OPINION & EDITORIAL
Obrador threatens stability
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Andrew Wagner:
- Free speech should not protect bigoted Baptists (November 30, 2007)
- Immigration debate truly cultural, not economic (November 16, 2007)
- Pakistan nears extremism (November 9, 2007)
- ASM grocery store deserves chance (November 2, 2007)
- Party identifiers cloud judgment (October 26, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Lopez-Obrador deserves full recount (September 19, 2006)
- French election may improve relations with U.S. (April 26, 2007)
- '08 hopefuls test political climate (November 15, 2006)
- Gross incompetence (October 18, 2004)
- Redo referendums (April 7, 2006)
by Andrew Wagner
Friday, September 15, 2006
Anyone who took time out of their summer this year to read a newspaper or website is likely familiar with the results of the Mexican election on July 2. After a heated campaign between Andrés Manuel López Obrador and Felipe Calderón, the election spawned a continuing drama reminiscent of the 2000 United States presidential election.
The aftermath of the election went sour as soon as the voting was over. Preliminary results put National Action Party candidate Felipe Calderón as the winner with a majority of 0.6 percent, or just over 200,000 votes. On Sept. 5, after two months of legal challenges by Party for the Democratic Revolution candidate Obrador and a partial recount, the Federal Electoral Institute declared Felipe Calderón the official winner.
Obrador claimed the election was rigged against him, and this would deny his constituents their rightful political power. This is not exactly an original claim for an apparent election loser to argue. However, European Union election observers declared the integrity of the election was uncompromised. Unfortunately for Mexico and the rest of the world, Obrador has refused to accept that it might be possible he actually lost the election.
Instead of conceding the election when his legal options were exhausted, Obrador decided to form a "parallel government." Just what exactly this organization plans to do remains unclear and shrouded in flowery, vague rhetoric. Most of it revolves around being the "legitimate" government of Mexico with Obrador, the "legitimate" president of Mexico, at its head. Supposedly, the representatives of this government will be picked at an assembly on Mexico's Independence Day, Sept. 16. At this point, no one knows just how far Obrador plans to go. Clearly though, he will seek to use his "parallel government" to undermine and attempt to bring down Calderón.
Beyond the presidential battle, there is another development that Obrador seems to be missing. The results of the election for Congress have made his PRD the second-largest political party in Mexico. Far from being denied a voice within the system, I would say that this seems like an excellent building block for the future and an opportunity to shape policy within the existing political system. With his political party's firm grip on power, Obrador's attempts to undermine the federal government look increasingly like attempts to avoid being sidelined in the future rather than showing true concern for his country.
In any sort of narrow and brutal election, doubts arise over the validity of the vote. The United States faced this obstacle in 2000. However, Al Gore had the common sense to avoid drawing the nation into a civil confrontation when his legal options were exhausted. In his final concession speech on Dec. 13, 2000, Gore stated, "For the sake of our unity of the people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession." Obrador should emulate Gore and leave the fight before he drags his country into turmoil.
Ultimately, Mexico does not need a modern-day Antigone in the form of Obrador. Rather, instead of an uncompromising standoff that can only end in disaster, Obrador can rejoin the political process. However, if he continues to threaten to form his own government and disrupt Mexico, this goal will become unachievable.
What makes it even more imperative that Obrador cease his fledgling revolution is the potential consequences for the United States. Internal disruptions in Mexico, the United States' second-largest trading partner, could well spillover into the border regions. In the United States, these consequences could include everything ranging from increased illegal immigration to trade disruptions or even to a spread of the unrest.
For the sake of Mexico and our own country, Obrador must quit his present course of action and moderate his stance. Otherwise, the United States might have a modern-day Greek tragedy on its hands.
Andrew Wagner (aawagner@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in computer science and political science.
Anonymous (September 15, 2006 @ 10:24am):
there were 10,000 ukrainians who showed up for
the orange revolution. that was widely covered
& supported by the corporate media.
1,000,000 mexicans showed up for the yellow
revolution. only to get ignored & vilified.
which just goes to show...
real revolutions are not televised.
Anonymous (September 15, 2006 @ 10:28am):
"I would say that this seems like an excellent building block for the future and an opportunity to shape policy within the existing political system."
This is like saying the Democrats have a real ability to shape federal policy.
"What makes it even more imperative that Obrador cease his fledgling revolution is the potential consequences for the United States."
Go Democracy! It doesn't matter if the election was stolen, all that matters is the effect on us. Think of all the coups and "revolutions" enacted under that mentality.
-------
The reality is that there was widespread fraud. The EU didn't observe fraud? Well how do you observe fraud? When a vote counter marks a vote the wrong way, when boxes are stuffed, when there's coercion involved in the voting... these things cannot be observed yet were prevalent to the extent that would overturn the results. Not to mention there were in fact acts of fraud recorded on video.
In prevalently PAN districts, there were 45,000 votes found ABOVE the number of eligible voters. This implies that there were actually more than 45,000 extras since most people don't vote.
The IFE called the election with 2 million votes missing, with a PAN lead of only 500,000 votes. Called Calderon the winner. And at the same time, the federal government, Fox and his PAN cronies, were kept in the know of the vote tallies, and knew more than each of the candidates. Imagine if Clinton was schmoozing with election officials throughout the counting of the 2000 election, and then Gore won by a razor-thin margin.
Some 80,000 votes simply went missing. In the days after the election, ballot boxes--entire sealed ballot boxes, predominantly in PRD strongholds--were found in garbage dumps or not found at all.
