Mexico Hear The Voices of the Exterior

Dear brothers and sisters in USA, Canada and other countries,
Respected journalists and reporters,
Dear friends,

Several activities have been carried out by the National Democratic Convention, an ample social movement that includes people from several sectors of society here in Mexico and abroad, in the pursuit of a truly democratic state in which equality, social justice and genuine democracy are the foundation of our Nation. Here are some of the most relevant activities:

1. Letter sent to the organizations of Mexicans in USA, who are valiantly struggling to get their rights respected in a country that has been enriched by their hard work:

"Dear brothers and sisters,

We salute with great enthusiasm and respect your permanent and valiant struggle against the despicable treatment you endure as a result of the discriminatory policies from the most retrograde sectors within the government of the United States, a country that has benefited with the hard work, intelligence and creativity of all of you.

We are proud to join our strong protest to yours against the infamous wall the North American government has decided to build allegedly to stop Mexicans to enter their country.

The level of hypocrisy and cynicism exhibited by both, the Mexican and North American politicians currently in power, is simply insufferable and despicable! They know what we know: that the increasing number of brothers and sisters that are forced to leave their homeland and loved ones, is a direct result of the impoverishment caused by the ignominious NAFTA and neoliberalism.

You and us will continue this fight together, united, until the most cherished values like solidarity, empathy, mutual respect, become once more, the foundation of the nation we aspire to have.

Please receive our fraternal regards and may the March of the 14th be memorable,

Commission of International Media and Organizations
National Council of Civic Communicators
National Democratic Convention"


2. The following letter was sent to the Mexican Senate by the National Council of Civic Communicators, in support to APPO and Section 22 of Teachers in Oaxaca:

"TO THE SENATE OF THE MEXICAN REPUBLIC:

The members of the National Council of Civic Communicators, under Articles 6th and 7th of the Constitution of the Mexican United States, with offices at Calle 3 Oriente No. 68, Casa 1, Col. Isidro Fabela, Delegacion Tlalpan, appear before you to express:

That under Fraction V of Article 76 of our Mexican Constitution, this Legislature has the faculty and authority to intervene in the solution of the social conflict currently existing in the State of Oaxaca.

In light of the foregoing, we are requesting your urgent, responsible, respectful and peaceful intervention, under the law and, above all, taking the necessary steps for the solution of the demands, in the best interests of the population of Oaxaca, whose needs and rights have been grievously neglected by the current state government.

We all are aware of the ignominious poverty, abuse and repression that historically have been endured by the people in this region of our country. This situation is a direct result of the corruption and exploitation practices carried out by caciques and scoundrelly "public servants" who driven only by greed and lack of moral principles, have generated the current legitimate protests and opposition by ample impoverished and outraged sectors of the population in Oaxaca. The current crisis began with the demands from the 22nd Section of the National Union of Education Workers, which escalated to the current conflict due to the refusal of governor Ulises Ruiz to solve the justified demands of the teachers of Section 22.

Now, as a result of the disregard and irresponsible neglect by governor Ruiz, other groups have joined them and constituted the POPULAR ASSEMBLY OF THE OAXACA PEOPLES (APPO) that not only support the teachers' just demands but also their very own. However, due to the governor's irresponsible behavior, the social crisis has resulted in the demand of the resignation of Ulises Ruiz Ortiz as governor, as a firm and non negotiable condition to move forward with the conversations between APPO and the federal authorities to solve the situation.

As Senators of the Republic, you must be sensitive to this relevant historic moment and must strive for the solution of this just and reiterated demand in a satisfactory manner for APPO and Mexican society.

We have observed with deep concern the crisis in Oaxaca and we demand from you to act as authentic Senators Elect, for the good of Mexican society. We also demand of you to act as true Representatives of the Nation and, in this specific case, pay attention to the requests of the majority of the population of Oaxaca, who have amply sustained sound reasons for their demand of the resignation of an irresponsible and inefficient governor who does not warrant social peace and economic development of the State of Oaxaca.

This situation of total lack of accountability and inability of governor Ulises Ruiz, has led that region to a climate of total chaos which must be solved but in a sensible manner by all of you, Senators of the Republic , avoiding at all time the repression of the people of Oaxaca, which has always existed but which will seemingly intensify, with the serious repercussions that such undesirable decision would originate precisely at this time when millions of Mexicans are questioning the legality of the institutions.

This is not the moment to apply repressive measures, nor will it ever be. Instead, this is the moment for A SENSITIVE AND RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE FOR AN OPTIMAL SOLUTION OF THE CRISIS.

All Mexican people expect from all of you, the most sensitive and democratic intervention, and also political finesse and understanding of the problems of a population historically abused and exploited that can no longer endure the repression and neglect by a governor that has shown once and again his inability to rule and his profound disdain for the people of Oaxaca.

THIS IS THE TIME TO LEGISLATE BEFORE A SOCIETY THAT HAS EVOLVED NOTABLY AND THAT DEMANDS FROM YOU SENSIBILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY, AS WELL AS EMPATHY TOWARDS THE MISERY AND DISPAIR OF THE PEOPLE OF OAXACA. WE, THE CITIZENS, ARE WATCHING YOU AND WE EXPECT FROM ALL OF YOU FIRM EFFORTS FOR A RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE TO ATTEND THE NEEDS AND DEMANDS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OAXACA.

Mexican society has changed so we want from you a patriotic and just management of the situation, because we demand it and the Nation deserves it. You are our representatives, so we expect that you honor the SENATE OF THE REPUBLIC.

In virtue of all the foregoing, we respectfully demand of you:

FIRST: Acknowledge receipt of all the above considerations expressed by the National Council of Civic Communicators.

SECOND: To forward these requests to the Legislative Works Commission of the Senate, with copy to every and all senators of the Republic.

THIRD: To proceed with the highest sense of patriotism and political finesse in the solution of the demands of the People of Oaxaca, namely, the resignation of a governor that has clearly exhibited his lack of responsibility and inefficiency to rule his state, which does not guarantee now or in the future, social stability in Oaxaca.

FOURTH: Under Articles 8th and 35th, Fraction V of our Mexican Constitution and all other articles applicable, we expect your prompt and expedite response to the contents and requests of this letter.

Respectfully,


For the National Council of Civic Communicators:


Luis Alfonso Bartilotti Rodríguez
Luis Cisneros Lujan
Ma. de los Ángeles Huerta del Río
Patricia Barba Avila
Manuel Guerrero Ramos
Antonio Salyano Leyva"

3. There are other actions carried out by several Commissions like the screening of videos in parks and public places, about the fraudulent elections, repressive actions by the federal government against protesters and public demonstrations, along with the production of printed materials to inform the truth about the reasons for the National Democratic Convention led by Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and the Coalition, with the support of ample sectors of Mexican society.

4. Actress and political activist Jesusa Rodriguez, who leads the Creative Resistance, headed last Sunday, one of several marches, which ended up in one of the Sanborns Restaurants owned by millionaire entrepreneur Carlos Slim, where we voiced our rejection of the attacks and disparaging statements against Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and the National Democratic Convention voiced by Mr. Slim in a recent speech.

5. Joint efforts by the National Democratic Convention and the organizations of Mexicans in USA and Canada against electoral fraud, and also the discriminatory and unfair policies by the right-wing and retrograde sectors in the United States, like the upcoming march on October 14.

6. Dozens of letters are being addressed to IFE in support of the request submitted to IFE by Professors John M. Ackerman and Irma Saldoval for a full ballot recount, under the Mexican Law of Transparency, which IFE has repeatedly refused.

7. A series of meetings and political gatherings in several states of Mexico to be organized shortly by the National Council of Civic Communicators, among other things, to promote activities in preparation for November 20th, when our Legitimate President Elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador will assume the Presidency officially, after he was named the legitimate winner of the past election on July 2.

We will continue sending reports on future actions and will welcome all information you would like for us to broadcast,

Patricia Barba Avila
Commission of International Media and Organizations
National Council of Civic Communicators

Published Oct 13, 2006 10:20 PM
Revolutionary or mass political and social developments in Mexico are perhaps one of the most important signs that imperialism is in crisis. A question always on the minds of the U.S. ruling class is can imperialism detain and control the class struggle there, can it keep it from bursting into revolutionary upheaval that would inevitably spill over the border, forever changing the political landscape in this country.

So it is with great interest that progressives and revolutionaries monitor the events that have been sweeping Mexico in the recent period. A massive upsurge in Mexico City after fraudulent elections and the advent of people’s power in Oaxaca are two indications that Mexico is in the throes of a massive upheaval.

