Genuflections, but Few Answers : Though a Start, Mexican Party’s Opening Is Not What It Seems

In a move that departs from tradition, the official party in Mexico recently named six candidates for the 1988 presidential nomination.

At the same time, another innovation was introduced into the political process. The six candidates, who are all members of President Miguel de la Madrid’s cabinet, were asked to talk to the leadership of the party and expose their “vision” of the country.

In order to understand what is happening today in Mexico’s political arena, two temptations should be avoided. One is to praise these changes as transcendental measures that open the system and make it more democratic. A second is to dismiss them as a ploy, thereby denying the undeniable: that there has been a change, albeit a small one.

It is true that in the old days the country’s president would choose one member of his cabinet to be his successor, and that was it. There was no official recognition of the candidates, and, least of all, there were no talks about anyone’s “vision” of the country.

Now the leadership of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, wants Mexicans to believe that the practice of tapadismo (hooding the candidate) is over.

Unfortunately, the common citizen does not understand yet what is going on and which way it will go. Reviewing the presentations made so far, one gets the impression that this is something that does not even vaguely resemble a debate on the nation’s problems, or how to tackle those problems.

What we have seen is politics in a gentlemanly fashion. Apparently all is well in the governing of the country and there is nothing to criticize. The problems that the country has, which the four speakers recognize, have come from nowhere, and no one is accountable for failing to solve them.

Nonetheless, the people of Mexico do not want to see genuflections and praise for the chief when there are so many questions and so few answers regarding the issue of democratization.

Here is a sample of questions that deserve answers: Who selected these six gentlemen to be the official candidates? What will happen after all the candidates are through with their presentations? Will the leadership announce to the president who will be the next presidential candidate? Will the president be excluded from the decision? Will somebody speak out and explain why one candidate was chosen over the others? Will the party membership ever get to discuss the merits of the candidates?

So far the PRI has been following its usual secretive strategies. Even though mysterious procedures are common in Mexico, the genuine issue in this case is “openness.” Thus it seems paradoxical and self-defeating to proceed in this way.

But paradox is a recurrent trend in Mexico, and sometimes it can be disguised in a diabolical manner. The political monopoly that has been maintained by the PRI throughout 58 years has been possible, in part, due to its remarkable disposition for change. The PRI has been able to perform the ultimate act, to induce change in order to make everything remain the same.

To blame the PRI for the lack of democracy in Mexico is an error. It doesn’t have to invent an opposition. If the people do not organize themselves into political parties, the fault is their own.

Nonetheless, in the PRI there exists a perverse and symbiotic relationship between the administration and the party that is shameful and should be eradicated. There is no doubt that the party must democratize its methods for selecting its candidates. But to blame one party for the failure of the others is an undesirable extreme.

The six candidates should be asked to exercise criticism, both of the administration and of each other.

Yet can I hope to hear any of the six candidates pointing his finger at Ramon Aguirre, accusing him of being incapable of governing Mexico City? Will someone blame Manuel Bartlett Diaz for allowing the electoral frauds in Chihuahua and other Mexican states? Will we hear a voice pointing out to Alfredo del Mazo that he is inheriting a position that he does not deserve after such an inconspicuous and brief political career?

Will there be a person who will say to Sergio Garcia Ramirez that his fight against organized drug trafficking has been inefficient? Who will tell Miguel Gonzalez Avelar that his lack of courage to fight the teachers’ union is responsible for the deterioration of education in Mexico? Can we expect anyone to criticize Carlos Salinas de Gotari for planning the national economy in a way that prolongs economic inequality in the country? And last, but not least, can we hope to hear any criticism of the policies that have been followed by De la Madrid?

No, I don’t think so. The six candidates in their speeches will try to persuade us that in the present administration there were no mistakes, no corruption, no inefficiencies, no political frauds.

I don’t think that there has been any fundamental change, but there is no doubt in my mind that these presentations do represent a tendency toward change that will make it harder for the next Mexican president to choose his successor. Today the change is minor, but the future looks better for democracy within the party that has been in power for 58 years.