Debate and Surveys on succession

 Debate and Surveys on succession

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The campaign for the government of Mexico City is underway and the first debate between the candidates has taken place. Despite the unfortunate format in which the Chilango Dialogue took place, it has had the effect of showing the high competitiveness between the contenders. That is to say, despite the diffuse extension of the discursive protocol, there are precise moments where the exchange and controversy of the candidates draws the attention of citizens. Above all, because this stage of convergence of federal and local elections allows us to observe that competitiveness in CDMX is a profound criticism of Claudia Sheinbaum's government style.

Although the campaign period has not reached the halfway point, it is important to note that the inhabitants of the country's capital have a divided opinion about Sheinbaum's management. The competitiveness shown by opinion polls belies the positive management in the government, and this is surely seen by the majority of Mexicans.

The possibility that Santiago Taboada wins the governorship of CDMX leaves the presidential candidate of the Fourth Transformation in a bad position, and that may condition his victory for two reasons. One, because Mexico City is a direct reference for Claudia Sheinbaum's government; The other has to do with the size of its electoral roll, of approximately 7.6 million voters, capable of influencing the federal election.

Claudia Sheinbaum's management in Mexico City should be the reference for Mexicans to make decisions regarding their electoral exercise to define the presidency of the republic. In the immediate past, one of the worst governors in the country – Enrique Peña Nieto – was elevated to the First Judiciary of the Federal Administration and that is how it went for us. Sheinbaum occupies one of the best places in terms of its democratic quality management, public works and security; However, something happens that the gubernatorial elections in the country's capital are more competitive than those of the country and other states. What should be observed in depth in CDMX? Is the good parameters of democratic governance in Chilangolandia due to Sheinbaum or the opposition? Will have to see.

Democratic political culture and the INE

 Democratic political culture and the INE

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

As in every election, the ways and means in which political actors conduct themselves to monopolize public representation positions are surprising. Processes of usurpation of indigenous and gender identity now abound so that chiefs and oligarchies maintain their power at the expense of the public treasury. Exhibiting the phenomenon is of little use.

Other political and legal analyzes affirm the need for greater bureaucracy to micro-spatially monitor the process. The application of the law is, however, not a valid option in contemporary Mexico.

To obey the law it is necessary to educate in reason and, in weak states like Mexico, due to procedural economy, certain actions that would have a high significant value are abandoned.

Common sense indicates that the INE never had the strength to impose laws and corresponding sanctions. However, the large fines that were imposed on certain occasions and that, however, also ended in waste, also remain for history.

The INE never wanted to promote the effort to apply the draconian system represented by the electoral rules. Not even the national budget would have served to sanction the patrimonialist political leadership. The IFE/INE was complicit in an authoritarian regression that was slowly built. In the end, the imbalance between ideals and means led to succumbing to a form of democratic transition that turned out to be onerous and unproductive. Mexican politics abounds in surrealism and with it an authoritarian populism that has always been a hindrance and atavism is hidden.

Democratic civic culture was an obligation in the development of the IFE/INE, it was never fulfilled. The Electoral Councils sought to be protagonists of the narrative of power and forgot about democratic civility, neutrality and ethics. As referees, they were always biased and subject to political cliques.

Politicians do everything to achieve power and stay there. The electoral process that corresponds to the current six-year term violated all regulations; Strictly speaking, no one should be a candidate and, therefore, all the local horror stories regarding the registration of candidates are peccata minuta.

The reconversion of Morena into the tortilla row pointed out by Weldon and Smith causes the middle class and civil society to lose. The IFE-INE did not and will not comply with the formation of a democratic civic culture.

Impersonating indigenous people, transgender people, women, and even constituencies, is something more than common in the country.