Which way it will go, no one knows. But the unfolding events are generating great optimism and excitement.

People’s power in Oaxaca

Some alternative media are calling the people’s occupation that has been taking place in Oaxaca since May 22 “the Oaxaca Commune.” They point out that the occupation in Oaxaca has lasted more than twice as long as the Paris Commune of 1871.

The movement against oppression and exploitation in this Mexican state has reached the level that some are saying there is now dual power in Oaxaca. The masses have occupied the center of government and are in control of much of the capital. The governor of the state, Ulises Ruíz Ortíz, who is the prime target of the protests, has, in the words of the Financial Times, been “forced to live out of a suitcase.” The Ruíz administration has gone underground.

The Financial Times declares that Oaxaca has been in a state of “anarchy” for several months.

Behind the crisis in Oaxaca

Oaxaca is one of the three poorest states in Mexico. The other two are Chiapas in southern Mexico and Guerrero on the Atlantic side. The population of Oaxaca is about 3.5 million. It has the largest number of people with indigenous ancestry, about two-thirds of the population. Oaxaca is Mexico’s most indigenous state, home to 17 distinct Indian cultures.

According to a Mexican human rights network, the richest 10 percent of households receive 13 times the income of the poorest 10 percent.

The 70,000 teachers who opened up the struggle with their strike are by far not the poorest. In fact, they can be considered part of the so-called middle class. They are members of the National Union of Educational Workers—El Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores Educativo (SNTE)—a large and powerful union but very much a company union, entrenched with the capitalist government historically.

But in Oaxaca the teachers are members of Section 22 of SNTE, which has much more of a radical and militant history. Their strike affects 14,000 schools. It was spurred on by Ruíz, who became governor in 2004 in elections that the people charge were fixed. He is accused of corruption and human rights abuses, brutally cracking down on protests, and encouraging the police to form paramilitary groups to squelch dissent and opposition.

The movement charges that Ruíz has ruled with excessively overt terror, carried out kidnappings and jailed people for no reason at all. Charges include torture, killings and impunity for those who carried out these atrocities.

For 25 years, the teachers have gone out on strike every May. But this year was different. The demands of the strikers resonated among a wider section of the population and a movement was sparked.

According to an article by George Salzman, between May 15 and June 17 demonstrations grew from about 50,000 to 400,000. When negotiations between the union and the government stalemated, the strikers and supporters began to occupy the center of the city. (Counterpunch, Aug. 30)

The strikers and their families, including children, along with many supporters, began to camp out. Business as usual was thoroughly disrupted.

The movement gelled to the point of forming a massive, statewide people’s assembly. A convention was organized. Out of it, the Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca (APPO) was born.

Independent news accounts report that protesters, grouped in more than 350 different social organizations, who had been camping out in the parks and on the streets for over four months, are governing through people’s assemblies. They have taken over radio stations and have expelled public officials from local government posts. Many protesters have armed themselves with sticks and slingshots. Local residents stand guard behind barriers of sandbags, rocks, scrap metal and burnt-out buses.

Buses have been commandeered—commercial, police and government vehicles—and are being used to block roads.

“Should federal troops attempt to wrest control of this southern capital from strikers, they’ll face scores of avenues like Calle Almendros, now a gantlet of obstacles designed to slow an advance. Strikers have prepared a 200-yard-long segment by stretching wires across it at neck, ankle and waist height, placing large rocks side-by-side and parking a commandeered school bus sideways to block traffic in both directions. Like many other streets, it has been fortified with small bunkers made of sandbags and stocked with dozens of bottles for Molotov cocktails. Hundreds of smaller rocks were piled up to be thrown or launched by slings.” (San Antonio Express-News, Oct. 4)

In another sign of people’s power, while TV Azteca was interviewing two lawmakers at a hotel, they were hustled out a back door, their departing car pelted with rocks. Unrest has scared most tourists away. Business leaders put losses at more than $300 million.

Crisis for the state

This incredibly untenable situation for the Mexican government takes place amid one of the biggest political scandals in decades. The July presidential elections were tainted with fraud and corruption. All indications are that popular candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador was cheated out of the presidency.

But he did not go back and hide in the corridors of government buildings. Instead, he embraced the mass movement. Since July millions of Mexicans have occupied the Zócalo square in Mexico City and have called for a parallel government headed by López Obrador, the true president of the people.

Militarizing Oaxaca

The situation in Oaxaca is very tense. Every day the possibility that federal troops could be called in to break up the movement becomes more real. APPO refused to attend talks in Mexico City on Oct. 4, called by out-going President Vicente Fox. There have been three failed attempts at talks between APPO and the government in the past few months.

Fox has declared the crisis will be over before a new president is inaugurated on Dec. 1.

On Oct. 1 Prensa Latina began to report a strong concentration of troops and military equipment nearing Oaxaca city. Planes flew over Oaxaca’s capital and at least 10 Puma helicopters and two Mexican Army transportation aircraft were parked at the Salina Cruz naval heliport in the international airport.

According to news broadcasts by local media, an indeterminate number of armored personnel carriers, tank commandos and four-wheel vehicles have been sighted, along with Marines. APPO considers the troop movement a prelude to federal intervention.

The troop movement takes place in a country whose history is filled with bloody repression. The people occupying Oaxaca’s central square know their lives are literally on the line.

“Compañeros, we don’t want anybody to die, but we’re ready to accept casualties if that’s the way the government wants it,” said one of the movement’s spokespersons on La Ley radio, which has been under the control of APPO since June.

On Radio 710 AM, a pleasant voice says keep calm, there are 3,000 people at each barricade, the troops are probably more afraid than we are, we are on our own turf and they are strangers here.

The helicopters are doing military reconnaissance and are certainly trying to terrorize. A press conference at 6:30 in the Zocalo by the APPO said pretty much the same: We’re ready. Keep calm, don’t give in to provocations.

When the helicopters landed, “¡Bienvenidos, cabrones!” “¡Bajen, aquí los esperamos!” were shouted at them by people carrying sticks and pipes. “Welcome, bastards! Come on down, we’re here waiting for you!”

At 9:00 p.m. on Oct. 7, Saturday night, the APPO closed off the historic downtown area, telling people who were caught away from home to pass as rapidly as possible through the barricades. APPO was determined to fight off any attack, asking people to unite in support, and at the same time telling those outside the city and around the state to organize their defense.

On Oct. 3, APPO issued a communiqué on behalf of the Encampment for Dignity and Against Repression in Oaxaca. It read in part: “The undersigned social organizations and Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO) members make an urgent call to the people of Oaxaca, of Mexico, and of the world to come and form an ‘Encampment for Dignity and Against Repression in Oaxaca’; to come out and defend the Oaxacan people and avoid bloodshed due to the lack of vision on the part of our politicians.

“We cannot allow repression to be the solution. Let us all participate in the encampment for dignity and against repression dressed in white, as a clear signal that we are in favor of a peaceful movement and of a political and dignified resolution. Let us also go out into the streets with bandanas of different colors, to send the signal that we are a movement of many diverse actors that are willing to protect our compañeras and compañeros.”

Subcomandante Marcos of the Zapatista National Liberation Army stated: “Oaxaca is not just an emergency, it is also an example to follow.”

Leaders of López Obrador’s national movement pledged to mobilize their followers around the issue and go to Oaxaca as “human shields” in the event of a military intervention.

On Oct. 10, thousands of Oaxacans streamed into Mexico City after marching for several days to take their struggle into the capital. They marched about 300 miles but were not deterred. At least five of their compatriots have been killed since the strike.

U.S. on pins and needles

Not a single economic, political or social development occurs in Mexico without Washington not only paying close attention to it but also interfering so that each outcome is to imperialism’s benefit.

And so it must be with great trepidation that the Bush administration and the entire U.S. ruling class monitor the situation in Mexico today.

All history is the history of class struggle. Right now, the Mexican people are writing a page in history that is putting in jeopardy all those complex financial, agricultural, transportation and other capitalist relations that U.S. imperialism has fine-tuned so well in Mexico.

Despite NAFTA and the U.S. ability to manipulate a constant parade of Mexican leaders who “understand the need for friendly relations,” right now the workers’ struggle is taking center stage.

Once again history shows that the imperialists can write up their economic plans to reap super-profits, but when the masses rise up, those agreements can be thrown into the trash can of history where they belong.

All out to support the people of Oaxaca and all of Mexico.

Mexico´s Political Dilemmas

By Fausto F. Ponte

Special to The DFallas Morning News




Editor´s note: Fausto Fernandez Ponte is a higly respected Mexican journalist who was

a Washington correspondent for the Mexico City daily Excelsior.





