Posted on 10/12/2006 2:45:58 PM PDT by SwinneySwitch
There are salient issues that the Mexican news media have failed to either recognize or cover concerning the effects of the ongoing debacle of the Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador movement. I have lived in South America (Bolivia and Brazil) for the better part of 10 years. During that time I saw this exact scenario unfold all too many times.
Ten points to note:
1. The travesty that the Mexican citizen “majority” has been forced to endure at the hands of “minority” PRD factions clearly illustrates how much a general population can be held at siege in the modern era. This siege has been more costly to Mexico City than the Twin Towers disaster of New York City in terms of lost and disrupted commerce. Estimates claim such losses to be in excess of $7 billion.
2. Is there, or shall there be, a federal aid program that will address losses (personal and commercial) on the level of disaster relief for affected parties in the Mexico City and Oaxaca political battlegrounds? Will a plethora of class-action suits be litigated, in which the plaintiffs rightfully withhold their federal tax payments as leverage on settlements related to this problem?
3. Losses to Mexico are not only monetary. Most damaging may be the huge chasm in the populace that resulted from Lopez Obrador’s heretofore unfounded claims of fraud, fault in the electoral system, and general disdain for any of the “rightist” doctrine. These scars on the integrity of the Mexican democratic system might never heal.
4. Even more frightening a prospect than the tangible losses stands the belief that if one considers the Mexican government’s current attitude in addressing social unrest, which allows that these issues must die a natural death, Lopez Obrador has proven that any anarchist or terrorist group could operate with relative impunity on Mexican soil.
One must further acknowledge that the Mexican government offers no guaranteed protection to its general population against damages incurred in the course of civil disruption. How might this affect such factors as attracting foreign investment, the strength of the national currency or its stock market, or even the influx of foreign personal retirement commitments?
5. It would be of eminent importance to examine the details of the funding that went into the creation of this Lopez Obrador machine, to propel such a movement so quickly and on such a scope as the end product became. Is there a clear paper trail on all sources of funding and spending? Would the public be surprised to learn if there are indeed appreciable levels of contributions that could verifiably be traced to rogue governments offshore, or to organized crime?
One fact is obvious: the monetary backing required to fund such a movement in a country as powerful as Mexico could not be gathered through neighborhood cake sales, and it certainly did not come from the poor, whom he claims to champion and, coincidentally, whom he lured, only to be left without bus money for the ride home.
6. On the subject of PRD party coffers, in light of such prolific grounds for civil suits against the party, and individually against some of its leaders, are the present and future financial assets (of the PRD) frozen or even attached by “Lis Pendence”?
7. If you analyze the platform of the two opposing forces in this conflict, allowing that the PRD-Lopez Obrador movement is poised against the centrist-rightist block of basically PAN-PRI interests, one might draw similarities in the activist posture characteristic of most of the revolutionary insurrections that have taken place throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
Pro-separatist elements traditionally have a high level of aggression, energy and general disregard for established institutions, similar to the way the PRD is behaving. Stable, established democracies in particular have been slow to acknowledge the seriousness of these insurrections, maintaining a certain complacency in their attitude toward the “rebellious masses.” These vulnerable governments also wished that these problems would die a natural death in a minimal time frame.
This is the classic scenario, or blunder, of underestimating an adversary.
8. The Mexican government, under President Fox, should be applauded profusely by the PRD camp. Rarely has any government of this modern era acted so leniently toward an aggressive, opposing political faction, turning the proverbial other cheek, overlooking blatant assaults and constitutional transgressions, to extend a hand of compromise.
This has left so many people (from both sides of the isle) on the sidelines perplexed in their search to fathom any political logic on the part of the “right” during this struggle.
9. This nightmare issues a loud call for legislative safeguards against such an exercise ever evolving so much out of control again. Surely if one were to extract the letter of the law, whether it be a constitutional provision or municipal ordinance, some manner of prohibitions already exist to protect the public.