The INE will disappear along with the neoliberal model and we will all once again be colleagues in the sector and party. In the future, the lack of liberal democratic culture in the country will be paid dearly. The middle class and marginalized minorities – such as true indigenous people and non-Mexicans – always lose. It is illogical that the subjects attached to these sectors are referred to as the heroes that the moment requires to safeguard the transition. Liberal democracy has failed miserably in Mexico and the approaching political Darwinism causes orphanhood and absence. The failure of the IFE/INE is followed by the collapse of a legal-political-social approach that developed the electoral system of the last thirty years. Neighborhood and plebeian democracy is what can be seen on the horizon.

Narco Land

Narco Land

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

A large part of Mexican society seems to disagree with the centrality that emigration and drug trafficking enjoy in the economy and structure of the social order; However, it seems inevitable to begin to recognize this role that they also share with other crimes in the daily environment of our republic.

It is not the first time that the United States intends to expose officials and members of the political class through a drug scandal. The phrase “narco Mexico” is a tautology, and the link between professional politicians or high officials and drug trafficking seems so common that it no longer surprises anyone.

But, if Mexico is a neighbor of the United States, why does the most important democracy - and empire - in the world do little to inhibit the commission of these crimes, specifically drug trafficking? The point is that Mexico and the United States have a complicit and ambiguous relationship regarding both the consumption and transfer of drugs and that long-standing relationship is an open secret. However, by having more resources, the United States has greater responsibility in the task of correcting things. Mexico is not the only supplier of drugs to North America, but it does constitute the main space of territorial approach for different groups, including international ones, dedicated to the transfer of psychotropics, to take on board American consumers. Health, as it applies to addictions, is not important in public policies in the United States; That is to say, although the number of deaths from fentanyl in young North Americans is stated bizarrely, their own country does not have prevention programs, projects or models, drug consumption in North America is increasing disproportionately and only the American government could change it.

Given its military capacity, the United States could take down drug trafficking groups in a jiffy; not only legalize its use so that drug addiction becomes formal and responsible consumption takes place in a controlled and peaceful environment. That is to say, while drugs are legalized in North America, Mexico is experiencing a low-intensity war that every day weakens the formal government and empowers too many cartels and associations. If the White House put the same effort into preventing addictions in American youth, in the same way that it serves the pentagonism; Mexico and North America could reach an optimum on this issue.

Maintaining the route that has been followed until now implies that soon the scenario set by George Friedman for 2080 will be brought forward. In the perspective of this geopolitician, the south of the United States becomes a settlement of criminal groups who, later, will carry out a true invasion and destruction of the Yankee empire. Now, to try to avoid this catastrophic prediction, North America is increasingly increasing actions and evidence that fuel a total war against Mexico, while preventing it from maintaining alliances with other countries dangerous to North American hegemony.

Friedman points out that Mexamerica constitutes the most important fracture zone for North America, greater than the importance of the regions of Russia and China. The United States thinks that Eurasia represents the greatest risk to its future; but not. The real risk is

Mexican knot. Affecting Mexico can cause the destruction of the United States in any sense.

The cartels have indeed moved to the southern border of the United States and the White House government knows who they are. Why don't they capture them? What does it mean to make an agreement with them to showcase the Mexican political class? It is increasingly shown that the State in Mexico lacks the resources to confront drug trafficking and impose order in the various regions of the country. Under these conditions, what is the point of making a public complaint and further weakening the government of our country?

Promoting instability in Mexico only leads to the government being increasingly ineffective in the fight against drugs and narcotics consumption increasing in the United States. In a good neighborly relationship, Mexico would expect greater collaboration and responsibility from the North American government in a situation that significantly harms everyone.

The war on drugs in Mexico depends on help from North America. Media exposures do not fix anything and constitute the classic ping pong game to influence public opinion, meanwhile, American and Mexican youth die in their hundreds due to the drug phenomenon.

The fight against trafficking cartels must be more than strategic and must begin from the American south, where the main centers of drug trafficking operations and finances are developed. The invasion of Mexico by the United States continues to be a valid option and, even, quite necessary. But, as George Friedman points out in his analysis: what if the United States loses the war with Mexico?