Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Tribunal Fails Mexico's Nascent Democracy
U.S.-Mexico Border
Tribunal Fails Mexico's Nascent Democracy
by Aldo Nicolás Mena
Regardless of whether you supported the candidacy of Felipe Calderón of the Partido de Accion Nacional [PAN] or the candidacy of Andres Manuel López Obrador of the Partido de la Revolucion Democratica [PRD], it's hard to feel optimistic about recent developments in the Mexican political system.
The problem started on August 5, when Mexico's top electoral court, the Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federacion [TFEPJ], ordered a partial recount of the official results of the disputed July 2 presidential election. Then, on August 28, the tribunal, commonly referred to as "El Trife," issued a ruling that largely dismissed the allegations of fraud that had been presented by the leftist candidate. Finally, on September 5, the tribunal, as expected, certified the results of the presidential election and officially recognized Calderón as Mexico's president-elect.
Unfortunately, in issuing this set of rulings, the tribunal has created a political crisis that has eroded the credibility of Mexico's electoral system and could potentially destabilize Mexico's nascent democracy.
To begin with, the tribunal has empowered the López Obrador movement, and virtually guaranteed continued civil unrest and political conflict in Mexico. López Obrador has made it abundantly clear that he will never recognize a government headed by Calderón. He has vowed to establish a form of parallel government, draft a new constitution, declare himself the legitimate [as opposed to legal] president.
He has also vowed to escalate his already formidable campaign of civil resistance. Since July 30, his supporters have managed to disrupt commerce and produce chaos in Mexico City by occupying the city's main plaza and sections of the city's elegant Paseo de la Reforma. His supporters in the legislature were able to prevent President Vicente Fox from delivering his final state-of-the-nation address, and are likely to disrupt Independence Day festivities as well as the inauguration of president-elect Calderón on December 1. There is even the possibility, however remote, that this movement could eventually turn violent, especially if the government attempts to defuse it with force.
Of course, the tribunal could have opted to defuse the entire situation early on by simply ordering a complete recount. The issue confronting the tribunal was clear: Were there enough irregularities and instances of fraud in the July 2 presidential election to warrant a recount of all 41 million votes? Unencumbered by any legal precedents, it enjoyed wide discretionary authority on this issue, and could have applied broader constitutional principles in resolving this issue. Instead, it chose to apply a strict and limited interpretation of electoral law.
Only a full recount could have definitively vanquished any doubts about which candidate actually won the presidency on July 2. As journalist and professor, Denise Dresser, explained in a Los Angeles Times editorial in July: "López Obrador, of course, has every right to legally question the results of a close election, just as the country has every right to demand that he respect its results. A vote-by-vote recount would leave him no recourse but to do so." More recently, Joy Olson, the Executive Director of the Washington Office on Latin America noted that: "Those who see this protest as a mere inconvenience and political posturing are missing the point. The protesters believe that the election was stolen from [López Obrador]. The historic, often personal, experience with past stolen elections gives added support [to] these beliefs."
The tribunal's decisions have also effectively denied Calderón the political mandate he will need to govern Mexico. He will assume the presidency of Mexico with the taint of illegitimacy. A full recount may have resulted in a victory for López Obrador, but it could have also firmly and unquestionably established Calderón as President Fox's legitimate successor.
Even President Fox's legacy has been compromised by the tribunal's decisions. Due to the political crisis that the tribunal's intransigence on these issues has produced, his departure from the presidency stands in stark contrast to his triumphant assumption of this office in 2000 when Mexico celebrated his victory over 71 years of authoritarianism. As it stands now, he finds himself embroiled in a seemingly intractable political crisis, and has the dubious distinction of being the first president in modern Mexican history not to deliver a state-of-the-nation address. In all likelihood, his presidency will end not with a bang but a whimper.
At this critical point in Mexico's political evolution, the members of the tribunal apparently failed to understand the nuances of the larger issue they were confronting. They failed to understand that Mexicans needed to be assured, perhaps now more than ever, that these elections were fair, and that Mexico had, in fact, evolved and entered a new era of democratic accountability. The tribunal failed to understand that this was not the time for decisions based on numeric calculations or legal technicalities. In short, the tribunal failed to understand that what Mexicans needed was certainty.
Ultimately, however, the tribunal has not only failed to understand and definitively resolve the larger issue of whether the July 2 presidential election was fair, it has failed Mexico's nascent democracy.
* * *
Aldo Nicolás Mena is a native El Pasoan, and a firm believer in the "necessity" of alternative media sources. He is co-founder of EagleandSerpent.org, a non-profit organization devoted to promoting an informed understanding of the Mexican political system in the United States, and publishes a blog that tracks political developments in Mexico entitled MexicoInFocus.com. He received his B.A. in English and Political Science, and his M.A. in Latin American Studies from the University of New Mexico at Albuquerque. Please forward any inquiries or comments to: mexicoinfocus@terra.com.
