Revista de Administración Pública

Transcription

1 Fernández Santillán Democracy and Civil Society in Mexico 181 Revista de Administración Pública Presentation Democracy and Civil Society in Mexico José Fernández Santillán* I will begin with an idea that might all agree on: today after at least four main events in contemporary history; uncertainty is the constant factor. These four events are: the fall of the Berlin wall of which we are celebrating its twentieth-first anniversary; the fall of New York s Twin Towers in 2001; the fall of Wall Street in 2008 that triggered a crisis as never seen before and the rise of Barack Obama to the United States presidency. These are events that questioned old certainties like the presence of bipolarity in the postwar period, international security, global economic stability along the alleged effectiveness of the model based on the free market and the continuity of the political bloc that governed the United States in a conservative fashion with the Bush family as their leaders. Well, all those certainties have disappeared in a short time and there are no other certainties to replace them. Each nation is handling its uncertainties in a different way at the same time it is trying to reinforce its international alliances. If we talk about Mexico, these severe external problems add up to other internal ones. To address this topic, I must explain that democracy and civil society are more or less newly created terms in Mexican politics. * Political philosopher, Ph.D. from the University of Turin, Italy. He has several publications. Disciple of Norberto Bobbio; Fernández has translated six of his books. He is currently full time professor and department chair of research in Citizenship and Civil Society in the Department of Global Studies in the School of Humanities of the Technological Institute of Superior Studies of Monterrey, Campus Mexico City.

2 182 Revista de Administración Pública XLV 2 Even though it sounds strange, for decades, these concepts were practically inoperable or were at best pushed into the background of national politics. Instead of having democracy, during the Revolution, the authoritarian ideology of the State was favored. This ideology was supported by three main pillars: the presidential institution, the official party and the ruling élite. Instead of civil society there was a firm corporate structure that united the organized social sectors into large confederations (working, rural and popular) controlled by the top of the pyramid. Those structures gave the country politic stability and social peace for many years; nonetheless, the backbone of the old system wore down little by little because politics and civil society in Mexico opened up to pluralism and democratization. Today, no one could exercise hegemony over the country s social groups. Now, we must say that the struggle against authoritarianism was shaped as electoral vindication. The country, as a matter of fact, had a long tradition of electoral fraud; it was necessary to take away the control of the elections from the government. New political powers, that were legally recognized, entered the public arena, competing for power in a more equitable and transparent way. While a democratization process took place, the country was becoming ungovernable due to the substantial politic and social unrest. Although the former authoritarian order has been left behind, Mexico has not reached a new democratic order; meanwhile criminal violence and an extreme inequality between the high strata and the impoverished mass have sunk the Mexican society into an increasing disorder. 1. Presidential rule, corporate spirit and the revolutionary family Let us go back in time: The Constitution of 1917, which is still in force, was written in Querétaro by Carranza s supporters who excluded anyone who had taken up arms against them; like the military and intellectual forces of Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata. The official history has wanted to hide the fact that Carranza s constitutional project was different and opposite to Madero s. We must not forget that in Carranza s inaugural speech to the Constitutional Congress on December 1 st 1916 he explicitly pointed out that said Constitution

3 Fernández Santillán Democracy and Civil Society in Mexico 183 would disregard democracy but would establish a strong autocratic government. After some time the left wing of constitutionalism incorporated social rights into articles 3, 27 and 123. The revolution of Carranza already had a Constitution, although it still had to be institutionalized and implemented. The first thing done was to finish pacifying Mexico and erect the National state, which was similar to that dreamed by Thomas Hobbes in The Leviathan. The first step taken was to create the Revolutionary Party to unite the regional caciques. The latter was done by Plutarco Elías Calles who on March 4 th 1929 established the National Revolutionary Party (PNR). The next step was to organize the social base by sectors (rural, working and military) in the Mexican Revolutionary Party (PRM). This happened in 1938 during the presidency of Lázaro Cárdenas. It is curious and not meaningless that the National Action Party which rules the country nowadays was established a year later after this event, i.e. 1939, to counteract the nationalist, state interventionist and popular politics of the revolutionary system. During the presidency of Manuel Ávila Camacho ( ) the military sector was removed from the PRM, the rural and working sector that were initially together, were separated and the popular sector was added. In 1946 the Institutional Revolutionary Party was created, coincidentally, that same year Miguel Alemán ( ) took power as the first civil president; thus, overcoming one of Latin America s major problems: militarism. In a parallel way, an informal power structure was built at the top: immediately below the President of the Republic. An élite that included all of the most important Secretaries of State, corporate leaders of the PRI, some business leaders and ex-presidents of the Republic. This élite was known as the revolutionary family. At the core of the revolutionary family the formation of a nationalization program and the expansion of public economy were agreed and the so called social reforms were devised to make feasible social justice in Mexico. This group also decided every six years the most important continuity problem of the Mexican political system or the presidential succession. This allowed the PRI to preserve power since its establishment in 1929 until the year 2000 when Vicente Fox won the presidency of the Republic.