However, either the nuances of interpretation or an overriding judicial conflict in existing laws as they are scripted, allowed too much “wiggle room” in the application and enforcement of these laws.
This is a class that acted above the law.
This first-time experience is somewhat plausible; a re-enactment is inexcusable. Felipe Calderon will elevate himself to sainthood if he faces this problem head-on and succeeds in passing constructive legislation to avert such problems from becoming a permanent part of Mexican politics.
10. It is obvious, beyond the charismatic politicalization of the problem, that two truths stare Mexican society square in the face: a.) the government must come to the table to facilitate the construction of a comprehensive plan to address the needs of the marginalized indigenous population, and, b.) Lopez Obrador is not the entity to constructively participate in this process.
PRD’s “rap sheet” of civil and criminal violations
-- Unlawful occupation (and monopoly) of a public space (Zocalo).
-- Aggravated assault on government personnel (Riot at San Lazaro).
-- Disorderly conduct within a government institution (disruption of sixth session of Congress)
-- Illegal disruption of public thoroughfares.
-- Illegal use of public services.
-- Illegal use of public utilities.
-- Fraudulent claims to party participants of gifts of property and housing (at public expense) in return for participation in PRD public gatherings through a contrived point accumulation system.
-- Anarchist tendencies in the drafting of a separate constitution, failure to acknowledge the powers of the IFE, failure to acknowledge the status of the president elect, refusal to enter into constructive dialogue with other established political parties, and the performance of a ceremony of coronation of a separatist government.
-- Dereliction of duty on the part of Mexico City Mayor Alejandro, as a result of his conflict of interests with the job requirements versus the allegiance he held with the PRD, as related to the call to action against those very PRD factions that were causing flagrant violations of civil statutes.
-- The extended use of public campaign funds for activities not directly related to sanctioned political process, rather, for activities that are in conflict with established, constitutionally sanctioned protocol.
-- Alignment with foreign rogue governments, acting in quasi-authoritarian capacity.
-- The intentional and frivolous overloading of the Federal Electoral Court system through the filing of voluminous bogus claims of voting fraud, for the obvious purpose of seeking to create a destabilization of the organized system.
-- The active and blatant promotion of a public insurgency for the purpose of destabilizing the freely elected political system.
-- Civil suit liability against PRD, Lopez Obrador, Encinas, Federal District Gov. Marcelo Ebrard, etc.
SOROS?
RE: "... if one considers the Mexican government’s current attitude in addressing social unrest, which allows that these issues must die a natural death, Lopez Obrador has proven that any anarchist or terrorist group could operate with relative impunity on Mexican soil..."
Huh? It sounds like you're characterizing the opposition party as "enemies of the people". That's the attitude typically found in One-Party government structures, where *any* sort of dissent is officially banned. For the sake of the Common Good, of course, with which no one may disagree.
Personally, I still have a nagging suspiction that there may well have been a legitimate beef with how the election was run, and votes counted. (Or not.)
Personally, I still have a nagging suspiction that there may well have been a legitimate beef with how the election was run, and votes counted. (Or not.)That suspicion is shared by enough Mexicans to make it a legitimate issue. Of course, Mr. Fernandez, who wrote his piece, is entitled to "spin" the facts his way. But, the 66% of Mexican voters who did not want a conservative government have to be heard... and they are.
Incoming President Calderón gave a speech the other day to the Mexican elite (invited guests only, including Carlos Slim and national heroine Ana Guevara, the famous runner)outlining his agenda for the next six years. It borrows heavily from Lopez Obrador, basically a conservative version of the same platform... and for practical parliamentary reasons (Mexico is a multi-party state, after all), Calderón will need -- and is already seeking out -- cabinet members and congressional allies on the left.
Geez, what kind of precedent does that set? Consensus politics, setting aside hard-line partisan ideology? Next thing you know they might start telling the voters what the government is actually up to.
Thanks for the reply.
One reason I lived there for several years was the fascination with the whole change in the system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.