Good analysis of Mexico's coming election...Trouble ahead?

This is from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a DC-based liberal think tank.

http://www.coha.org/NEW_PRESS_RELEASES/New_Press_Releases_2006/COHA%20Report/COHA_Report_06.13_Mexican_Election_Danger.html


Flirting with Danger: Mexican Presidential Campaign Grows Tense



*Mexico crackles with anxiety as the July 2 presidential vote approaches; growing bitterness threatens the country’s newfound stability


*The seeds of deep political divisiveness planted during the campaign could present grave challenges for the incoming government


*President Fox is largely to blame for the race’s polarization, as his constant interventions – some in violation of electoral regulations – have led opposition candidates to complain of an “election by the state” and have done grievous damage to the tattered remains of his reputatione


*Mounting social unrest has added to an already volatile mix, leading some to fear that a potential post-ballot dispute could quickly turn nasty and further compromise Mexico’s still unconsolidated democratic institutions and traditions



With just under a month to go until Mexico’s July 2 presidential election, deep uncertainties have taken hold of the country. As the top two contenders, left-leaning Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD) and Felipe Calderón Hinojosa of the ruling conservative Partido de Acción Nacional (PAN), begin their final campaign drives, the two men appear to be in a virtual tie. Some polls suggest that Calderón may hold a wafer-thin advantage – a dramatic reversal of the situation as little as two months ago when López Obrador’s lead seemed insurmountable. Yet the numbers are still unsettled, and much will depend on the June 6 debate, where Calderón and López Obrador will square off on live television.

Preparations for the ballot have been colored with a sense of fear and apprehension by the chilling prospect of polling day chaos rivaling the 1988 near-crisis, when only an unconcealed vote fraud ensured a victory for ruling Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) candidate Carlos Salinas over leftwing challenger Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas. If a political crisis is indeed looming, it could destroy the prized “stable transition” between administrations which is vitally important to both the country’s democracy and economy, and in doing so could likely represent the single greatest blemish on President Vicente Fox’s already pockmarked legacy.

Mexican politics have reached a decisive moment. Several troubling trends suggest that the country may be careening towards chaos, as recent political and social events combining to create a climate of grave disquietude. First, in recent months the campaigns of López Obrador and Calderón have become layered with polarizing polemic, and Fox’s interjections into the race have only exacerbated tensions, heightening the possibility that July 2 will produce a disputed outcome that defies simple political bargaining. Second, new social turmoil, highlighted by the recent violence in San Salvador Atenco, seems indicative of a potentially explosive atmosphere. While it is unlikely that Mexico will sink into a long lasting crisis at this point, even a short term flare-up sparked by the election could have profound economic and political repercussions for the country, which could also negatively affect the current immigration debate with the United States.

An Infant Democracy Is Put to the Test
The race to succeed Fox began long before the official campaign season kicked off this January. As early as last summer, López Obrador, bolstered by a successful term as mayor of Mexico City, seemed likely to cruise to victory in July. A desafuero (impeachment) attempt in the spring of 2005 by his PAN and PRI rivals, which would have barred the mayor from a presidential bid, failed in the face of widespread public outrage, which only served to strengthen the perredista’s hand. Fox, largely seen as the force behind the desafuero, ultimately caved to popular pressure and sullenly bent the rules to end the proceeding. The retreat was illusory, however, as the president continued undeterred to jab almost daily at López Obrador with opaque references to the “dangers of populism.” High-profile primary contests in both the PAN and PRI – the former surprising in its outcome and the latter depressingly corrupt – partially eroded López Obrador’s dominance. Despite such assaults on the system, for the first months of the campaign, it appeared that the former mayor enjoyed a ground swelling of support which seemingly would be impossible to trump. Most analysts saw his triumph as a fait accompli and predicted a relatively stable transfer of power. Such an eventuality would have been made all the more remarkable by its historic context: not only would it have represented the first presidential election occurring in democratic Mexico, but it would also have signified a dramatic shift from right to left in the country’s balance of power. But as of now, López Obrador’s advantage has vanished, and recent events have complicated the prospects for an uneventful and orderly succession, making the current juncture one of the most explosive in Mexican electoral history.

<snip>

Much, much more at the link above.

If the election gets ugly, as in 1988 and 1994, there's no telling where things could end up. If Mexico descends into political instability, well, all you folks worrying about illegal immigration--you ain't seen nuthin' yet!

Also worth noting is the right's use of Hugo Chavez as a bogeyman. This worked in Peru and it appears to have worked in Mexico. Hmmm, if Chavez likes a particular candidate, maybe the best thing for him to do is keep quiet.

would at least take a peek at this. Some knowledge of Mexico and its politics would be preferable to just spouting uninformed shit.

poor start fighting back. That's when the liberals and the neo-liberals start yapping hysterically about "political polarization" and imminent chaos. They don't call super-tax breaks for the super-rich unfair or destabilizing. They never descry the disenfranchisement of having no money to support the candidate who represents your interests, and the rich buying politicians and owning all the corporate news monopolies. Disorder is only mentioned when the poor object, and try to get fair elections, and won't settle for less.

Bah! I'm so sick of this twisted line of malarkey!

And High Plains, you've bought the war profiteering corporate news monopoly line on what happened in Peru. The truth; Ollanta Humala came out of nowhere, representing the majority--the poor, the indigenous, the true Left--and won 30% of the vote in the prelim and a runoff against the corrupt Leftist, Garcia. Humala thus bumped the fascist candidate out of the race. Humala surprised everybody. He then went on to win 45% of the vote to Garcia's 55%. Think of it this way: Because of Humala, they had an election with no Republicans, just Clinton Dems ("free tradists") and Greens as viable candidates. All corporate and Bush junta support went to Garcia, a highly corruptible "free trade" sort of Leftist. And, after he destroys Peru's economy--like similar politicians did in Argentina--Humala and the true Left will be back, although with a much bigger mess to clean up. The headline shouldn't be: Humala lost the election. It should be: Humala came out of nowhere to almost win it!

His support increased 15% between the prelim election (30%) and the runoff (45%). He and the true Left are GAINING momentum. And the only candidate that the Corporatists and the Bush junta COULD get behind was a corrupt LEFTIST (Garcia). Frankly, I don't think Chavez had any negative impact on Humala at all. That's just a corporate news monopoly narrative. I think that the ADDED 15% of support may have been INSPIRED by Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution (the idea of an economic and political alliance among Venezuela, Bolivia and Peru, against U.S. death squads and global free piracy).

The peaceful, democratic, Leftist revolution that is sweeping Latin America (with Leftist governments elected in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia and Venezuela) is so deep and so widespread that it is even reaching into Columbia (where Leftist voters and candidates are now starting to get organized, as they have in these other countries in the early stages). It's only a matter of time in Peru. Truly. Garcia will falter--with his new Bush buds mis-advising him, and with his INVITING more exploitation and more poverty.

Beware of corporate news monopoly narratives about Latin America.

The article is suggesting that tensions could explode, especially if there is a close, contested electoral result. It behooves us to be aware of the situation. If you study the last Mexican Revolution, you may see why I'm not so eager to see another one.

As for Chavez, well, I like the guy and his policies. But we now have at least arguable evidence from two countries--Peru and Mexico--that his endorsement of a candidate may be a drag on that candidate's popularity. If Chavez wants Candidate A to win, I would suggest he make a tactical decision to tone down his support. Otherwise, the candidate he likes gets tarred with the scary Chavez bogeyman stuff.