Mexico has now two Presidents. The Constitutional one -- thus named
President-Elect on Sept. 5th -- is Felipe Calderón, a conservative
lawyer linked to the political elite of moneyed and influential
businessmen and bankers, the Catholic Church, Wall Street, the energy
industry, and other assorted powerful interests. He has also been
linked to a violent rightwing group known as /El Yunque/ (/The Anvil/).

The other President -- the informal one, named Sept. 16 the
/Legitimate President/ by a massive meeting atended by more than a
million people in Mexico City´s main plaza, the historic Zocalo -- is
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, or AMLO, a political scientist whose main
theme is a set of proposals to lay the foundation for new State
institutions that would serve the interest of the 70 million Mexicans
living in poverty.

In spite of the Constitutional mantle, Mr. Calderón, however, does
not have the popular following that Mr. Lopez Obrador commands and
electrifies almost every evening with his colloquial speeches given from
his makeshift headquarters in Mexico City's Plaza of the Constitution.
He is protected by a thick, live wall of his followers. This human
wall is unarmed. And it is impossible to reach him.

But Mr. Calderon is also sorrounded by an even thicker human
fortress made up of Praetorian and well-armed guards known a
/Guardias Presidenciales/ (Presidential Guards). They answer only to
the President and not to the Defense Secretary, nominally the boss of
this elite and handsomely-paid military force in charge of the
President´s security. The Guards have been very busy lately for Mr.
Calderon is constantly accosted by Mr. Lopez Obrador followers every
day.

This dichotomy defines the current political crisis in Mexico and
its ever-increasing abyssal depth. Such a crisis is viewed by a very
large segment of Mexican society as a crisis of the State,
and of the power elite that has controlled it since the Carlos Salinas de
Gortari administration (1988-94). Mr. Salinas is a pragmatic
politician known for his cynicism and high profile as a
behind-the-scenes power or /facilitator,/ as he calls himself.

Mr. Salinas´ policies were epitomized by the North-American Free
Trade Agreement or NAFTA, which since its inception in 1994 has
dramatically increased economic inequality in Mexico as well as
social injustice. Its painful sequel is a
demonstrably spectacular emigration to the USA, fueled by growing
poverty, economic stratification, and lack of employment. Today
Mexican emigration is the main and most-contentious issue in the
bilateral relationship
between Washington and Mexico City. And it has a terrible social cost
in Mexico, mainly through the fracture and disintegration
of families. Children
grow up in a context of "anomia," which is the term used by Mexican
sociologists to describe a lack of correspondence between individuals
and the set of societal norms and rules. The net result is more
maladjusted youngsters and young adults, prone to conmit crimes.

In addition of the prevalent poverty, another clear indication of
the stagnation gripping the Mexican economy and society is the
deepening gulf between the "haves" and the "have nots".
Riches and income are highly concentrated in few people. The
acquisitive reach of income is scandalously low and getting lower.
The explosive and challenging component in this picture is awareness;
Many poor people are now aware of their poverty.

Rightly or not, those poor perceive Mr. Calderon
as the heir of those State policies perpetuating that
poverty. That makes a lot of citizens angry. It intensifies people´s
proclivity to feel resentment, discontent, and rage -- social rage.
These people feel prepared to go to the barricades to
fight for a change of Government and its policies, knowing that
Mexico´s constitutional framework (Article 39) acknowledges that
right.

This is a credible explanation of the current rage and outcry from
the bulk of Mr. Lopez Obrador´s followers and the intense activism of
the social and political organizations that support him. Those
organizations are busily proselytizing and building up a wide net for
logistical support. This way they reap more followers to feed the
massive mobilizations. There is a very fertile ground of anger and
desperation from this widespread awareness of what it is to be poor.

The plight of Mr. Lopez Obrador is based upon such constitutional
precept and thus it is a perfectly legal interstice. Against that, Mr
Calderón, the President-Elect, can do little, except to use force --
illegally, for Mr. Lopez Obrador and their millions of followers have
not broken any law. This stand off -- a proverbial Mexican stand off --
has no clear bifurcations or short cuts. On top of that, Mr. Calderon
has neither political insight nor crafty abilities in politics.

Meanwhile, Mr. Calderon sustains himself by his condition as
President-Elect, the long arm of the Office, and the controversial
and questioned legality of his elevation to Head of State. He romps
with the rich and powerful in Mexico and the USA, and avoids mixing
with the multitudes. It will take him several years of his administration
to create a political thesaurus. Mexico will be back to the old times
of Presidents that were not true leaders of the people.

Many Mexicans expect more domination of Mexico´s economy and energy assets by
USA multinational corporationss (in Mexico they are called transnationals) like
Halliburton, Wal-Mart, Citicorp, and others in the same
league; increased Mexican emigration mainly to California, Texas,
Arizona, New Mexico, but also to the Midwest. In the
aftermath of that it is predictable a reduced number of consumers of USA
goods and services in Mexico.

MEXICO:
A Country with Three Presidents
Diego Cevallos

http://www.pe.com/localnews/sanbernardino/stories/PE_News_Local_D_navarro18.3a435c3.html

MEXICO CITY, Sep 18 (IPS) - Mexico's left plans to re-lay the foundations of the country with a symbolic "government" chosen by its followers, working through social activism, and a party coalition acting through the country's institutions. The challenge it faces is to persuade the Mexican people, among whom approval of the left is declining, to support its goals and strategies, observers say.

The opposition movement, which is easily "big enough to force concessions from the regime," will catalyse "grievances of all varieties" and create difficulties for the government of the conservative president-elect, Felipe Calderón, to consolidate its power, Manuel Camacho, one of the leaders of the left, told IPS.

At an assembly dubbed the National Democratic Convention, which according to its organisers drew a million people together on Saturday in the capital, the left designated former Mexico City mayor Andrés López Obrador as the country's "legitimate president.." The former candidate lost the Jul. 2 elections because of fraud, his supporters say.

The Convention, born of a proposal set forth by López Obrador on Aug. 13, met for nearly four hours on Saturday and will reconvene on Mar. 21, 2007. Delegates from every Mexican state took part, some of whom had been elected in party assemblies, although anyone can register to participate.

Commissions will be set up to debate issues like national policy, civil resistance and proposals to rewrite the constitution. Despite predictions from the ruling National Action Party (PAN), the assembly was held without incidents.

So today, Mexico has an incumbent president, Vicente Fox, a president-elect, Calderón, who will take office in December, and a third proclaimed at a public meeting.

The proclamation of López Obrador as president was received in very different ways. Some observers considered it a farce, others greeted it with enthusiasm, and there were also those who saw it as something that could polarise Mexican society even further..

"The new leftwing movement is part of a process of identification that is highly valid in a democracy, but to go on to say that López Obrador is the legitimate president is quite a different thing," Silvia Alonso, head of the non-governmental Civic Alliance, told IPS.

"Although the present scenario is touchy, it opens up opportunities. Hopefully the right will recognise the role of the left, and manage to create an atmosphere conducive to reaching agreements," said the director of Civic Alliance, a group that has promoted social participation in public affairs since 1994, and acts as an independent observer in elections.

The Fox administration played down the left's strategy Monday, while the PAN, to which Calderón belongs, said that in refusing to recognise the established institutions, López Obrador was doing harm to the country.

There is only one constitutional president in Mexico and he is Fox, and there is a president-elect who is Calderón, so that "if any private citizen puts himself outside of our own laws (by declaring himself president), only he can take responsibility for that," said government spokesman Rubén Aguilar.

Miguel Granados, a columnist for the leftwing weekly Proceso, said that "instead of mocking or quaking in fear, the outgoing and incoming governments and their party" should make an effort "to understand the essence and the significance of this post-election period."

Granados maintains that the challenge faced by the left is for the "strong tide of citizens who follow López Obrador, who form part of, but not all of, the Mexican people," to persuade the rest of society to accept their goals.

López Obrador, the candidate of the Coalition for the Good of All, which brought together his Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) along with the small Convergencia and Trabajo parties -- and as of Thursday is known as the Progressive Broad Front -- won the votes of 20 percent of the 71.3 million Mexicans on the electoral roll in the July elections.

After his refusal to recognise defeat by Calderón -- who took 20.8 percent of the vote -- and his acts of resistance including the 48-day occupation by his supporters of the main Zócalo square and Reforma avenue in Mexico City, support for the left among the population has been waning, according to opinion polls.