Tribunal Fails Mexico's Nascent Democracy
by Aldo Nicolás Mena
Regardless of whether you supported the candidacy of Felipe Calderón of the Partido de Accion Nacional [PAN] or the candidacy of Andres Manuel López Obrador of the Partido de la Revolucion Democratica [PRD], it's hard to feel optimistic about recent developments in the Mexican political system.
The problem started on August 5, when Mexico's top electoral court, the Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federacion [TFEPJ], ordered a partial recount of the official results of the disputed July 2 presidential election. Then, on August 28, the tribunal, commonly referred to as "El Trife," issued a ruling that largely dismissed the allegations of fraud that had been presented by the leftist candidate. Finally, on September 5, the tribunal, as expected, certified the results of the presidential election and officially recognized Calderón as Mexico's president-elect.
Unfortunately, in issuing this set of rulings, the tribunal has created a political crisis that has eroded the credibility of Mexico's electoral system and could potentially destabilize Mexico's nascent democracy.
To begin with, the tribunal has empowered the López Obrador movement, and virtually guaranteed continued civil unrest and political conflict in Mexico. López Obrador has made it abundantly clear that he will never recognize a government headed by Calderón. He has vowed to establish a form of parallel government, draft a new constitution, declare himself the legitimate [as opposed to legal] president.
He has also vowed to escalate his already formidable campaign of civil resistance. Since July 30, his supporters have managed to disrupt commerce and produce chaos in Mexico City by occupying the city's main plaza and sections of the city's elegant Paseo de la Reforma. His supporters in the legislature were able to prevent President Vicente Fox from delivering his final state-of-the-nation address, and are likely to disrupt Independence Day festivities as well as the inauguration of president-elect Calderón on December 1. There is even the possibility, however remote, that this movement could eventually turn violent, especially if the government attempts to defuse it with force.
Of course, the tribunal could have opted to defuse the entire situation early on by simply ordering a complete recount. The issue confronting the tribunal was clear: Were there enough irregularities and instances of fraud in the July 2 presidential election to warrant a recount of all 41 million votes? Unencumbered by any legal precedents, it enjoyed wide discretionary authority on this issue, and could have applied broader constitutional principles in resolving this issue. Instead, it chose to apply a strict and limited interpretation of electoral law.
Only a full recount could have definitively vanquished any doubts about which candidate actually won the presidency on July 2. As journalist and professor, Denise Dresser, explained in a Los Angeles Times editorial in July: "López Obrador, of course, has every right to legally question the results of a close election, just as the country has every right to demand that he respect its results. A vote-by-vote recount would leave him no recourse but to do so." More recently, Joy Olson, the Executive Director of the Washington Office on Latin America noted that: "Those who see this protest as a mere inconvenience and political posturing are missing the point. The protesters believe that the election was stolen from [López Obrador]. The historic, often personal, experience with past stolen elections gives added support [to] these beliefs."
The tribunal's decisions have also effectively denied Calderón the political mandate he will need to govern Mexico. He will assume the presidency of Mexico with the taint of illegitimacy. A full recount may have resulted in a victory for López Obrador, but it could have also firmly and unquestionably established Calderón as President Fox's legitimate successor.
Even President Fox's legacy has been compromised by the tribunal's decisions. Due to the political crisis that the tribunal's intransigence on these issues has produced, his departure from the presidency stands in stark contrast to his triumphant assumption of this office in 2000 when Mexico celebrated his victory over 71 years of authoritarianism. As it stands now, he finds himself embroiled in a seemingly intractable political crisis, and has the dubious distinction of being the first president in modern Mexican history not to deliver a state-of-the-nation address. In all likelihood, his presidency will end not with a bang but a whimper.
At this critical point in Mexico's political evolution, the members of the tribunal apparently failed to understand the nuances of the larger issue they were confronting. They failed to understand that Mexicans needed to be assured, perhaps now more than ever, that these elections were fair, and that Mexico had, in fact, evolved and entered a new era of democratic accountability. The tribunal failed to understand that this was not the time for decisions based on numeric calculations or legal technicalities. In short, the tribunal failed to understand that what Mexicans needed was certainty.
Ultimately, however, the tribunal has not only failed to understand and definitively resolve the larger issue of whether the July 2 presidential election was fair, it has failed Mexico's nascent democracy.
* * *
Aldo Nicolás Mena is a native El Pasoan, and a firm believer in the "necessity" of alternative media sources. He is co-founder of EagleandSerpent.org, a non-profit organization devoted to promoting an informed understanding of the Mexican political system in the United States, and publishes a blog that tracks political developments in Mexico entitled MexicoInFocus.com. He received his B.A. in English and Political Science, and his M.A. in Latin American Studies from the University of New Mexico at Albuquerque. Please forward any inquiries or comments to: mexicoinfocus@terra.com.
# posted by Nancy T. @ 9:12 AM 
