Political Parties and Democracy: Mexico
There is a continued dissatisfaction with political parties in many countries around the world. This is not only due to the opposition parties, or followers of them, but by citizens that dont fully relate to any party. Parties, as people within the parties, are often judged on one thing and they carry that with them. In Mexico, when people hear PRI they usually think of Corruption; when they hear Morena, they think of populism; when they hear PAN, they think center. However, even with these labels, there is still an obscene amount of actions that threaten the democracy.
As noted by Levitsky and Cameron, the absence of political parties threatens democracy, as the case is with Peru and Fujimori in the 1990s. Peruvian politicians thought, after Fujimori’s self-coup, that political parties we unnecessary. Does this always hold up? In theory, democracy is a democracy due to the competition of political parties and citizens making knowing choices to elect their representatives. In practice however, even with political parties democracy is hard to sustain in Latin American countries. Mexico, for 70 years, had one political party rule, el PRI. PRI managed to win elections by well over 70% of the vote (with fraud of course) and the president would personally select his successor in a process called “el dedazo” which means the president would choose the next president by “pointing at him with his finger”. These 70 years saw no real competition against PRI, until 2000 when PAN finally won the presidency. In 2006, PRI was not even within the first 2 political parties in the race for the presidency, it was PAN and PRD (PAN won again). The fact that there was an increase in competition by political parties allowed for a change in Mexico. Now, was it complete democracy? Probably not.
It is no secret that Mexico is a very corrupt country (ranking 123/176 in the corruption index in 2016, according to Transparency International), and given this political processes are in many ways undemocratic. In the 2006 elections, when Felipe Calderon (PAN) beat Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador aka. AMLO (PRD) for the presidency, AMLO questioned the validity of the results, even going as far as wanting to count each vote from each ballot. To be fair, the final result was PAN with 35.89% vs. PRD 35.31%. While this was a controversial election, there was no apparent foul-play. However, PRD and their supports tried to block Calderon by taking office, going as far as blocking Calderon from swearing in. In the 2012 elections, PRI once again showed their true colors and used bribes and corruption to win back the presidency. With upcoming elections next year, and AMLO gaining a lot of support on his new party (Morena), it could be interesting to see how it plays out. One thing is for sure, while having competition is great for assuring citizens can make better decisions, democracy itself is not 100% free when it comes to Latin American countries for one reason: corruption.
This is an interesting response to the articles. I do think that the examples of Fujimori’s rule in Peru, as well as your provided example of the long-standing PRI in Mexico, show the ineffectiveness of a liberal democracy. It is my understanding that these liberal or complete democracies are what Levitsky and Cameron were referencing, as the examples in Peru and Mexico could be regarded as illiberal democracies and therefore furthered their main point. As you alluded, corruption may be that fact that differentiates a liberal democracy from an illiberal one. However, I do believe that there are other factors that go into play here — like the state of the economy — that may in fact make this distinction. I do not think that corruption is limited to or more prominent in Latin America, and that while it certainly adds to their complications with democracy, cannot be regarded as it’s sole issue.
Good thoughts on the reading here. In my opinion corruption does play a critical role in the struggles of Latin America. I think this is because it is woven into the fabric of their countries unfortunately. Corruption can be seen as an easy way to victory. This is seen clearly by the PRI, who had been defeated, again coming back and using corruption to win. And a majority of people are seemingly complacent with this because they voted the PRI back in. As Holzner talks about, in these tight knit groups it is difficult for them to go against the norm of what they have always known. Even if the status quo is not great, people will accept it if changing it leads to uncertainty
Definitely a good post about the relationships between civic society and political history in Mexico. I believe that all the points made reflect the understanding of the reading material, and provides your personal insight as a Mexican native. The most interesting thing that I believe you mention is the “Dedazo”. I find this very convincing towards your overall argument as it depicts the dominance and significance that a single party regime has.
The relevance towards political instability that you assert when mentioning all the corruption indexes and political stoicism of the general public are very interesting, yet, there are aspects of Mexican Political Economy that the PRI developed and cannot be ignored. Mexico is now the second biggest economy in Latin America, in addition to an important expanding market.
I am not saying that everything the PRI did and how it developed the economy should be ignored. My whole argument is that PRI and their 70 year rule developed a target for corruption and people are tired of this illegal activity. However, PRI did manage to increase the economy greatly in Mexico, however, the controversies they faced in my opinion dull out their successes.
In Mexico exist, bunch of popular saying, one of those , it is a one, that say, CUANDO ELLOS PIERDEN ARREVATAN, that means, when they losing or lose a fight, they snatch the life, or they better will kill you to win, which they really do, threaten, those attribute their wealth to they are always killed all the people of the world, to be able to rob and those Mexican and band to be rich, in Mexico those are ever only fighting Rob and murder daily in any countries, the Mexicans are very dangerous, they always want to be in political revolution, to steal economic power from the murders, which they commit all over the world, and they want ever to stay in revolution. For no one can to reclaims, those are very vulgar, people without fine study, those are dangerous country criminal, in mexcio those don´t care or follow any cairn of laws they kill to win plus they pay to win. those are call republics, bunch off,,,any cain off.