Mexican voters got
more than they bargained for in national elections held Sunday,
July 2, the second democratic presidential vote since the 2000
contest ended seven decades of single-party rule. While a
substantial turnout-60 percent of registered voters-and a very
close result guaranteed public anxiety, questionable fraud charges
have unleashed a bizarre powerplay.
After the
tabulation of all tally sheets, Felipe Calderón, a member of
Fox's conservative National Action Party (PAN), appeared to have
won by a slim margin of about 244,000 votes out of some 41 million.
His close rival, former Mexico City mayor Andrés Manuel
López Obrador of the left-leaning Democratic Revolutionary
Party (PRD), rallied supporters and told them that the election had
been stolen and informed reporters that he would stop at nothing to
claim the presidency for himself.
Mexico's current
government should not abandon laws and institutional redress
because of street protests. At the same time, the president-elect
will need diligence and smart tactics to overcome a weak mandate
and unrest drummed up by an angry rival.
Bitter Feelings
Contention was in
the air before the campaign. While López Obrador or AMLO (as
he is known for his initials) was the capital's mayor, Mexico's
attorney general charged him with failing to obey a legal order
related to construction on disputed land. Perhaps overplaying its
hand, the Fox administration asked congress to lift AMLO's immunity
from prosecution, which also would have kept him from running for
president. The congress complied, but, after AMLO organized a
million-person street march in his defense, the government dropped
charges.
López
Obrador's success in that confrontation made him the early favorite
in the 2006 presidential campaign. Mistakes and attack ads,
however, cost him his lead. AMLO snubbed a televised debate in
April; then Calderón warned AMLO would rule like Venezuela's
populist autocrat, Hugo Chávez. As his ratings slid, a
frustrated AMLO branded Calderón a tool of the rich and
hinted that fraud would mar the contest.
After polls closed
on July 2, the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) said the quick
count of selected voting stations was too close to call. Within
minutes of IFE's announcement, AMLO declared victory-by an
"irreversible" 500,000 votes. Calderón countered that he was
leading. As electoral authorities continued tabulating votes,
López Obrador falsely charged that three million votes were
missing and that other irregularities were tilting the
outcome.
When
Calderón's tally surpassed AMLO's 35.89 percent to 35.31
percent, an upset López Obrador said he would go to the
federal election court for a recount of all ballots and ask the
supreme court to declare the election illegal. By law, contenders
are entitled to ballot recounts only from stations where tally
sheets show mistakes or tampering. A full hand recount would not
meet that test. Also, Mexico's high court does not try electoral
disputes. Regardless of a recount, electoral authorities must
decide whether the result is valid by September 6.
What To Do Now
AMLO is using the
controversy he stirred to remain the center of national attention.
He has told reporters that even if he loses a recount he would
still press his claim to the presidency. On July 8, AMLO called an
estimated 180,000 supporters to Mexico City's central square as a
show of force. More marches are planned from July 12 to 16.
Advising him is the former general secretary of the once-dominant
Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) when it allegedly stole an
election through a mysterious computer outage in 1988.
Although AMLO's
case deserves a hearing, electoral authorities and the Fox
administration should not cave in to street pressure to depart from
the law. Moreover, Felipe Calderón must bring Mexicans
together soon-by directing attention toward real solutions to deal
with real problems. He can begin by adopting AMLO's main
issue-poverty-as his own and educating the public on viable
remedies. Blocked economic opportunity resonates: it affects 40
percent of the population and forces the unskilled and
underemployed to migrate. When combined with poor education, it
tunes in minds to populist appeals.
The Challenge of
Governing
While Mexico's
president-elect will inherit a healthy economy, it's not growing
enough to supply jobs for all entering the labor force. Mexico's
infrastructure is aging, the state petroleum monopoly Pemex loses
money to corruption, and the country's public schools are woefully
inadequate. While the North, a PAN stronghold, is relatively
prosperous and resembles the United States, AMLO's South is less
developed like Central America. The United States has a burgeoning
trade and security relationship with Mexico, but U.S. migration
worries now pervade relations.
In his favor,
Calderón has untapped legitimacy since he is the first
presidential candidate to go through a primary selection process
instead of naming himself or being picked by party leaders as were
AMLO and the PRI's Roberto Madrazo. Furthermore, his PAN party
obtained enough votes to give it a plurality, but not a majority,
in both houses of congress. Time will tell if he can exploit those
advantages. To strengthen other vulnerable flanks once in office,
the president-elect should:
- Be a
uniter. Lots of Mexican politicians see compromise as defeat
and allow ambition to interfere with good decisions. Unwillingness
to work with opponents kept the last two Mexican congresses and the
Fox administration from passing needed reforms. Felipe
Calderón must promote a new tradition of forming
coalitions.
- Build on
success. Thanks to President Fox, inflation has declined by
two-thirds, foreign investment has increased by 74 percent, real
wages have risen seven percent, fewer Mexicans live under the
poverty line, and last year 577,000 new jobs were created. However,
sustained reforms to establish access to affordable credit,
stronger rule of law, and a decentralized, modern education system
are needed to improve employment.
- Phase-out
failing institutions. Pemex, the inefficient state petroleum
company is still protected from competition and privatization.
Company executives claim it loses $1 billion annually to internal
corruption. If it is national patrimony like some say, then every
citizen should own stock and be able to trade it. By the same
token, a fifth of Mexico's workforce toils on farms, half stuck on
small, unproductive subsistence plots in a collectivized
80-year-old land-tenure system. These citizens should be free to
register titles and sell or trade their land.
- Reassess
migration rhetoric. Vicente Fox has said Mexicans have a right
to work in the United States. They do not, nor do foreigners have
similar rights in Mexico. Such talk excuses legislators from action
on reforms to take advantage of trade opportunities and create jobs
at home.
- Continue
global outreach. Inwardly focused for much of its history,
Mexico has developed a cooperative partnership with the United
States and Canada in commerce and security. Though not always
agreeing with the United States, it has become an advocate of free
trade and human rights in hemispheric forums, leaving behind former
coziness with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. These new directions and
the Fox administration's vision to spur economic development beyond
Mexico's southern border should be sustained.
Conclusion
International
observers and participating parties, including local PRD officials
who signed polling station tallies, judged Mexico's 2006 national
election as free and fair. The contest proved that votes matter.
Before 2000, Mexicans used to joke that they could go to bed on
election night knowing who the next president would be regardless
of who won. Now the choice rests in the people's hands. It also
demonstrated the value of competition. Both leading candidates
shared serious ideas: Calderón had sensible free market
policies, and AMLO focused on reducing poverty. As president-elect,
Felipe Calderón should blend the two.
Finally,
politicians with futures know how to win and lose. As mayor of
Mexico City and as a presidential candidate, López Obrador
often showed contempt for institutions and procedures. Now, he is
using protests to push his way into the presidency. But the more he
continues this tactic, the less he looks like someone who should be
president.
Stephen
Johnson is Senior Policy Analyst in the Douglas
and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage
Foundation.