authoritarianism which, despite appearances, still governs the relations between the authorities and society, and manifests itself in the social and cultural discrimination that exists between those at the top and those at the bottom.
I do not know what Andrés Manuel will say [He is currently scheduled to announce his plans this Friday], but the road to the Left will be long and complicated. They should now concentrate on the future, to take up the great national problems, precisely those uncompromisingly affecting the majority, in order to take a step forward. These are matters for the long term, not an act for one day. It doesn't have to do with just winning elections by getting the largest share of votes, but with challenging the hegemony of the forces that now dominate, and fighting that hegemony. It has to make itself strong in society by outlining a different politics.
P.S. Peña Nieto's and Calderón´s moving towards an agreement without dissolving party identities (or what's left of them) may make possible the program that sustains the grand de facto powers, that are not limited to Televisa. Just remember the trail of bishops and businessmen who accompanied Peña, the graduate of an Opus Dei high school, to Rome, precisely when--in a scene from the best soap opera--he informed the Pope of his forthcoming marriage to 'The Seagull' [nickname of his wife, a soap opera star]. Do we need a political speech to influence the captive audiences of the great monopoly? Is this democracy Mexican style?