"Even though the civil resistance he led has decreased his popularity, there is no doubt that he still has the support of several million Mexicans. If he is determined to destabilise the country, as he has threatened to do, there is good reason to believe that he would be able to do so," wrote a columnist for the newspaper Reforma, Sergio Sarmiento.

The only foreign government that has indicated that it will not recognise Calderón is that of Venezuela, whose President Hugo Chávez said that the right had perpetrated a fraud in Mexico.

But López Obrador says that to accept Calderón as president would go against his principles and the "true will of the people."

After being proclaimed "legitimate president," López Obrador said he accepted the symbolic post because it represents "an act of peaceful civil resistance," and a warning to his opponents "that they should learn to respect the will of the people."

He said he would take up the position in November and will appoint a cabinet. Together they will travel around the country and take note of the demands of the people. In some aspects, the proposal is similar to the shadow cabinets that function in certain democracies.

He will also mark Calderón's every move in an attempt to throw up obstacles for his administration.

The leader of the left believes that Calderón will be a spurious president, a "puppet of the right" as he has called him. He states that he will neither enter into discussions nor negotiate with Calderón nor with the PAN.

But leftwing political parties, legislators and local authorities, apparently, are willing to do so. Before the National Democratic Convention was held, the parties in the Coalition for the Good of All announced they would unite in a Progressive Broad Front.

Camacho, who served as foreign minister in the administration of Carlos Salinas (1988-1994) of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) -- which ruled Mexico from 1929 to 2000 -- later became a close collaborator of López Obrador's. He explained that through the Front and the Convention, the left will push forward the political and economic changes that the country needs.

The former candidate will be a "legitimate president" who will take a critical stance towards the "legal president," but will be above all someone "who listens to the people, comforts them and provides leadership in the defence of their cause," he explained.

Meanwhile, the Progressive Broad Front will carry on the struggle within the institutions "against the opposite, rightwing pole."

Among the left's goals are to curb free trade and privatisation, and encourage the fight against poverty. It also wants to reform the constitution and the country's electoral institutions, which it sees as serving the interests of the economic elites. (END/2006)

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.

Link: http://www.cepr.net/pressreleases/2006_09_02.htm


Result Could Explain Electoral Authorities' Reluctance to Release Recount Data
For Immediate Release: September 2, 2006

Contact: Mark Weisbrot, 202-746-7264
Dan Beeton, 202-293-5380 x 104; 202-256-6116 (cell)

WASHINGTON - The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) has found a significant loss of votes for PAN presidential candidate Felipe Calderón in a sample of recounted ballots.

Adding up the numbers for 1,706 ballot boxes (casillas) shows a loss of 1,362 votes for Felipe Calderón. Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the PBT shows a gain of 77 votes.

"This is inexplicably one-sided, with Calderón losing votes but López Obrador not losing any," said CEPR Co-Director Mark Weisbrot. "It is also a significant percentage of votes in an election this close."

The 1,362 votes lost by Calderón represent 0.54 percent of his votes in these ballot boxes.

The result for the whole group of recounted ballot boxes would likely show a similar percentage, since the above ballot box totals were chosen randomly from the documents posted on the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary (TEPJF) web site. The ballot box totals compiled by CEPR comprise 14.4 percent of the 11,839 ballot boxes that were recounted.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) has been searching through many thousands of pages in 375 documents [www.trife.org.mx (see "Ãltimas sentencias dictadas")] released over the past week by the TEPJF, for numbers on the recount conducted by the TEPJF from August 9 to August 13. The process is laborious but most of the results appear to be buried in these documents.

In other words, the full recount results might be available but it takes several days of research to find and compile the numbers for 11,839 ballot boxes scattered among many thousands of pages of documents.

Although the recount was completed nearly three weeks ago, the TEPJF has refused to release the numbers showing how the candidates' vote totals were changed by the recount. This contrasts sharply to the procedure followed for the preliminary and second vote tallies in July, when the results were made public immediately.

"This certainly casts doubt on the electoral authorities' decision to reject a full recount," said Weisbrot. "And it makes the TEPJF's decision not to release the recounted vote totals look even worse."*

See also CEPR's most recent paper examining the "adding up" errors in the vote count: http://www.cepr.net/publications/mexico_discrepancies_2006_08.pdf


*Last Monday the TEPJF released the results of its annulment of 237,736 votes; many press accounts mistakenly reported these numbers as the results of the recount, which they were not. The ballot boxes where votes were annulled are not the same as those which were recounted. See http://www.trife.org.mx/consultas/boletines/archivos/079-2006.html.


The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. CEPR's Advisory Board of Economists includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University; and Eileen Appelbaum, Professor and Director of the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University.

###

Center for Economic and Policy Research, 1611 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 293-5380, Fax: (202) 588-1356, Home: www.cepr.net

September 2, 2006
Protest Keeps Fox From Giving State of the Union Speech
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
MEXICO CITY, Sept. 1 — Leftist lawmakers who have charged that fraud marred the presidential election in July staged a protest inside Congress that prevented President Vicente Fox from making his final state of the union speech to lawmakers on Friday, ending a tense day of political brinksmanship here.

Federal riot police officers and soldiers with water cannons had sealed off the Mexican Congress with miles of steel fence to protect Mr. Fox from thousands of leftist protesters camped out in the city’s center.

The president had vowed he would give his last state of the union message, despite threats from the leftist candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and his followers to stop him.

At the last minute, however, Mr. López Obrador backed down. In front of at least 5,000 supporters in the capital’s central square, Mr. López Obrador, the former mayor of this sprawling city, told his followers it would be a mistake to confront the barricades and the police surrounding Congress. He said the “fascist” government of Mr. Fox would seize on any clashes between the police and the protesters to justify the brutal repression of his movement.

“We are not going to fall into any trap, we are not going to fall into any provocation,” he told the crowd, which had waited through a rainstorm to hear him speak. “Only those who are not in the right resort to force and violence, and we are in the right.”

Still, lawmakers from Mr. López Obrador’s Democratic Revolution Party protested inside the Chamber of Deputies, taking over the podium just before President Fox was to speak at 7 p.m. Several waved Mexican flags and signs calling Mr. Fox “a traitor to democracy.” The president of the chamber, Deputy Jorge Zermiño, was forced to call a recess.

Mr. Fox arrived 15 minutes later. As he entered the chamber, wearing the traditional red, white and green presidential sash, leaders of his party said it would be impossible for him to speak. He dropped off his yearly report, turned on his heel and left.

At 9 p.m., the government broadcast a recorded version of the president’s speech, complete with pictures of happy citizens to illustrate the gains his government has made in housing, education and health care.

Mr. Fox staunchly defended the balance of powers and the government institutions Mr. López Obrador claims are corrupt, notably the Federal Election Institute and the electoral tribunal. He also stressed that the rule of law was the basis of democracy and he took a veiled shot at Mr. López Obrador, saying “no one should try to corral democracy through intransigence and violence.”

“Whoever attacks our laws and institutions, attacks our history, attacks Mexico,” he said.

Mr. López Obrador claims he won the election, even though an official count, vetted by the country’s highest electoral tribunal, showed that the candidate from Mr. Fox’s National Action Party, Felipe Calderón, eked out a razor-thin victory.

Rather than concede, Mr. López Obrador has promised to convene his own national assembly and set up a parallel government this month. He has said that he will never recognize Mr. Calderón’s victory and has declared that Mr. Fox violated Mexican election law by campaigning for Mr. Calderón, as did various business leaders who spent millions on attack ads against Mr. López Obrador in the last days of the campaign.

He also claimed that his opponents stuffed ballot boxes with votes for Mr. Calderón and disposed of votes for him in some states, a charge Mr. Calderón’s aides called absurd.

On Friday, at least 6,000 police officers in riot gear ringed the congressional building with steel barricades and blocked nearby subway stations to discourage demonstrations. Before the lawmakers’ protest, the only demonstration occurred just before 6 p.m., when a small group from the Francisco Villa Popular Front, a militant group allied with Mr. López Obrador, painted antigovernment slogans on the fence and threw rocks at the wall and at the police, who ignored them.

For more than a month, thousands of Mr. López Obrador’s supporters have blocked the major avenue running through the city, Paseo de la Reforma, and camped out in the main square, Plaza de la Constitution.

Newly elected lawmakers from Mr. López Obrador’s party arrived en masse at the legislative building about 1 p.m., broke through one of the barricades, marched into the chamber and denounced the presence of the president’s federal police.

“This is unforgivable,” announced Senator Carlos Navarette. “The chambers should not be invaded by the federal police. This is the house of the deputies, not of the president.”