4 184 Revista de Administración Pública XLV 2 The establishment of the revolutionary regime strengthened the national economy and the State had unlimited intervention power. This seemed as the only possible way to achieve distributive justice, agrarian reform and industrialization. This explains the significant increase in public administration, especially in the semi-public sector since The Mexican Leviathan apparently worked perfectly since the mid-thirties until the early eighties. We have to recognize, among other things, that it directed the country towards a path of civility. Although this does not mean that their actions were completely smooth. Corruption oiled the wheels of the complex political and social machine. Many of the created institutions suffered bureaucracy and inefficiency. There was an increasing fiscal deficit and economic growth was funded from inflationary public spending. In the meantime, those who governed and popular groups fell prey to paternalism. In the end, wide patrimonial / patron networks were established. 2. The transition to democracy and its difficulties In spite of the prevailing authoritarian order, the aforementioned period had social movements that opposed the regime such as the railroad movement of 1958 and the student movement of There were three small parties for decades: the already mentioned National Action Party (PAN), the Popular Socialist Party (PPS) and the Authentic Party of the Mexican Revolution (PARM). These were at best, puppets of the regime that helped the PRI to show the world that they were a party that respected democracy. The first steps towards a democratic opening were taken after the presidency of Gustavo Díaz Ordaz ( ), in other words after the massacre of October 2 nd 1968 in the Plaza of the Three Cultures in Tlatelolco. In 1977 during the presidency of José López Portillo ( ) there was an important change with the political reform, which allowed previously marginalized organizations to be included in the institutional competition; like the Socialists Workers Party (PST), Workers Revolutionary Party (PRT), Mexican Communist Party (PCM), Mexican Workers Party (PMT) and a right wing party (Mexican Democratic Party). Another breakthrough happened in 1986 during the presidency of Miguel de la Madrid ( ), a reform to the electoral legislation

5 Fernández Santillán Democracy and Civil Society in Mexico 185 that allowed the formation of party coalitions. This opened a chance in 1988 to the National Democratic Front (FDN), a big coalition of center-left organizations which supported the candidacy of Engineer Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas to the presidency of the Republic; who claimed victory for himself against the PRI candidate, Carlos Salinas de Gortari. As everybody knows, Salinas de Gortari was finally declared President of the Republic. In 1997 the PRI lost its former majority rule over the Congress of the Union. Thereafter, to reform the Constitution, the PRI had to form an alliance with the PAN in This was the only way neoliberal reforms proposed by Salinas de Gortari could be approved. In this environment, there was a new plurality in the composition of the political élites that was accompanied by a technocratic transformation of the ruling group. The Mexican neoliberals took power to achieve a series of structural changes based on market supremacy and slimming down the State. This is why the welfare State created by the regime of the revolution was criticized; especially because of its economical failure. To them it was a costly experiment that lain in the expansion of public economy. The solution found was to reduce the State s economic role and allow private individuals to take up again sectors that the public power did not or could not manage. 3. The emergence of civil society In this contradictory atmosphere, the concept of civil society emerged in the Mexican public scene. In my opinion, two events influenced this: nationally, in the first place, the earthquakes of September 19 th and 20 th 1985 that brought out into the open the government s incapacity and corruption. Due to the public authorities incompetence to help misfortuned people, citizens spontaneously organized themselves to face the adversity. Internationally, the already mentioned Fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9 th This event is seen as the symbol of the fall of communism in Eastern European countries such as Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Eastern Germany, the Baltic Republics and then Romania. The decisive factor in that liberation movement was the civil society. The popular uprising came after a long underground work against the totalitarian regime.

6 186 Revista de Administración Pública XLV 2 4. Antinomies of the civil society In Mexico, autonomy between social and state spheres was achieved for several reasons. In the first place, because the process of economic development yielded an urban and rural middle class that could no longer be covered by corporate networks; secondly, because those classes had access to a secular, enlightened and critical higher education that provided qualified staff to public institutions and private companies. Against a State that has lost its leviathanic character, but has kept its patrimonial nature and an economy made of big and even abysmal deficiencies; Mexican civil society with its plural and heterogeneous appearance became a central element of contemporary life in the country. In the dilated and contradictory spectrum of Mexican civil society we have to mention what we might call uncivil or anticivil society. To Mexicans that uncivil society is made of groups that oppose in a militant and in some cases violent way to defend their interests and demands. These are expressions operating outside conventional and pacific ways of participation. These counterpublics are spreading thanks to the weakening of public institutions. Speaking of this, a significant event occurred in San Salvador Atenco between December 2001 and February 2002 when ejido owners of this place violently opposed an expropriation decree to build there and international airport. The state of Oaxaca is another case worth looking at. Teachers from the 22 nd section of the National Union for Education Workers (SNTE) went into strike on May 23 rd looking to re-zone to improve wages for its members. Many months of outrageous violence followed; both the local government and groups gathered round the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO) participated in it. If we look at the big picture, we must say that the Mexican society is also overwhelmed by two problems of great significance: drug trafficking in one hand and massive emigration to the United States on the other. The way I see it, drug trafficking has spread because of two important reasons, first of all because of the weakening of the State; this has reached such a critical level that it cannot meet its most basic responsibilities like guaranteeing the upholding of the law.

