Leftist candidate worries Mexican elite

Judging by their respect for the Democratic process, AMLO is as bad as Hugo Chavez, yes. Maybe a teeny little bit better: They haven't attempted a coup yet, though I wouldn't put something like this beyond Obrador.

It's over, finally.

As for AMLO... on today's Washington Post:

Mexico: Democracy Under Threat

By Enrique Krauze
Tuesday, September 5, 2006; A19

To get a sense of the danger hovering over Mexican democracy, consider these numbers: In the 681 years between the founding of the Aztec empire in 1325 and the present day, Mexico has lived for 196 years under an indigenous theocracy, 289 years under the absolute monarchy of Spain, 106 years under personal or party dictatorships, 68 years embroiled in civil wars or revolutions, and only 22 years in democracy.

This modest democratic 3 percent of Mexico's history is divided over three periods, far separated in time: 11 years in the second half of the 19th century, 11 months at the beginning of the 20th century, and the past 10 years. In the first two instances, the constitutional order was overturned by military coups.

Scarcely 50 years ago, armed groups of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (known as the PRI, its initials in Spanish) attacked polling stations with pistols and submachine guns, gunning down suspect voters and stealing ballot boxes. Scarcely 20 years ago, the PRI -- which had refined its methods -- prided itself on being a nearly infallible machine. The government and the PRI (symbiotic entities) controlled every step of the elections, from the preparation of voting rolls and the discretionary issuing of voter registration cards to the counting of votes. Many bureaucrats and members of worker and peasant organizations were carted to polling stations where they were instructed to vote in mass for the official candidate chosen by the outgoing president. The voters were given sandwiches and gifts; their leaders were given government posts, sinecures and money. Many times the ballots were marked in advance and stuffed days before the election into "pregnant" ballot boxes; the establishment of secret polling places was common, and some people were registered many times over.

This shameful situation ended in 1996 when President Ernesto Zedillo set in motion a deep democratic reform. Elections at all levels were no longer controlled by the government, becoming the jurisdiction of an independent Federal Electoral Institute (IFE), subject to a Federal Electoral Tribunal. At great cost, detailed voter rolls were drawn up with a registration and voter ID system that made it possible to correlate physical presence, identity and registration at the polling places. The IFE very soon gained remarkable credibility. All over the country, citizens began to vote freely in fair and transparent elections. Few were surprised when in 1997 the PRI lost the majority in the Chamber of Deputies for the first time and the leftist candidate, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, attained the extremely important post of mayor of Mexico City. Three years later, the PRI lost the jewel in the crown, and the crown itself: Vicente Fox of the National Action Party (PAN) won the presidency.

On July 2 this same independent electoral organization, made up of 909,575 citizens (not government employees), oversaw an orderly, peaceful election in which more than 41 million people voted. It's important to note that almost a million representatives from all parties participated, as well as nearly 25,000 national observers and 639 international observers. At the end of the day, the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) presidential candidate came away with more votes than any other leftist candidate in Mexican history; in fact, he fell just 240,000 votes short of winning the presidency.

What happened next has left Mexico on the verge of social upheaval. What would an American think if, after a campaign as heated as the Kerry-Bush race, the losing candidate had declared himself the winner the night of the election, claimed "massive fraud" a few days later and orchestrated a sit-in of his followers (many of them directly paid by the local PRD government) on the Mall in Washington, blocking access to the neighboring streets and affecting businesses and government offices? That is exactly what Andrés Manuel López Obrador has done.

In articles and interviews published in the international press (written in a misleading tone of civility, far from that of his incendiary speeches), López Obrador has seriously damaged Mexico's young democracy by trying to sustain the unsustainable: that Mexico today is the same as Mexico in the days of PRI rule. He fails to mention that:

· He spent more on television advertising than any other candidate.

· In the same election he calls "a filthy mess" his leftist coalition managed to become the second-most-powerful force in the legislature, considerably increasing its presence in both chambers, while the coalition's candidate for mayor of Mexico City won with 47 percent of the vote.

· The polling places where the Federal Electoral Tribunal ordered a recount (9 percent of the total) weren't a random sampling, which would have been more than sufficient to determine whether there was generalized fraud. They were instead a selection weighted in López Obrador's favor because he chose the polling places where he hoped to show that there had been fraud -- unsuccessfully, since the resulting difference has been minimal, according to the tribunal's ruling.