Mr. Navarette later led the protest among the lawmakers, denouncing the ring of police officers outside as an infringement on Mexicans’ right to protest as his partisans rushed the dais and occupied it.

Earlier this week, an electoral tribunal charged with ratifying the election and resolving challenges threw out most of Mr. López Obrador’s arguments that there was widespread fraud. The court still must rule on his request to annul the election on grounds that the president and private businesses interfered too much in the campaign.

Aides to Mr. López Obrador said he had acknowledged privately that the court would probably name Mr. Calderón president-elect next week.

What form Mr. López Obrador’s protest movement will now take remains unclear, but it is certain to keep him in the public eye for the next six years and make it hard for Mr. Calderón to govern.

“He’s saying to the government, ‘Everything that I am going to do is going to give you trouble,’ ” a close adviser said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Antonio Betancourt and Marc Lacey contributed reporting for this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/world/americas/02mexico.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=americas&pagewanted=print

12:47 pm, 02 Sep 2006
Mexican President Vicente Fox abandoned his state of the nation speech this afternoon after leftist lawmakers claiming fraud at elections in July seized the podium in the Congress.

President Fox handed a written version of his speech to Congress officials and said he was leaving the building without trying to deliver the address.

Dozens of legislators marched up to the podium, some with banners calling Fox a traitor to democracy.

The Speaker ordered a recess after the lawmakers refused to return to their seats.

The left-wing Party of the Democratic Revolution accuses Fox of complicity in a massive fraud at the July 2nd presidential election to give victory to conservative ruling party candidate Felipe Calderon.

© NewsRoom 2006

The Mexican reality
ARNO KOPECKY

Edmonton -- To note that Mexico's electoral process was "revamped in the 1990s" seems a facile dismissal of recent history -- namely,

seven uninterrupted decades of rigged elections (Mexico's Sore Loser -- editorial, Aug. 30). As a journalist who has lived and worked in Mexico's southern state of Oaxaca, I can personally attest to the ongoing fact of vote fraud in at least some parts of the country.

The much-quoted European Union observers who approved the election did so because they focused on the voting booths. But in Mexico, fraud occurs elsewhere, when party representatives purchase the votes of entire rural communities with a few sacks of corn and a tractor or two. Other observers, such as California-based Global Exchange, are aware of this and have supported Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's position.

As for the "independence" of the federal electoral tribunal, one wonders how one of its judges, Fernando Ojest, could say four days ago: "We can tell people that today their votes were worth something and that they are definitive." It appears that, despite having yet to examine all of Mr. Obrador's allegations, this court's objectivity didn't prevent it from making up its mind in advance.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060901.LETTERS01-6/TPStory/Comment
Print Edition - Section Front
Enlarge Image

Peter Gellert, Mexico City

Following presidential elections widely viewed as marred by fraud, Mexico’s political crisis not only shows no signs of being resolved, but in fact is intensifying almost daily.

In the six weeks since the July 2 presidential elections, two sides have squared off. On one side are the federal government, its electoral authorities, and the conservative National Action Party (PAN) and its candidate Felipe Calderon, defending their razor-thin 0.6% margin of victory as the legitimate election results. On the other side are the For the Good of All coalition headed by the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), its candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (known as AMLO) and the social sectors and mass organisations of most of the left and progressive movements.

Given the close vote and AMLO’s charges of electoral fraud, a partial recount of 9% of the country’s 131,000 polling stations was ordered by the Federal Electoral Tribunal. AMLO and his supporters, however, have been demanding a 100% recount. The recount, which began on August 9, has not resolved the dispute. The AMLO forces charge serious discrepancies, even on the basis of the small 9% sample, among them:


In 43% of the sample, Calderon had been accredited with more votes than he actually received, lowering his total number of votes by 13,500. This was 5000% more votes than AMLO lost in the recount.

In 65% of the recounted polling stations, there were either more ballots deposited than there were voters or more voters than there were corresponding ballots. In Mexico, control of the paper ballots is extremely strict. In the 9% of the polling stations that were recounted, these discrepancies involved 120,000 ballots — half the difference between the two candidates nationwide across all the polling stations.

More than 30% of the supposedly sealed ballot boxes had been opened after the elections, raising the spectre that their contents were altered.
With the official difference being about two votes per ballot box, AMLO has insisted on a full recount and nullifying results in the 7600 polling stations of the 9% sample that had discrepancies. If the polling stations showing too many or too few ballots in the partial recount were to be annulled, AMLO would win the elections.

While the evidence of fraud is circumstantial, it is also strong and, given Mexico’s tradition of fraudulent elections, AMLO’s charges are considered by many to be credible. A poll by the conservative daily Reforma indicated that 65% of Mexico City residents feel fraud was committed and that all votes should be recounted.

The PRD also charges that Mexican electoral law was violated prior to election day by incumbent President Vicente Fox’s support for Calderon’s campaign, by a particularly vicious media campaign against AMLO (attempting to tie him to Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez), and by business associations illegally placing advertisements on television implicitly attacking the PRD candidate.

Although electoral authorities often forced an end to such practices, the damage had already been done and the punishment was so ridiculously minimal that there was no deterrent to further infractions.

On August 18, a video was played on Mexican television demonstrating the existence of a plot against AMLO involving top-level government officials, PAN leaders and Argentine-Mexican businessperson Carlos Ahumada, who is under investigation for fraud committed against the Mexico City administration. The City Prosecutor’s Office announced it would file penal charges against federal government officials who protected or helped Ahumada.

In addition to myriad legal challenges, the PRD and AMLO have waged a mass campaign in the streets demanding a full recount. Demonstrations take place on an almost daily basis. On July 30, up to 2.4 million people participated in the largest demonstration in Mexico’s history.

While the PRD and the junior partners in its electoral coalition make no claims to be socialist or revolutionary, they have nonetheless mounted a strong campaign against electoral fraud and have refused to “negotiate” a solution with the national government.

Since July 30, thousands of demonstrators have been camped out in Mexico City’s central square and an eight-kilometre stretch along Reforma avenue, a main city artery. Federal police have cordoned off the area around parliament with tanks. All of this has considerably exacerbated the city’s already nightmarish traffic.

Besides the continuing occupation of downtown Mexico City, thousands of Lopez Obrador supporters are also engaged in daily acts of civil resistance.

The PAN and business associations have called on the Mexico City government — which is headed by the PRD — to evict the protesters, however local officials have refused. The mass media has waged a campaign against the protests, attempting to whip up a backlash among middle class residents inconvenienced by the mammoth traffic jams.

As a next step, AMLO has called for the formation of the National Democratic Convention on September 16 (Independence Day) to unite grassroots and social organisations behind a program not just centred on electoral democracy, but also addressing the country’s social problems.

Many far left and social organisations that didn’t participate in AMLO’s campaign are involved in the anti-fraud protests. Along the eight kilometre stretch of encampments, a wide array of neighbourhood associations, unions, student groups and political organisations can be found.

Unfortunately, the Other Campaign, an initiative launched by the Zapatista National Liberation Army and headed by the charismatic Subcomandante Marcos, while condemning the fraud, has abstained from the mass demonstrations. During the election campaign, the Other Campaign centred most of its fire on AMLO and the obvious deficiencies in the PRD’s program and methods. Some organisations that participated in the Other Campaign are, however, involved in the anti-fraud protests.

If Calderon is declared the victor by the Federal Electoral Tribunal on August 31 — which most view as the likely outcome — from the word go the new government will face a bitterly divided country, with major sectors of the population questioning the government’s legitimacy and huge and powerful mass movements that consider it their declared adversary.

Major battles are clearly on the horizon in Mexico.