And these figures (45,000 and 80,000) were just discovered in the 10% recount. If the change of the partial recount were extrapolated to the entire vote, it is predicted there would be a 1.5 million vote swing.
Additionally, thinking back to Floridas of old, the same company hired by the GOP and Bush to purge voter rolls was also hired by Fox (and maybe Bush as well) to purge rolls in Mexico, and disenfranchise voters in mainly rural and indigenous areas.
And lastly, the most clever of all, especially in PRI municipalities which have turned into PRD strongholds, a form of techno-coercion has evolved. Government officials, at least those who wanted to keep their jobs in areas of high poverty, were told to meet person X at the polling place. There, they were given a cell phone with a camera. They took a fresh ballot and went into the booth as would any other voter. Except after voting, they were required to take a photo of the ballot while in the booth. After putting the ballot in the box, they then gave the phone back to person X who confirmed the proper vote and sent the employee on their way.
It is very dangerous to analyze this election from a "civilized" American perspective. You simply cannot say, ignore this fraud for the good of your country and the good of America. For nearly 80 years, the PRI had a grasp on elections, and no matter what the sentiments of the population, the PRI found a way to pull off the election, through force, fraud, and flat out rigging. PRI has a reputation of fraud and corruption amongst most Mexicans besides rural PRI supporters.
Fox finally broke their hold in 2000 with a PAN victory. But with this election, and a declared victory of the ruling party, many of the techniques of fraud used by the PRI are beginning to reemerge. Thus it is troublesome to many Mexicans, it is the reason AMLO won't back down, and it is the reason thousands upon thousands are at this instant camped out in the Zocalo and Paseo de la Reforma. It is the reason MILLIONS turn out for marches and rallies. It is also the reason, in a sense, for the continued 12-year campaign of the Zapatistas in Chiapas. It is also part of the driving force behind the beginning revolution in Oaxaca.
As Americans, it becomes easier to ignore the complexities of Mexico. But when analyzing this election, we have to keep in mind the history of Mexico, the history of stolen elections. We have to keep in mind the make-up of Mexico, where only a slim minority is upper-class or even middle-class. (Unlike America, where everybody is middle-class, everyone there is lower-class or essentially a peasant or factory worker) Also keep in mind that there is a huge indigenous sentiment in Mexico. It is not a white-transplant population like here, but an indigenous population, with a consciousness of colonization and conquistadores, where the whitest Spaniards control the economy and polity.
The people of Mexico love AMLO. In a sense he has a cult of personality, a celebrity such that can't step out in public without getting mauled by supporters. You have to see this yourself, as every news report out of AP, Post, Reuters, etc. has been horribly slanted and misrepresentative (basically identical to this article except published as impartial news). To walk around the Zocalo and see the support, to see tents full of provisions, with middle-aged women and old men sleeping inside and children's drawings hanging on the walls, there is a certain strength to these people which won't dissipate, won't die down.
In this time of democratic idealism, we cannot claim that AMLO needs to step down to preserve democracy. Instead, we need to stop parroting these ideas and demand that our neighbors to the south have their voices heard and that the fraud stop. The only way to reinspire faith in the "fledgling democracy" and prevent a full-out revolution there is for every citizen to know their vote was cast and counted.
- John Bruning
Anonymous (September 15, 2006 @ 4:25pm):
By the way, it's "Lopez Obrador," not just "Obrador." Calling him just Obrador is like calling you by your mom's maiden name.
Anonymous (September 16, 2006 @ 10:19pm):
Excellent news article, plus very good
insight as to how this smoldering fire
in Mexico may soon erupt.
I would advise this article be forwarded
by your news group to Calderon at the
presidential palace in Mexico.
Respectfully, W. Murra
Anonymous (September 17, 2006 @ 11:53am):
Lopez Obrador reminds me of Lopez de Santa Ana, who just by his cojones decided to install himself as President-Emperor-King of Mexico, how fast people forget history, Lopez Obrador "Just has to" be the king, no matter what, he seems to be forgetting that it is only a handfull of followers with 'not much to lose' that are marauding around him in the Zocalo, Millions of citizens around the country are somewhat ammused, and semi-worried, quietly waiting for his'Berrinches" to finely tire out.
Anonymous (September 17, 2006 @ 5:32pm):
just a handful? 15 million people voted for him, and just in Mexico City, several million people turn out to see him speak. Common people come from all corners of the country just for a chance to see him, when he appears in public he is mobbed by lower- and middle-class supporters who just want him to shake their hand, wave at them, which he usually does.
Are the millions of supporters who had their vote robbed throwing a "berrinche"? These other "millions" voted for Calderon, no wonder they want him to stop, if they had liked him they would have voted for him. And many of these people have so much to lose by him winning. They have turned profits off their own people and have profitted off of stolen land. When people have so much to lose, they can justify or ignore fraud.
How fast people forget history? How about Carlos Salinas or Porfirio Diaz? Or even Anastasio Bustamente, the guy before your Lopez? The 8 guys before him, all the way up until 1920 pretty much took over for a year or two, until they got deposed by the next guy, and then took over again. There is nothing special about Lopez de Santa Anna.
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 2:37pm):
Interesting dialogue. Clearly Calderon is the correct choice for a country that sorely needs good leadership and a path to modernization. However, one would like Mexicans to come by this choice on their own, and fully support the elected leader.