· He has said that even if there were a recount in 100 percent of the polling places, he wouldn't accept the results if they were not in his favor.

Today, many citizens who voted for López Obrador are not only disappointed but fearful. According to recent polls, the majority of the country disapproves of his actions and supports the Federal Electoral Tribunal's performance. If the presidential elections were held today, Felipe Calderón of the National Action Party would win with 54 percent to López Obrador's 30 percent.

López Obrador has complained about his opponents' fear-mongering, but he's the one stirring up real fear, by declaring that "Mexico needs a revolution" and comparing the situation to the circumstances that led to the Revolution of 1910. The historical comparison is completely wrong: López Obrador isn't the heir of liberal democrats Benito Juárez and Francisco I. Madero, but of Porfirio Díaz and Victoriano Huerta, the coup leaders who smothered Mexico's two initial attempts at democracy.

What comes next? If, as is likely, the final ruling of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary confirms Calderón's victory, López Obrador will do as he has warned: On Sept. 16, Mexico's Independence Day, he'll gather tens of thousands of people in the central square of Mexico's capital to declare him "president" by acclaim. He may even try to control "his territory" in the southern states of Oaxaca, Chiapas, Tabasco and Guerrero, and the capital itself. His aim for the near future will be to lay siege to the institutions he despises ("let them go to hell," he said recently) and force Calderón to resign.

It is crystal-clear that López Obrador is not a democrat. He's a revolutionary with a totalitarian mentality and messianic aspirations who is using the rhetoric of democracy to try to destroy this third historic attempt at democracy in Mexico. Eighty-six years ago, Mexico brought an end to a revolution that cost a million lives. Since then it has lived in peace. It's a country still plagued with injustice and poverty, but it has made significant progress in its economic transformation, social programs and political life. It would be a sad thing for it all to end in dictatorship or revolution: the 97 percent of our history. Mexico isn't just another democracy: it's the neighbor and partner of Canada and the United States and the counterweight on the scale tipping Latin America toward the example of Brazil and Chile and not Cuba and Venezuela. It's more important than ever that the democracy we've achieved has the support and understanding of international opinion.

Enrique Krauze is the author of "Mexico: Biography of Power" and editor of the magazine Letras Libres. This article was translated by Natasha Wimmer.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

1. Even Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas is hinting that AMLO is like Chávez.
That he's not a leftist.
That he surrounded himself with members of the group who "implement electoral fraud in 1988".
That he lied during the campaign.
That he says one thing to the US media and another in Mexico.
That he omitted important questions such as the Pemex contracts, the Sensenbrenner iniciative, the law for "sociedades de convivencia" (gay "marriages")...
That he was among the candidates who overspent during their tenure public money for the political promotion.
That AMLO and his cronies have an "intolerant" and "dogmatic" attitude, which often conduces to "dictatorship. oppresion, repression and sectarism".

Read Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas' letter. Read it aloud to your friend in Rosarito. Ask him if Cárdenas represents the Yunque, the right wing? If he answers by saying that he's an old man, let me remind you the title of the Fascist anthem in Italy: "Giovinezza Giovinezza" (Youth, Youth).


2. It won't get nasty, against AMLO's wishes.
This country looks surreal some times, but it's civilized. AMLO is an outlyer in that sense.
The Grito at the Zocalo will be presided by neither Fox nor AMLO. Encinas will do it, as part of a larger agreement.
"Interlonas" is being dismantled. The "movement" will crown AMLO as "President in Rebellion" or something like that on Saturday, in a "Congress" that is politically more like Nuremberg (Triumph des Willens), minus the military uniforms.
Then it will fade to oblivion, with some "happenings" in between.

And they are leaving Reforma, woohoo! How cool is that?

Geez. It seems that Martha stole her dress from some innocent waitress at Samborn's, and Fox HAD to read his 10+ lines, just in case he messed it up.

"Viva las Instituciones!!!" Me lleva, como se la jalan con eso.

And Martha is wearing the same dress! Oh my! Shame...

True.
Martha is one of the reasons I'm glad Fox's term is over.






I KNEW Fox would say that. He just can't help provoking.

Well well well. AMLO proclaims himself as the President, Ebrard says that he wont recognize Calderón, and I suddenly start thinking what would happen if the PRD states start dismissing the Federal Pact.

... but no, that wont happen really. The PRD is so divided (for good I think).

