After Mexico’s Election

June 7, 2006 This from American Progressive:

The close and contentious results of Mexico’s recent presidential election should help cast a spotlight on the importance of the United States’ relationship with its southern neighbor. The Americas Project at the Center for American Progress convened a panel of experts to discuss its impact and implications for U.S.-Mexico relations.
Jorge Castañeda, former Foreign Minister of Mexico, gave the keynote address that sparked a lively exchange. Panelists included Arturo Valenzuela, Director of the Center for Latin American Studies in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and James R. Jones, Co-Chairman of ManattJones Global Strategies and former Ambassador to Mexico. Joining them were Joy Olson, Executive Director of the Washington Office on Latin America, and Armando Guzmán, Washington bureau chief for TV Azteca. Dan Restrepo, head of The Americas Project at the Center, moderated the exchange.
Castañeda began by addressing the results of the election. “I don’t think there is any doubt,” he said, “nor should there be any doubt, that [Felipe] Calderón won,” an assessment echoed by the other panelists. He pointed to the already twice recounted votes and the strength of Mexico’s electoral system as reasons for considering the election results final. Valenzuela supported that assessment, calling Mexico’s electoral system “one of the best in the world.”
Castañeda used the controversy surrounding the election, particularly the protests of second-place candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador, to make a case for a fundamental change in Mexico’s political system. The other panelists supported him in his analysis. “The problem,” he said, “is not the size of the mandate. The problem is the nature of the institutions.” He pointed out the inherent tensions in a non-parliamentary system that has three parties, as well as the difficulties of a weak president working with a divisive legislature that has little institutional incentive to cooperate with the executive branch. Castañeda also observed the absence of a run-off system, which would help immensely in building national consensus in the face of such a split election. Most importantly, he emphasized that the outcomes of the official electoral system must be respected because building the rule of law is critical for Mexico’s future.
Overhauling Mexico’s democratic institutions is important, Castañeda said, because without a better governance structure the crucial questions facing the country cannot begin to be answered effectively. Like the others on the panel, he said that poverty is the most pressing issue facing Mexico, but in the current system potential solutions are lost in a swirl of political infighting. “It’s not enough to do it with just good intentions,” Castañeda said. “The country cannot be governed under these circumstances.”
For the short term Castañeda said that, “Calderón’s victory will mean a great deal of continuity with U.S. relations.” For the long term, as the other panelists emphasized, the lessons for the U.S. to take away from the election point to a broader shift in U.S.-Mexican relations.
“The U.S. has vital interests with Mexico,” said Valenzuela, as evidenced by its status as the second largest trade partner and oil supplier. This election was the most recent step in what he called Mexico’s “complex and difficult transition” from a rural economy to an industrial power. Yet despite these forces at work, Valenzuela said, “We don’t think about Mexico strategically.” Rather than a comprehensive framework with Mexican stability and growth as a foundation, the U.S. tends to engage Mexico haphazardly over particular domestic and economic issues.
To that end, the panelists called for U.S. strategic interest in an improved, functional Mexico. Olson pointed out that the election controversy and López Obrador’s strong showing, along with elections in other Latin American countries, illustrate “incredibly divided societies” and the need for “hearing the voices of the people.” Poverty, it was agreed, should be a strategic priority for the U.S. because it is at the root of so many other issues, including immigration, trade, and political stability.
U.S. leadership in regional growth was emphasized by Jones. “Canada and the U.S. have a big obligation,” he said, “to have a serious development fund” that would be tied to needed political reforms. Observing that too many people in Mexico have not seen tangible benefits from free markets and democracy, many of whom voted for López Obrador, he said that “a system of hope has to be built in” if those economic and political institutions are going to succeed.
Political leadership and increased awareness are necessary to remaking U.S.-Mexico relations. Right now, as Guzman observed, “You don’t hear about Mexico at all,” except in regards to immigration issues. As the election reminded us, however, a broader and more comprehensive approach is needed for the U.S. to develop a strong and productive partnership with its neighbor.