The Mexican Episcopate and its defense of the INE-Habsburg
Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero
Democracy via competitive elections in Mexico, the long voted transition, died because it did not produce any improvement for the country, specifically of not influencing or certifying the development of the quality of democracy. After 2006, what has become evident is that the electoral arena is part of the bureaucratic patrimonialism that does not want to change and that, in the face of the crisis in the post-covid world, does not understand the need to rebuild the national state. The INE/IFE strengthened discretion, concerted concessions, caciquil feuderalism and corruption. The electoral route was only enough for the delegative democracies that produce so much ungovernability in Latin America, the electoral advisers -especially after Woldenberg- never worried about developing the bases of liberal capitalist democracy in society and, above all, in the rulers. The INE/IFE represents the democratic failure in Mexico.
In order to analyze the intervention of the CEM in what transcends the INE, it is important to observe the way in which PLAN B affects the interests of the prelates and clerical bureaucracy. What affects the country's important religious leaders is that the electoral reform harms the golden bureaucracies -including that of the INE- and takes away the space of influence for the organizations and intellectuals of the Mexican right. The intransigent catholicity tries to maintain its territories of influence, those that allow it to lobby and manage the evolution of the country. Some of the INE advisers maintain important links with the geopolitical purposes of the Holy See, but also with the economic classes that benefited from the neoliberal model. Lorenzo Córdova represents what Latin American sociologists call the “Habsburg Model”, that is, the feudal, patrimonial, caciquil order, based on the Iberian caste system and, above all, on the exploitation of an impoverished mass sustained by hunger. millennial. And don't you understand the reasons why populism has a Latin American patent? Loris Zannata, in the UNAM magazine, explains the deep roots of Jesuit populism. Catholicism is as populist, or more, than AMLO; with a difference, lopezobradorismo seeks to regenerate the Mexican State and catholicity only thinks of the Spiritual Absolutism of the Holy Roman Germanic Empire that, sometimes, not even the Habsburgs themselves understand, as is the case of the poor Austrian fool they brought to Mexico to promote another Counter-Reformation.
During the long electoral transition the political capital of the Catholic Church was extended to too many institutions of the Mexican political system; furthermore, the interventionist nature of the Holy See's uncompromising integral Catholicism is felt in various quarters. Morena's reform seeks to separate the INE from the powers that be. Hence the complaint from the high bureaucrats of the Mexican Catholic clergy, who are defending their fields and do not want to lose capital, influence and budget.
The political scientist Fredo Arias Kung has established critical paths to Christian democracy in Latin America and particularly in Mexico for its inability and complicity to inhibit a liberal, capitalist and modern society. The ecclesiastical bureaucracy in Mexico is linked to oligarchs, drug traffickers, abusive businessmen, caciques, authoritarianism and populism: Were Onésimo Cepeda and Marcial Maciel interested in the question of democracy? One only has to trace a little in the lineage of the high clergy to understand their attachment to the Habsburg Model of the Feudalist Treasury. The Ecclesiastical Bureaucracy and the Christian democracy are the least interested in a democratic transition; indeed, the historical ruptures would annul their capacity for intervention, management and manipulation.
The CEM uses the political thought of Catholic nationalism attached more to fascism than to democracy, they do not care that the country develops, but that Mexico continues under their control. Even in the CEM, political thought prior to the Second Vatican Council prevails and they don't even come close to learning what Mario Bergoglio seeks to change global Catholicism. The CEM's defense of the INE will be respectable when they first address Pope Francis and Liberation Theology.
Around 1924, the Delahuertista rebellion -supported by the high clergy- ended up causing a more than deep division in the armed forces and, at the same time, the influence of the United States in matters of political succession. Subsequently, the Mexican bishops manipulated the Cristero conflict to enter the political system and cohabit with the Revolutionary Family, a coexistence that they continued until they reached power in 2000 to consolidate the Habsburg Model of society and avoid democratic consolidation. The advantage in the neoliberal model was for the right; However, as Arias Kung says, they were not interested in an authentic democracy, they did not seek ruptures or transformations so that Mexico would change politically, socially and economically. Neoliberalism deepened bureaucratic patrimonialism for the benefit of the exterior; now, revolutionary nationalism only tries to compensate the impoverished masses and the state historically. It is fair and necessary.