The recent Presidential election in Mexico looks a lot like the Presidential election in the United States in 2000, according to many observers. In
today's developments, the final outcome of the election -- which conservative candidate Felipe Calderon won by less than 1 percent of the 41 million votes cast, is now in the hands of vast teams of lawyers. It really does look like Florida in 2000, as the conservative victor seeks to prevent any recount of ballots, as demanded by the leftist challenger, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.
One of the most apt comparisons between Mexico's 2006 election and the 2000 US Presidential election is the presence of an anti-establishmentarian spoiler for the left's best chance at winning real governmental power. In 2000, the US had Ralph Nader. In 2006, Mexico has Subcomandante Marcos of the Zapitistas.
From the Courage Campaign
Marcos is clearly far more anti-establishmentarian than Nader. Nader at least urged his followers to vote (albeit for an unrealistic 3rd party). Marcos has repeatedly urged his hundreds of thousands of followers not to vote at all. In recent weeks, Zapatistas have been marching under banners saying that the ballot box isn't large enough for their values.
The thinking behind this unending electoral boycott is that the Mexican system is inherently flawed, and only direct action -- not voting -- will bring any meaningful change for Mexico and the indigenous people that Marcos and his movement seek to represent.
I'm no expert on Mexican politics, and I have no great base of knowledge about the Zapitista movement, either. But it's clear that if Marcos had urged his large following to go to the polls and elect the most progressive presidential candidate seen in Mexico for more than a generation, we very well might have a different outcome today.
In good news, according to Fred Rosen of El Universal, a newspaper in Mexico City, Marcos has recently started to back down from his previously intractable anti-electoral politics position.
And now, having seen the sizable support for electoral participation not only among the groups he seeks to organize, but even among many pro-Zapatista activists, Marcos denies that the [his campaign] is urging any organized boycott of the polls.
Rosen seems to agree with California activist Daraka Larimore-Hall, who
wrote recently about how pointless it is to work to demobilize voters. Larimore-Hall acknowledged that many movements do not need to target the state through electoral politics, but:
...for those movements which seek to rearrange material power, putting candidates into office and working to keep them accountable is bread and butter. Imagine a Civil Rights movement which decided that the vote was not important.
Good progressive electoral politics flows from social movement activism. Good social movement activism doesn't stop at the halls of governance or ignore the ballot box. It's that simple, folks.
Winning elections isn't everything. Building alternative social movements isn't everything. But these two projects aren't incompatible and in fact need one another if we're ever to acheive our boldest, simplest dreams: ending inequality and stopping injustice. We must find ways to bring social movement activists into the important realm of political activism, both in Mexico and in the United States as we look ahead to November and beyond.