From Green Left Weekly, August 30, 2006.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

Viernes 25 de agosto de 2006
Economia Moral
Julio Boltvinik
En espera de la imposición anunciada
Guanajuato, capital del fraude, según muestra análisis del recuentoLa economía moral es convocada a existir como resistencia a la economía del "libre mercado": el alza del precio del pan puede equilibrar la oferta y la demanda de pan, pero no resuelve el hambre de la gente

Confirmando lo anticipado a los medios, el presidente de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) rechazó "como evidentemente improcedente" la demanda, firmada por más de 16 mil ciudadanos para que, en atención a lo señalado en el artículo 97 de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, ejerciese su facultad investigadora para determinar si hubo violación al voto público en las pasadas elecciones presidenciales. Sin embargo, el asunto no acaba ahí, pues ante el recurso de inconformidad interpuesto, la decisión de la SCJN tendrá que ser colectiva. De esta manera se encuentran ya involucrados en la decisión sobre las elecciones los dos órganos supremos del Poder Judicial: la SCJN y el Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación (TEPJF). Ambos cargarán con el peso de lo que decidan, y en el caso de la SCJN, incluso si deja que transcurra el tiempo para no decidir, lo hará por omisión.
Mientras, sigamos analizando las evidencias disponibles sobre el fraude electoral. Por cortesía de amigos de la izquierda mexicana, he recibido la base de datos del recuento parcial ordenado por el TEPJF, que ha elaborado el equipo de AMLO ante la opacidad informativa del tribunal y que contiene la información de las casi 12 mil casillas con los resultados del recuento de los votos por partido, de los votos nulos, por candidatos no registrados, y de las boletas sobrantes. Esta base de datos ha permitido al equipo de AMLO obtener comparaciones por distrito y por entidad federativa de los resultados entre el recuento y el conteo distrital (CD). La base de datos contiene 11 mil 763, es decir, 109 casillas menos que el recuento total, que no habían podido capturar.
En el CD las casillas recontadas registraron un total de 3 millones 861 mil 446 votos (incluyendo nulos y para candidatos no registrados), total que disminuyó en 10 mil 667 votos para quedar en 3 millones 850 mil 799 en el recuento. Este cambio parece pequeño, sólo 0.276 por ciento, menos de la mitad de la supuesta ventaja de Felipe Calderón (FC) respecto a AMLO. Sin embargo, resulta de la suma algebraica entre los votos adicionales obtenidos en el recuento (votos subestimados en el CD) en algunas casillas y votos que no aparecieron en el recuento (inflados en el CD) en otras casillas, que fueron de 38 mil 8 y 48 mil 655 respectivamente. Por tanto, la masa de errores o trampas, sólo en el total de los votos, sin entrar todavía al desglose entre partidos ni al respaldo de los votos en boletas, fue de 86 mil 663 votos, equivalentes a 7.4 votos por casilla y al 2.25 por ciento de los votos totales del recuento.
Se trata de errores gigantescos, de orden de magnitud similar al error estadístico en encuestas con muestras muy pequeñas. Los que alegan que no hubo dolo ni fraude tendrían que aceptar que un sistema electoral que se equivoca en más de 2 por ciento del total de votos es un sistema inservible, incapaz de discernir al ganador en elecciones cerradas y que, por tanto, tendría que anularse la elección presidencial. Pero veamos qué pasó en los votos por partido.
FC tuvo una pérdida neta de 13 mil 335 votos como resultado del recuento y AMLO una pérdida neta de 43 votos, habiéndose en consecuencia reducido la distancia entre ambos en 13 mil 292 votos que representan 0.35 por ciento de los totales del recuento, lo que equivale a una reducción de la ventaja de FC de 1.14 votos por casilla, lo que resulta muy sustancial si se recuerda que la supuesta ventaja de FC es de 1.87 por casilla a nivel nacional. Sin embargo, las pérdidas netas de ambos candidatos son el resultado de la suma algebraica de sus ganancias y pérdidas. FC perdió 19 mil 110 votos (es decir, en el CD su votación estaba inflada en esa cantidad) y ganó, en otras casillas, 5 mil 775 votos (es decir, en ellas su votación estaba subestimada en el CD). Las cifras respectivas para AMLO son 6 mil 205 y 6 mil 162. Otra vez, si fueran errores, serían gigantescos, particularmente en el caso de FC, con errores totales de 24 mil 885 votos, equivalentes a 2.14 votos por casilla en promedio, y a 1.33 por ciento de su votación total.
Sorpresivamente, los mayores errores porcentuales, y muy sustanciales errores absolutos, se encuentran en los votos asignados a los nuevos partidos, a los no registrados y a los votos declarados nulos, como se muestra de manera sintética en el cuadro anexo. Los votos nulos pasaron de 75 mil 977 en el CD a 78 mil 430 en recuento, un aumento neto de 2 mil 453 que representa el 3.1 por ciento del total. Otra vez, sin embargo, este aumento neto es la suma algebraica de 11 mil 288 adiciones y 8 mil 835 eliminaciones ocurridas en diferentes casillas. Esto significa que en el CD hubo errores referidos a votos nulos por un total de 20 mil 123, equivalentes a 1.72 por casilla y a 25.7 por ciento (¡más de la cuarta parte!) del total de votos nulos del recuento. Si este nivel de errores se mantuviera a nivel nacional, y no hay ninguna razón para suponer que no sea así, donde según el CD se anularon 904 mil 604 votos, habría habido errores por 232 mil 483 votos (anulados indebidamente o dados por buenos cuando debieron anularse) cifra muy cercana a la supuesta ventaja de FC.
En el CD se contaron mil 905 votos de menos a candidatos no registrados, lo que asciende a 6 por ciento de la votación total, mientras la suma de errores representa 24.7 por ciento, otra vez la cuarta parte del total (véase cuadro). Los votos por Patricia Mercado también estaban subestimados en mil 836 en el CD, y la suma de errores en su caso asciende a 4 por ciento de su votación. Como se aprecia, estaban subestimados en el CD los votos nulos, los dirigidos a candidatos no registrados y a Mercado. En cambio, los votos por Roberto Campa estaban sobrestimados en mil 578, 3.8 por ciento de su votación, y sus errores totales suman 9 por ciento de su votación. Los votos por Roberto Madrazo, en cambio, estaban sobrestimados en el CD en 0.2 por ciento, aunque la suma de errores es de 1.6 por ciento.
Si a este panorama añadimos los resultados antes proporcionados para FC y AMLO, queda claro que: 1) los mayores errores (o trampas) en números absolutos y por casilla están en los votos por Calderón y en los nulos (ambos suman más de la mitad del total), seguidos por los de Madrazo y AMLO. Sin embargo, los errores como porcentaje de la votación son mucho más elevados entre los votos nulos, los no registrados y Campa. No parece haber, pues, un comportamiento regido por las reglas del azar que son las que prevalecen en los errores humanos pero no en la acción dolosa, acentuándose así las evidencias de fraude.
La base de datos y las tabulaciones realizadas por el equipo de AMLO permiten también analizar por entidad federativa y distrito los resultados del recuento. Nuevamente, si las diferencias entre el CD y el recuento se explicaran por errores humanos, las diferencias entre entidades federativas se repartirían de manera proporcional al número de casillas o al número de votos en ellas instaladas o emitidos. No es así. De las poco menos de 12 mil casillas recontadas, casi una cuarta parte (22.8 por ciento) se localizaron en Jalisco, seguido muy de lejos por Baja California (9.6 por ciento) y Tamaulipas (8 por ciento). En estas tres entidades federativas se llevó a cabo el recuento de 40.4 por ciento de las casillas y esperaría uno encontrar en ellas una proporción cercana de los errores identificados, si fueran errores. En cambio, en Guanajuato se recontaron únicamente 317 casillas (2.7 por ciento del total) y en ellas esperaría uno encontrar una proporción igualmente baja de los errores. En ambos casos la evidencia se mueve en sentido contrario.
Analicemos el comportamiento de los errores en los votos para FC y para AMLO en las casillas recontadas en Guanajuato. En primer lugar, de los votos netos perdidos por Calderón (indicación de la sobreestimación efectuada en el CD) ascendieron a 3 mil 508, 26.3 por ciento del total, muy por debajo de lo esperado en la suma de las tres entidades federativas con mayor número de casillas. En agudo contraste, en Guanajuato, donde sólo se recontó 2.7 por ciento de las casillas, FC tiene una pérdida neta de 6 mil 103 votos, muy por arriba de los votos perdidos en las tres entidades, que representa 45.8 por ciento del total del recuento ordenado por el TEPJF y 19.3 votos por casilla. Este acontecimiento no puede ocurrir nunca por azar. El fraude en Guanajuato es brutal, lo que se sospechaba desde que uno miraba las cifras del CD, según las cuales FC obtuvo en Guanajuato 58.9 por ciento de los votos y arrasó en todos los distritos. Si la sobrestimación por casilla en el conteo distrital se expande a toda la entidad, resulta que en una sola entidad federativa el registro oficial de los votos por FC estaría inflado en 118 mil votos, casi la mitad de su supuesta ventaja nacional.
Una conclusión similar , aunque menos drástica, se obtiene si se analizan los errores de más y de menos a favor de FC, ya que esta suma, de 6 mil 515 votos en Guanajuato es mayor que la de Jalisco (5 mil 836) a pesar que las casillas recontadas en la segunda son 8.5 veces mayores que en la primera. Pero no sólo eso. La asimetría en los errores a favor y en contra de FC son muy contrastantes entre Guanajuato y las tres entidades que venimos usando de ejemplo. En Guanajuato los votos perdidos por FC al hacerse el recuento son 31 veces más altos que los que ganó, mientras son 2.2 veces en Baja California, 2.1 en Jalisco y 3.2 en Tamaulipas. Como lo sabe cualquier persona que haya pasado por un curso elemental de estadística, las proporciones en estas tres entidades también son imposibles como resultado de errores, que se cometen con las reglas del azar. Pero el caso de Guanajuato es de escándalo.
Todo lo anterior se obtiene solamente mostrando lo que en el desplegado de la semana pasada, la coalición Por el Bien de Todos llamó un resultado secundario del recuento, y que en efecto puede verse así ya que supone que los votos encontrados en los paquetes electorales son el "reflejo palpitante de la voluntad de los electores". Sabemos que no es así y que en alrededor de la mitad de las casillas hay inconsistencias entre las boletas recibidas en la casilla y la suma de la votación total y las boletas sobrantes, como lo analicé en la entrega anterior de Economía Moral (18/8/06).
jbolt@colmex.mx
© Derechos Reservados 1996-2005 DEMOS, Desarrollo de Medios, S.A. de C.V.Todos los Derechos Reservados.Derechos de Autor 04-2005-011817321500-203.

