In the middle of the Peña Nieto reforms there are phenomena they are trying to hide, not denying them, but simply not mentioning them, such as, the insecurity, the lack of jobs, and the poverty in general that will not be resolved (nor is it intended to be) by the Crusade Against Hunger. The crisis of opportunities and of personal fulfillment for the majority of Mexicans is still present and not because not talking about it every day means it has been mitigated.
The strategy of not noticing negative aspects of what occurs in the country (and also what does not happen that should happen) is directed, in principle, at this year's local elections, which are not insignificant: a governorship (Baja California), over four hundred state congressional deputies and more than a thousand mayors. The intention of the PRI, which is its right, as also the opposition, is its old policy that came back to life in 2007 and was invigorated in 2009: that is, destroy everything and reduce the already diminished PAN and the parties of the increasingly lukewarm and indefinite left. The left, as is apparent, was so beaten in the 2012 election that it is looking with whom to ally itself (indiscriminately) in order not to lose any more points in the distribution of positions and public financing. Nothing good will result from these alliances, neither internal consolidation nor a better external image.
Peña Nieto and his main political operators, who thus far have shown skill at what they do, are trying to prove that not only can they govern the country but appropriate it as well, together with (which is obvious, although they don't say it) the owners of the national economy that, as will be seen with the tax and energy reform in the fall session of Congress. As always, the [business owners] will be the darlings of the regime and the regime's main supporters. For these, incidentally, it doesn't matter whether the PAN or the PRI governs, as in both parties they have found the necessary space to increasingly strengthen themselves. If to the political analysts and the experts these two parties do not substantially differ, for big businesses they are not only equal or nearly equal but [PAN/PRI] have benefited them [business] equally. That is what is important to them and, definitely, they want more. [Indeed,] they will get more than the true opposition that did not sign the Pact for Mexico may oppose and take to the streets to protest.
Certainly, protests are held nearly every day in various places throughout the country, but those who carry them out do not seem strong enough such that they cannot be divided, co-opted or bought. One of the consequences of poverty? Perhaps, or it might be that it's about the absence of militant ideologies and alternate projects consistent and attractive to the majority of the country. Morena [leftist political movement organized by defeated presidential candidate Ándres Manuel López Obrador, now seeking to become a political party] could occupy that space that seems to be missing, but perhaps it has not found a way to grow and strengthen itself as their leaders wanted. It is possible that in the second half of this year, if the tax and energy reform is presented, Morena and some sectors of the PRD [Party of the Democratic Revolution] and the PT [Workers Party] might succeed in convening, building and coordinating sufficient social forces to block them.
If this occurs, perhaps the Pact for Mexico might wobble and Morena might grow and develop. It could be, but it could also not be. One problem with the protests is that, frequently, they occur in isolation from each other and, even worse, they are not expressed in a manner that puts those in power against the wall or minimally hurts where it hurts the most: money and stability. More than once in recent years a general strike has been proposed, but it has not been done and probably will not be while the unions maintain their corporate ties with the State and with the PRI, some more than others.
The discontent of the unemployed and the poorest in the country does not produce instability except at some times and in some cities; in reality it serves, among other purposes, to keep wages low, tighten the bolts on those who do have jobs, reduce collective work contracts and benefits, cover up job security, and even prevent protest, at least in workplaces.
Insecurity, to which the government, as a social media strategy, refuses to give timely consideration, is one more ingredient of the instability experienced in Mexico. Unlike the very rich, millions of employers who are beset by organized crime are forced, many times, to close their small- and medium-sized business, leaving their employees adrift. It is no coincidence, as noted in an editorial in La Jornada, citing José Luis Calva (1.4.13), that drug trafficking may be the largest generator of jobs and that due to the foreign currency it brings into the country, it may compete with remittances sent by our countrymen in the United States or receipts from our oil exports.
The reformism of Peña Nieto is not enough. If anything, it has been proposed to provide solutions to poverty and unemployment, but not to curb the insecurity that we are experiencing while organized crime acts up, enriches itself and causes an average of twenty-three deaths daily so far in this administration. Spanish original
* Octavio Rodríguez Araujo holds a Ph.D. in Political Science and is emeritus professor on the Faculty of Political and Social Sciences of UNAM (National Autonomous University of Mexico). Dr. Rodríguez Araujo can be reached at rodriguezaraujo.unam.mx.