Báez, who do you think is behind the wild folks at Oaxaca? Elba Esther? Fox? Salinas? Aaaaah hahaha, ok, probably that latter not...

What will happen to Gamboa's case? Will it have the same outcome as all? Canned?

Finally. Don't you think Pedro Ferriz, Oscar Mario Beteta, and Ruiz Healy are all trash? They are SO partial, and SO one sided that I just CAN'T stand them. I understand that there's free will, but one has to be professional. Probably Radio Fórmula just has a certain line that they need to follow... probably...

My opinion, publish on June 20th:
http://www.cronica.com.mx/nota.php?id_nota=247153



Canned, freezed, whatever. Gamboa is a survivor. The kind of Priista we all love to hate.



I dislike Ferriz and Ruiz Healy inmensely, they're interested trash.
Ferriz was the fiercest salinista, until Zedillo came and attacked Salinas, then he became he fiercest zedillista.
Ruiz Healy is a corrupt fascist, IMHO.
As for Beteta, he's too right wing, IMO. But he seems honest.

Radio Formula looks for ratings only. At 13:30 CMT (that's 11:30 for you) they have Joaquín López Dóriga; one hour or one hour and a half later they have Ciro Gómez Leyva, who was openly pro-AMLO until AMLO became visibly crazy.
The one I agree the most with (I'm not saying it's the best news show on the radio) is Leonardo Curzio, but I don't know if his program reaches Tijuana.

So, on Sunday Hugo Chavez declared that he does not recognize the government of Mexico, or the Mexico president elect, Calderon. Earlier, Chavez had criticized Mexico president Vicente Fox calling him "the empire's pup," in reference to the US, prompting an exchange of barbs between the two. Both nations have terminated bilateral relations with the withdrawal of ambassadors. How will this affect the two nations' economies, and Colombia's for that matter, in light of the free trade treaty the three had signed back in '94?

I believe something similar said Castro earlier today, in the order of "not recognizing" Calderón's government.

Báez, you are quite capable of culinary metaphors aye?! :wink:

Mexican-Venezuelan relations are on an all-time low.
Mexico has said we will continue to honor the San José Pact, which offers Mexican and Venezuelan cheap oil to Central American and Caribbean countries, including Cuba. As for the the trade treaty, it's still working, but mostrly with Colombia, as Mexican investment in Venezuela has not grown recently.

As for Cuba, their Minister of Economics said a few days ago that Cuba was willing to have better relations with the new Mexican government, specially if some "financial matters between Mexican and Cuban companies" were settled. Since the Cuban Minister of Economics will not speak without Castro's approval, this was read as: "Cuba will recognize Calderón and have a better relationship with Mexico if the Cuban State's companies' debt with Mexico is conveniently rescheduled". Jujst a handful of millions.

Leaving away traditions... do we get something, besides the public's approval, when making business with Cuba?

And in something that has nothing to do, I for one would be greatly fond of seeing Norberto Rivera prosecuted. That man has done some terribly misfortuned comments in the past, and now I view him as a small scale Marcial Maciel, which is now a refugee hiding in the Vatican (I believe).

What do you think about what Riva Palacio says?

Raymundo Riva Palacio - Felipito

The importance of economic involvement in Cuba is given in the answer to the following question: "Who will have the first hands when Fidel dies and Cuba turns into the Chinese model?" In terms of cost-opportunity, we gotta be there and, before the Americans untangle their stupid embargo laws.

On Maciel & Rivera, there is a crucial difference. Maciel was a pederast himself and was condemned by the Pope (he's not hiding in the Vatican, but subject only to a "penitence of silence", due to his age, by Benedict XVI, a very low punishment); Rivera is accused of protecting one, and he's innocent until he's proven guilty.
This doesn't mean I like Rivera at all. A cardinal with the face and manners of a PRI politician, yuck!

Raymundo's text is mean spirited, but totally true. Panistas are indeed that small.

Thats true, and to think that I lasted quite some time with the "Legionarios de Cristo".

Sooooo... "fuerza publica" in Oaxaca or what?

You're waaay more fresa than I thought, pohl!

I know , and that wasn't the only religious group! You can add Maristas and La Sallistas too. By the way, I spent some time in La Salle de Seglares in Mexico City. It was... in Del. Benito Juarez if I remember correctly.

... and to think my father has books like "Cristianismo, Un Mito" in his bookshelf.

Sympathy to el Pohl here for all that (reminding me of myself).