Viernes 25 de agosto de 2006
Economia Moral
Julio Boltvinik
En espera de la imposición anunciada
Guanajuato, capital del fraude, según muestra análisis del recuentoLa economía moral es convocada a existir como resistencia a la economía del "libre mercado": el alza del precio del pan puede equilibrar la oferta y la demanda de pan, pero no resuelve el hambre de la gente

Confirmando lo anticipado a los medios, el presidente de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) rechazó "como evidentemente improcedente" la demanda, firmada por más de 16 mil ciudadanos para que, en atención a lo señalado en el artículo 97 de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, ejerciese su facultad investigadora para determinar si hubo violación al voto público en las pasadas elecciones presidenciales. Sin embargo, el asunto no acaba ahí, pues ante el recurso de inconformidad interpuesto, la decisión de la SCJN tendrá que ser colectiva. De esta manera se encuentran ya involucrados en la decisión sobre las elecciones los dos órganos supremos del Poder Judicial: la SCJN y el Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación (TEPJF). Ambos cargarán con el peso de lo que decidan, y en el caso de la SCJN, incluso si deja que transcurra el tiempo para no decidir, lo hará por omisión.
Mientras, sigamos analizando las evidencias disponibles sobre el fraude electoral. Por cortesía de amigos de la izquierda mexicana, he recibido la base de datos del recuento parcial ordenado por el TEPJF, que ha elaborado el equipo de AMLO ante la opacidad informativa del tribunal y que contiene la información de las casi 12 mil casillas con los resultados del recuento de los votos por partido, de los votos nulos, por candidatos no registrados, y de las boletas sobrantes. Esta base de datos ha permitido al equipo de AMLO obtener comparaciones por distrito y por entidad federativa de los resultados entre el recuento y el conteo distrital (CD). La base de datos contiene 11 mil 763, es decir, 109 casillas menos que el recuento total, que no habían podido capturar.
En el CD las casillas recontadas registraron un total de 3 millones 861 mil 446 votos (incluyendo nulos y para candidatos no registrados), total que disminuyó en 10 mil 667 votos para quedar en 3 millones 850 mil 799 en el recuento. Este cambio parece pequeño, sólo 0.276 por ciento, menos de la mitad de la supuesta ventaja de Felipe Calderón (FC) respecto a AMLO. Sin embargo, resulta de la suma algebraica entre los votos adicionales obtenidos en el recuento (votos subestimados en el CD) en algunas casillas y votos que no aparecieron en el recuento (inflados en el CD) en otras casillas, que fueron de 38 mil 8 y 48 mil 655 respectivamente. Por tanto, la masa de errores o trampas, sólo en el total de los votos, sin entrar todavía al desglose entre partidos ni al respaldo de los votos en boletas, fue de 86 mil 663 votos, equivalentes a 7.4 votos por casilla y al 2.25 por ciento de los votos totales del recuento.
Se trata de errores gigantescos, de orden de magnitud similar al error estadístico en encuestas con muestras muy pequeñas. Los que alegan que no hubo dolo ni fraude tendrían que aceptar que un sistema electoral que se equivoca en más de 2 por ciento del total de votos es un sistema inservible, incapaz de discernir al ganador en elecciones cerradas y que, por tanto, tendría que anularse la elección presidencial. Pero veamos qué pasó en los votos por partido.
FC tuvo una pérdida neta de 13 mil 335 votos como resultado del recuento y AMLO una pérdida neta de 43 votos, habiéndose en consecuencia reducido la distancia entre ambos en 13 mil 292 votos que representan 0.35 por ciento de los totales del recuento, lo que equivale a una reducción de la ventaja de FC de 1.14 votos por casilla, lo que resulta muy sustancial si se recuerda que la supuesta ventaja de FC es de 1.87 por casilla a nivel nacional. Sin embargo, las pérdidas netas de ambos candidatos son el resultado de la suma algebraica de sus ganancias y pérdidas. FC perdió 19 mil 110 votos (es decir, en el CD su votación estaba inflada en esa cantidad) y ganó, en otras casillas, 5 mil 775 votos (es decir, en ellas su votación estaba subestimada en el CD). Las cifras respectivas para AMLO son 6 mil 205 y 6 mil 162. Otra vez, si fueran errores, serían gigantescos, particularmente en el caso de FC, con errores totales de 24 mil 885 votos, equivalentes a 2.14 votos por casilla en promedio, y a 1.33 por ciento de su votación total.
Sorpresivamente, los mayores errores porcentuales, y muy sustanciales errores absolutos, se encuentran en los votos asignados a los nuevos partidos, a los no registrados y a los votos declarados nulos, como se muestra de manera sintética en el cuadro anexo. Los votos nulos pasaron de 75 mil 977 en el CD a 78 mil 430 en recuento, un aumento neto de 2 mil 453 que representa el 3.1 por ciento del total. Otra vez, sin embargo, este aumento neto es la suma algebraica de 11 mil 288 adiciones y 8 mil 835 eliminaciones ocurridas en diferentes casillas. Esto significa que en el CD hubo errores referidos a votos nulos por un total de 20 mil 123, equivalentes a 1.72 por casilla y a 25.7 por ciento (¡más de la cuarta parte!) del total de votos nulos del recuento. Si este nivel de errores se mantuviera a nivel nacional, y no hay ninguna razón para suponer que no sea así, donde según el CD se anularon 904 mil 604 votos, habría habido errores por 232 mil 483 votos (anulados indebidamente o dados por buenos cuando debieron anularse) cifra muy cercana a la supuesta ventaja de FC.
En el CD se contaron mil 905 votos de menos a candidatos no registrados, lo que asciende a 6 por ciento de la votación total, mientras la suma de errores representa 24.7 por ciento, otra vez la cuarta parte del total (véase cuadro). Los votos por Patricia Mercado también estaban subestimados en mil 836 en el CD, y la suma de errores en su caso asciende a 4 por ciento de su votación. Como se aprecia, estaban subestimados en el CD los votos nulos, los dirigidos a candidatos no registrados y a Mercado. En cambio, los votos por Roberto Campa estaban sobrestimados en mil 578, 3.8 por ciento de su votación, y sus errores totales suman 9 por ciento de su votación. Los votos por Roberto Madrazo, en cambio, estaban sobrestimados en el CD en 0.2 por ciento, aunque la suma de errores es de 1.6 por ciento.
Si a este panorama añadimos los resultados antes proporcionados para FC y AMLO, queda claro que: 1) los mayores errores (o trampas) en números absolutos y por casilla están en los votos por Calderón y en los nulos (ambos suman más de la mitad del total), seguidos por los de Madrazo y AMLO. Sin embargo, los errores como porcentaje de la votación son mucho más elevados entre los votos nulos, los no registrados y Campa. No parece haber, pues, un comportamiento regido por las reglas del azar que son las que prevalecen en los errores humanos pero no en la acción dolosa, acentuándose así las evidencias de fraude.
La base de datos y las tabulaciones realizadas por el equipo de AMLO permiten también analizar por entidad federativa y distrito los resultados del recuento. Nuevamente, si las diferencias entre el CD y el recuento se explicaran por errores humanos, las diferencias entre entidades federativas se repartirían de manera proporcional al número de casillas o al número de votos en ellas instaladas o emitidos. No es así. De las poco menos de 12 mil casillas recontadas, casi una cuarta parte (22.8 por ciento) se localizaron en Jalisco, seguido muy de lejos por Baja California (9.6 por ciento) y Tamaulipas (8 por ciento). En estas tres entidades federativas se llevó a cabo el recuento de 40.4 por ciento de las casillas y esperaría uno encontrar en ellas una proporción cercana de los errores identificados, si fueran errores. En cambio, en Guanajuato se recontaron únicamente 317 casillas (2.7 por ciento del total) y en ellas esperaría uno encontrar una proporción igualmente baja de los errores. En ambos casos la evidencia se mueve en sentido contrario.
Analicemos el comportamiento de los errores en los votos para FC y para AMLO en las casillas recontadas en Guanajuato. En primer lugar, de los votos netos perdidos por Calderón (indicación de la sobreestimación efectuada en el CD) ascendieron a 3 mil 508, 26.3 por ciento del total, muy por debajo de lo esperado en la suma de las tres entidades federativas con mayor número de casillas. En agudo contraste, en Guanajuato, donde sólo se recontó 2.7 por ciento de las casillas, FC tiene una pérdida neta de 6 mil 103 votos, muy por arriba de los votos perdidos en las tres entidades, que representa 45.8 por ciento del total del recuento ordenado por el TEPJF y 19.3 votos por casilla. Este acontecimiento no puede ocurrir nunca por azar. El fraude en Guanajuato es brutal, lo que se sospechaba desde que uno miraba las cifras del CD, según las cuales FC obtuvo en Guanajuato 58.9 por ciento de los votos y arrasó en todos los distritos. Si la sobrestimación por casilla en el conteo distrital se expande a toda la entidad, resulta que en una sola entidad federativa el registro oficial de los votos por FC estaría inflado en 118 mil votos, casi la mitad de su supuesta ventaja nacional.
Una conclusión similar , aunque menos drástica, se obtiene si se analizan los errores de más y de menos a favor de FC, ya que esta suma, de 6 mil 515 votos en Guanajuato es mayor que la de Jalisco (5 mil 836) a pesar que las casillas recontadas en la segunda son 8.5 veces mayores que en la primera. Pero no sólo eso. La asimetría en los errores a favor y en contra de FC son muy contrastantes entre Guanajuato y las tres entidades que venimos usando de ejemplo. En Guanajuato los votos perdidos por FC al hacerse el recuento son 31 veces más altos que los que ganó, mientras son 2.2 veces en Baja California, 2.1 en Jalisco y 3.2 en Tamaulipas. Como lo sabe cualquier persona que haya pasado por un curso elemental de estadística, las proporciones en estas tres entidades también son imposibles como resultado de errores, que se cometen con las reglas del azar. Pero el caso de Guanajuato es de escándalo.
Todo lo anterior se obtiene solamente mostrando lo que en el desplegado de la semana pasada, la coalición Por el Bien de Todos llamó un resultado secundario del recuento, y que en efecto puede verse así ya que supone que los votos encontrados en los paquetes electorales son el "reflejo palpitante de la voluntad de los electores". Sabemos que no es así y que en alrededor de la mitad de las casillas hay inconsistencias entre las boletas recibidas en la casilla y la suma de la votación total y las boletas sobrantes, como lo analicé en la entrega anterior de Economía Moral (18/8/06).
jbolt@colmex.mx
© Derechos Reservados 1996-2005 DEMOS, Desarrollo de Medios, S.A. de C.V.Todos los Derechos Reservados.Derechos de Autor 04-2005-011817321500-203.