7 Fernández Santillán Democracy and Civil Society in Mexico 187 Drug trafficking has achieved such firepower that it has put federal and local authorities into a hard spot: controlling de facto certain portions of the national territory, urban or rural. Secondly, drug trafficking s economic power in an environment full of corruption becomes the perfect mechanism to bribe public employees and officials of every level so as to carry out their illegal activities. That is why we can now talk about drug trafficking-politics. As Samuel González, expert on this subject mentions: there are no major crimes without major complicities in the highest spheres of power. To know the face of drug trafficking in México, it is important for us to remember that more than 80% of the so called drug lords are from Sinaloa. This curious fact is explained by the fact that this state was allowed to plant poppies and produce heroin and cocaine to supply during WWII these substances as medicines to American soldiers. When the war was over, producers from Sinaloa continued to depend on the drug to survive. They began to smuggle it into the United States through three parts of the border: Tijuana (Pacific Coast), ciudad Juárez (Center) and Matamoros (Gulf of México). This lead to the birth of four of the most powerful drug cartels: the Sinaloa Cartel lead by the Chapo Guzmán, the one in Tijuana controlled by the Arellano Félix family, the Ciudad Juárez one in hands of Amado lord of the heavens Carrillo s heirs and the one in Matamoros, commanded by Osiel Cárdenas. It can be easily understood that in a static national economy, the social risk of getting hooked on drug trafficking is very high. Regarding the massive emigration to the United States, it should be highlighted that about 500 thousand Mexicans cross the north border annually. It is true that the problem is not new: a good appraisal shows that the United States houses 20 million people of Mexican origin of first or second generation. This emigration to foreign parts is one of the challenges that has a profound impact in Mexico s social fabric. Most families have one or more relatives who live on the other side of the border. Practically, none of the states in the Republic are free of this expulsion of work force. Therefore, emigrant remittances from Mexicans living in the United States have become a fundamental pillar of the national economy. Emigration is and escape valve for the population that cannot be inserted into the current economy and even though it sounds as a

8 188 Revista de Administración Pública XLV 2 contradiction, it is a mainstay that makes up for the development model s deficiencies that would have caused a major social conflict, had it not been because we are neighbors to the strongest economy in the world. Allow me to point out that it is commonly said that the Mexican economy is held up by four green bills: drug trafficking, remittances, oil and tourism. If oil, remittances and tourism are descending; it is obvious that drug trafficking will have to be the economically deciding force in this situation. 5. Civil democracy Mexico is evidently in deep trouble. For starters, the government is not carrying out the responsibilities established by law, basically maintaining public order. An economic policy that generates wealth and corrects deep social inequalities has not been laid down. Thus, an urgent task is to restore the State s abilities to uphold the nation s political unity to take on economic development under new guidelines. President Felipe Calderón is in serious trouble: besides organized crime and the challenge of the current economic crisis there is another difficulty: his room for maneuver is not very wide; he has to deal with powerful business groups who want to impose their own laws in public affairs. As if that weren t enough, the presence of this oligarchy has been strengthened during the years the neoliberal model has been enforced in Mexico. As Danilo Zolo says, in recent times the creation of these types of oligarchies, under the free market doctrine, has led to a real evolutionary bottleneck. Calderón knows that the neoliberal model, which he supports, cannot offer results at a national level, much less at an international one. This is another difficulty: get used to a new American administration. Obama has plain and simple, set different priorities in internal policy and international relations to those of Calderón. Joseph Schumpeter was right when he said that democracy is not the absence of élites, but on the contrary, the presence of many élites competing between themselves. The problem is not that there are many leaderships, but that a handful of individuals control all the power. Certainly there are many problems. We have highlighted only some of them, the ones we seem to think are most important: the persistence of a cryptic oligarchy, the existence of abysmal inequities, the appearance of a global economic crisis, the spread

9 Fernández Santillán Democracy and Civil Society in Mexico 189 of criminal violence, the presence of social anarchic movements, the continuance of a patrimonial culture. Feasible governance needs to be proposed. We agree that the backbone of a true democratic transition, as the victory of Obama in the United States proves, is the creation of a new coalition of political, economic and social forces with aggregation capacities.