Today’s WaPo editorial praised Felipe Calderon, the new constitutional president of Mexico. In what is quickly becoming their trademark on Latin America topics, WaPo editors praised the rightwing figure, promoted free-trade supply-side economics, and shamelessly demonized the left.
Calderon, the right-wing candidate who the electoral tribunal assigned as the winner of the last election, is praised for his aggressiveness in dealing with the problems in Oaxaca, for starting a campaign against drug trafficking, and for outmaneuvering his political opponents. On the surface all of these things are true, but only if one lacks an understanding on how things work in Mexico.
So let me summarize the biggest problem with this editorial: ignorance.
The Washington Post editors are ignorant about Mexico, its political dynamics, and its history. Any person who has lived in Mexico can see the mistakes in their interpretation of what is going on in the country.
First, the way he is dealing with Oaxaca can potentially backfire. The editors conveniently omitted how one of the leaders in Oaxaca was arrested: we went to Mexico City to negotiate with the government. This is a major negotiation blunder, and a clear message to any dissident group that Calderon’s administration cannot be trusted.
The raid against the police in Oaxaca is another major blunder. When he chose a side, he should have stayed with them. If he was going to violate diplomatic norms by arresting a leader by calling him to the negotiation table, they should have sided with the governor. Instead, he is also gaining the hatred of the Oaxacan government.
Furthermore, there is a Mexican political tradition that occurs every time that a new president takes office: the new administration engages in a political witch hunt, pick a few scapegoats from the ruling class, and quickly apprehended and send them to jail. The new administration often uses heavy handed tactics to catch them. The point is to prove to Mexico that this time, things will be different. This has happened at least since 1982.
The raiding of the offices is sending the Oaxaca government a signal that they may be this term scapegoats. And I am sure that they do not appreciate it at all. The Washington Post editors show their ignorance about Mexico when they interpreted these raids as a gesture of impartially when they
Calderon has potentially made enemies with both sides of the conflict in Oaxaca just two weeks. I wouldn’t be applauding this.
The public call on the war on drugs is yet another of these political rituals. Every new president promises that they will combat drug trafficking and get rid of the drug lords and their violence. They always fail. Why? Because drug lords are too powerful. In a country where half of the population lives under poverty, drug lords have a huge amount of money, which they often wash by establishing businesses. The governors of states in the drug route always claim that they will fight them, and always end up making up some kind of private pacts where they are allowed passage as long as they keep the violence to a minimum.
Calderon will fail to curb the drug traffic because they are more powerful than he is. They can bribe their persecutors or killed those who are incorruptible. And even if he kills every single one of them, he cannot stop the economic force that the illegal drug market has. This means that the rewards in engaging in drug trafficking will always outweigh the risks.
And the recent political moves have not been as smooth as the Post seems to believe. For a country that takes rituals so seriously like Mexico, the bizarre power transfer is a clear signal that Calderon doesn’t have control over the situation. The transfer happened basically in secret, in a strange military ceremony. Calderon’s 5 minutes oath in Congress, surrounded by soldiers, was also bizarre. Contrast this with Salinas’s ceremony, which lasted hours, and included him greeting every single congressperson personally. And Calderon’s recent excessive symbolic use of the military is disturbing in a country where the military hasn’t been a political force since 1946.
And even though many received well his weak adoptions of promises of Lopez Obrador, most now are shocked by the deep cuts that his budget have for the national public university, UNAM. One of the few things that the Mexican government offers is the chance to have free higher education. And this free higher education is the promise that many poor people have that their children will have a chance to get out of poverty. The suspicion is that the cuts are a political punishment because UNAM is the most important university that forms liberals n Mexico, and defunding it is to he means to destroy liberalism in Mexico.
Now, knowing this context, Is Calderon the strong clear-headed leader of the editorial?
No, he isn’t. And personally, I don’t think there has been enough time to see what direction Calderon is taking. He has sent many mixed signals. I wish that he will do what is right for Mexico by following democratic solutions instead of the violent repression that he seems to indicating that he will use.
And I also wish that the Washington Post editors stop writing about that which they know nothing about.