Thursday, August 24th, 2006

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/24/1425237

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As protests for Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador continue in Mexico, we take a look at the country’s contested presidential election. Mexico’s Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research’s says Mexico’s handling of the recount raises questions about the lack of transparency in the recount and the election. [includes rush transcript]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Mexico, President Vicente Fox said this week that his ruling party ally, Felipe Calderon, was the "clear winner" of the country’s disputed presidential election. His comments came ten days before Mexico"s top electoral court is to rule on fraud claims brought by populist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.
Fox also warned against what he called "extremist" and "messianic" politics in a clear criticism of Lopez Obrador who has launched massive demonstrations over the past few weeks to press for a full ballot-by-ballot recount of the vote. Official tally results in July put Calderon ahead by two hundred forty thousand votes - or just over half a percentage point. Lopez Obrador soon filed claims challenging the results alleging fraud and government interference.

Supporters of Lopez Obrador have brought the capital to a virtual standstill over the past few weeks with round-the-clock protest camps, blocking streets and launching demonstrations. The electoral court has to rule on the fraud claims by the end of the month and name a new president by September 6th.

The Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research recently conducted an analysis (PDF) of Mexico’s recounted ballots that raises questions about the lack of transparency in the recount.

Mark Weisbrot, co-director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: The Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research recently conducted an analysis of Mexico's recounted ballots that raises questions about the lack of transparency in the recount. We're joined now by the group's co-director Mark Weisbrot. We welcome you to Democracy Now!

MARK WEISBROT: Thank you. It’s good to be here.

AMY GOODMAN: What did you find?

MARK WEISBROT: Well, we looked at the first recount, which they didn't really release the results very well of that either, and that was only 2.2% that they recounted. But they've since recounted 9%, and they won't tell us what the results of those are. And that’s, I think, a major violation of basic transparency.

But also we do know certain things. I mean, we've analyzed the data. For example, the Lopez Obrador campaign has claimed that in the majority, the vast majority of the ballot boxes, the ballots were not really kept track of. So each ballot box gets a certain amount of ballots. And then, the total votes plus the leftover blanks are supposed to add up to the ballots that you got at the beginning of the election. And that didn't add up for the majority of the ballot boxes. So right there, and we verified that by just analyzing the data that's available. And so, that's true, and that, by itself -- and that's why it's so strange for the President of the country to say that it's extremist or to even declare that there's a winner, when you have -- more than half of the ballot boxes don't add up. And that by itself is enough of a reason to have a full recount, even aside from all the other irregularities, and there's quite a few.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And this issue of the recount that was done, of this 9% of the ballots, it's been now, what, a couple of weeks since they completed that recount? And the political parties had observers there, so they all have their versions of what happened there. But there's no official announcement yet of these results?

MARK WEISBROT: No. And I think, again, that's deliberate, because right now we have the two versions. If you take Lopez Obrador's version, which I think is probably true, they said that Calderon lost 13,000 votes, which is about 1% of his total, and Lopez Obrador didn’t lose any. So if you look at the media reports, they say 5,000 to 7,000. But either way, that's a lot, and it's clearly going only one way. In other words, the recount showed that only one side had votes that were thrown out in the partial recount. Again, another very big reason to do a full recount and another reason, I think, why they're not releasing the results, because if everybody got to see the results of this partial recount, they might be forced -- they might have public pressure to do a full recount.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And these massive demonstrations that have been occurring now in Mexico City for weeks, they have gotten very little coverage here in the United States. I’m thinking back to when the massive protests in the Ukraine and some of the other Russian republics over allegations of election fraud. But there hasn't been much coverage here in the U.S. press of these protests right with our southern neighbor.

MARK WEISBROT: No. Not very much. And especially the allegations, like the one I just said before. That's not even allegation. That's a verifiable fact, that you have the majority of ballot boxes where the votes don’t add up, the ballots aren't kept track of. So that hasn’t -- the media hasn't made an issue out of that. And they haven't made any issue out of the fact that the tribunal is withholding the results. And I’m actually worried that they're going to not even wait until the August 31 deadline. They’re going to announce the result before the public gets to see what happened in the two recounts that they already did.

AMY GOODMAN: What does this mean for the future of Mexico?

MARK WEISBROT: Well, I think it's huge. I mean, the issues in this election are very big. Mexico has had a terrible economic failure over the last 25 years. The total economic growth has been about 17% per capita over a 25-year period, as opposed to 99% from 1960 to 1980. And it's been a terrible failure, a terrible economic failure.

AMY GOODMAN: We have ten seconds, unfortunately.

MARK WEISBROT: So this is really -- there's two competing candidates with two competing visions of economic policy and what they're going do for poor people in this country.

AMY GOODMAN: And do you think Lopez Obrador will ever concede? Do you think he could be declared the victor?

MARK WEISBROT: It's possible. It depends again on if there's public pressure to do a full recount or to nullify the results of the election. I don't think they would have even gotten the partial recount if he hadn't brought over a million people into the streets.

AMY GOODMAN: Mark Weisbrot, I want to thank you for being with us, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.