Setbacks for ‘Local-Boss Rule’ in Mexico : Two cases offer signs that nation’s democratic impulse will not be squelched

The controversial actions of two state governors have put Mexico at a political crossroads but present the people with a great opportunity too. In the face of weakening presidential power, citizens may choose either to move farther toward democracy or backpedal to a new version of caciquismo , the traditional rule of local bosses. We are betting Mexico will choose the democratic option.

Less than two months ago near Acapulco in the state of Guerrero, state police forces fired on peasants on their way to a meeting, killing 17 and wounding 24. Later, the governor publicly declared the whole affair a media invention and showed a videotape that he claimed demonstrated the police had acted in self-defense after “being attacked by the peasants.” The case was brought before the government Human Rights Commission and, in a surprising development, the panel issued a harsh report. It accused several high-ranking aides of the governor of lying, tampering with evidence, falsifying documents and covering up the massacre.

The report was widely praised for breaking new ground, but it did not go as far as determining the governor’s responsibility in the case. Furthermore, the panel does not have the power to prosecute anyone in the massacre. The Mexican people should demand that an independent special prosecutor be appointed. To allow for a truly independent investigation of the atrocity, the governor should take a leave of absence.

The second case that calls for close scrutiny is last year’s gubernatorial election in the state of Tabasco. Following a long tradition in Mexico, PRI candidate Roberto Madrazo spent what seemed to be endless campaign funds. He won and dismissed claims from two opposition parties that the election had been bought. However, he did not know that a mountain of evidence of illegal fund-raising tactics would be delivered to the opposition. Much of the $65 million used for his campaign (the limit was $1 million) came from the budgets of federal agencies--all taxpayers’ money.

The case was brought to the attention of the federal attorney general, who decided to investigate. Gov. Madrazo claimed he was being persecuted for political reasons and insisted that federal authorities had no jurisdiction over a state issue. He then sued the federal government.

The attorney general’s office should prosecute Madrazo, both to demonstrate that no one stands above the law and to assist in removing the biggest handicap that opposition parties face in Mexico, the overwhelming access to campaign funds by incumbent politicians.

The Guerrero and Tabasco cases illustrate the cruel and corrupt depths of Mexican politics. But, in a changing atmosphere illustrated by the actions of the Human Rights Commission and the attorney general’s office, they also provide Mexicans an opportunity to stand up to cacique politicians despite a weakened presidency and to uphold the rule of law.