The reconstruction of the Mexican State
Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero
The legislative processes that have generated controversy and irritation in the opposition that claims to characterize Claudia Sheinbaum's government as a dictatorship, imply nothing other than the deconstruction of the State after a neoliberal period that dismantled public institutions. The experience of the changes that removed the pillars of Mexican constitutionalism identified with the Mexican revolution, were more serious than those discussed now, unconstitutional and illegal, authoritarian and dictatorial - as in the case of the 500 murdered PRD members -; but the historical memory of the opposition manipulates the evidence and the process of counter-reforms.
The face of the Mexican revolution began to change since the presidency of Miguel de la Madrid, it was not in the friendly and democratic way that the opponents of the Fourth Transformation now demand. It is true that the parliamentary task requires the protagonism of the PRIANRD, but they should also turn to the actions that they promoted in the reforms that implemented neoliberalism.
The problem of the opposition was to believe that neoliberalism was forever and that, indeed, it represented the end of History. They did not prepare for competitive scenarios and neither did they contribute to the development of the elements that are the pillars of liberal capitalist democracy. They did not change the 1917 constitution, they did not develop a large and buoyant middle class, they did not modernize the productive structure and, above all, they forgot the important task that education implies in the country. They wasted more than thirty-five years. They ruined the integration with North America. Now they only have to pay the consequences.
Revolutionary nationalism and left-wing populist progressivism regain the institutional control of the State that they lost in this long journey. They were patient and constant, the merit lies in not losing hope and trusting in the errors of the neoliberals, who were almost all. The opposition has more responsibility for the survival of Lopezobradorism than the cultural characteristics of Mexican society. In the face of the constitutional change that the country is experiencing, the opposition cannot be fooled, they governed the country in the worst way.
The opposition cannot remain tied to a socioeconomic project that has failed and that they never seriously bet on achieving. The circumstances overwhelm them and they waste time trying to hinder a Fourth Transformation that has vast social support. This is how political power works in Mexico and the legitimate Hegemony is held by Morena.
José Antonio Crespo affirmed that the opposition was returning to the Gomezmorinista Struggle of Eternity, that is, to the study of ideas and the keys to propose another transformation that serves the majority and forgets about importing models that cancel their operation in the country.
Hopefully, the much-discussed reforms will go beyond the script of the silly republics that have characterized Latin America since its independence and invention, and that the law will be something more than just reading and not complying with.