For those now living in the country, these are not good times for society. Although the entire political class speaks in its name, no one is really willing to listen to the society itself. A current example may suffice: Tax reform proponents claim that it has a high social purpose. Those who oppose it do so speaking on behalf of the middle classes or the working class. Both speak on behalf of society, but in truth nobody is listening to it.
It's easy to speak of a society understood as a mass of individuals, whose opinion is supposedly a function of the diverse interests of the political class and the media class. A society that is asked its opinion only through occasional surveys whose questions are answered, "Yes," "No," or "I don't know." For those who feel called "to direct the destiny of the nation," it isn't easy to take into account society's views when civil society is organized in multiple ways, designs alternative proposals and monitors the actions of the rulers. Listening to civil society never comes easily to professional politicians. Even less when, over time, they think they have in hand all the strings of power.
When, starting in the 1980s, the struggles of civil society contributed to questioning and changing the old regime, the political rhetoric never stopped referring to civil society and of recognizing its contributions. But those steps were not enough to turn declarations into real change in the form of governance in keeping with contemporary times; that is, with the participation of society. The change of the old regime alternated the actors [PAN held the presidency for twelve years, thus ending the 70-year PRI hegemony], but the relationship between government and society did not change.
When, starting in the 1980s, the struggles of civil society contributed to questioning and changing the old regime, the political rhetoric never stopped referring to civil society and of recognizing its contributions. But those steps were not enough to turn declarations into real change in the form of governance in keeping with contemporary times; that is, with the participation of society. The change of the old regime alternated the actors [PAN held the presidency for twelve years, thus ending the 70-year PRI hegemony], but the relationship between government and society did not change.
The only advances made came about as the result of pressure from society itself. Thus laws emerged, as did consultative processes and participative bodies that were very useful at the time, but that have gradually been ignored over time. So they have turned into forms empty of content that do not fulfill laws that require their enforcement.
Currently, in the name of making an agreement [Pact for Mexico], the participation of civil society is forgotten. In any democratic society, it is normal that opposing political forces reach agreements and build pacts. What is not normal is that these are made without taking society into account, especially without a public program that backs up the reasons for the agreements and which citizens can discuss and express their views. Faced with the exclusion of society, one cannot help but assume that either the Mexican democracy is a democracy sui generis, or we are not yet the democracy we have believed ourselves to be, in which the political class would have the capacity for listening to us.
What happens at the national level is replicated at the local level. There are theories that suggest that economies and political systems that coexist for a long time end up looking like each other. Maybe this is true even within each country, because the government of Mexico City, after several decades of trying to be different, has ended up looking like the federal government. For several years, civil society organizations, which contributed much to building the democratic institutions of our City, felt that the Federal District [aka Mexico City] was an example of the range of participatory democracy. The Social Development Law, the Law for the Promotion of Civil Society Organizations, the Law of Citizen Participation, the Human Rights Program, and many other institutions were put at the forefront. But this has been falling into neglect. Participatory democracy has escaped, or rather it has been driven out of the City.
What happens at the national level is replicated at the local level. There are theories that suggest that economies and political systems that coexist for a long time end up looking like each other. Maybe this is true even within each country, because the government of Mexico City, after several decades of trying to be different, has ended up looking like the federal government. For several years, civil society organizations, which contributed much to building the democratic institutions of our City, felt that the Federal District [aka Mexico City] was an example of the range of participatory democracy. The Social Development Law, the Law for the Promotion of Civil Society Organizations, the Law of Citizen Participation, the Human Rights Program, and many other institutions were put at the forefront. But this has been falling into neglect. Participatory democracy has escaped, or rather it has been driven out of the City.
If anyone is made uncomfortable by the above statement, it is enough to see what happened with the renewal process for the presidency of the Human Rights Commission of the Federal District (CDHDF). It is regrettable that the career path of one [Luis González Placencia] who was decent and responsible is only roughly known, together with the opinion of hundreds of qualified organizations and individuals who justifiably recommended his ratification [for a second term]. Beyond the affront to the person and the contempt shown for the organizations, what is revealed is a shortfall of political institutions. The parties became one of the most important autonomous institutions for the balance of power between government and society in the arena of its current disputes. The process of succession to the presidency of the CDHDF became the terrain of group resentment, of the commodification of politics and of bureaucratic greed, demonstrating without the least bit of shame the meanness to which it can fall without the counterweight of civil society.
They had the opportunity to have a vision of State. They had the opportunity to discuss--with the responsibility it deserves--the future of one of the major autonomous bodies, exemplary in its performance, for the entire country. They fell short.
Thus, a pending task remains for the country's civil society and for the City; namely, to fill the void of the ethical-political horizon. To elevate politics from the arena of partisan confrontation and corrupt negotiation to a forum for discussing the future of the Nation and of the City. To do this, it will be necessary to renew the links between the various forms of social organization and the public. To enhance the defense and call for rights. To construct innovative ways for debate and public pressure in order to achieve the seemingly impossible: to open the ears of an old and antiquated political class. So the young people of our emerging democracy are needed in order to grow. Spanish original
*Miguel Concha, B.A. in Philosophy and Diplomate in Social Sciences (Rome), earned the Ph.D. in theology from Providence College, RI. Co-founder of the National Commission of Human Rights, Dr. Concha is a long-time professor at the UNAM (National Autonomous University of Mexico). In 2003, he was elected one of two vice-presidents of the Mexican Academy of Human Rights.