An Eagle Rising?

In 2000, there was much excitement in Mexico over the election of the first non-PRI candidate in nearly a century with the inauguration of Vincente Fox.  Mr. Fox came into office promising sweeping reforms and an attempt to roll back institutional corruption and graft that had held the Mexican economy and people back.  Felipe Caldorón, the former mayor of Mexico City, said many of the same things.  In 2012, PRI candidate Enrique Peña Nieto was swept into office with again, promises of reform.  However, with Mr. Peña, the world press has focused and sees a bright future for Mexico.  The question is whether Mr. Peña can succeed where his well-meaning predecessors failed. 

Several fronts need to be tackled, simultaneously, if Mexico hopes to realize its potential as a society and as an economy.  Mr. Peña has help that can prove instrumental.  One, he is the head of the leading party in the country but also enjoys support for his reforms from the party of his two predecessors, the Reform Party or PAN.  However, not all of his fellow PRI compadres will go along because some of Mr. Peña’s efforts and plans include checking the influence of the powerful unions.  Some PRI politicians are not going to take on that battle.  Still, Mr. Peña has the chance to make some changes by addressing three key areas – the economy, corruption and migration.   

Economically, while there are some parts of Mexico that are doing well, others are lagging dramatically behind.  No one party can lay claim to an economic plan that will save Mexico therefore, a new approach will need to be developed nationally, if not locally.  Nationally, the north is developing at a nice pace with GDP per person at some of the highest levels in the country (Nuevo León, $16,000; Coahuila, $11,100).  Outliers to this statistic include Quintana Roo on the Yucatán at $10,600 and the hub of money in the Federal District ($19,200).  Most of the country, including the bone-crushing poverty in the south in states like Chiapas ($3,600) and Oaxaca ($4,100) and those hovering around mediocrity such as Tabasco ($5,900) and Michoacán ($5,500), are in desperate need of increase investment and more business-friendly measures.  The only way this can happen is to loosen the power of the unions. 

The unions, along with politicians and the police, is a source of corruption and graft.  There can be no “business-friendly” atmosphere unless the level of crookedness and red tape can somehow be reduced.  It is not just the big corruption but the everyday, almost mundane levels of graft that is crippling Mexico.  In a study reported by Economist, Mexican households spend approximately $2.5b (32b pesos) annually on bribes for things ranging from “public” services to primary school.  For many international businesses, to go into Mexico is to accept a level of corruption that is seldom seen.  Of course, the same Mexicans who are paying these bribes cannot or will not express their outrage – many feeling that the problem is too big.   

Only by increasing the economy throughout the country, only by reducing corruption from the highest levels to that directly impacting each Mexican family, can there be any hope of curbing or regulating more effectively the migration issue.  It is true that recent emigration levels have dropped significantly but only because the economy of the U.S. is so uncertain.  The most recent Pew Research study show there are roughly 12m people in the U.S. who were born in Mexico.  Consider the talent and the intellect that is leaving the country - and in many cases, not returning.  Additionally, the cavalcade of children making their way into the U.S. highlights Mexico’s issue with immigration across its southern border.  Included in this tale are those who are entering the U.S. under the orders and threats of drug cartels.  The Mexican government, in recent years, has made progress against such forces but to suggest that the threat has reduced would be a fallacy. 

Several years ago, I visited Mexico City.  What I saw is a hard working population that is fighting uphill to make it to the end of the day.  Regularly, they see a government that does not seem to work while they pay their Danegeld each day with little to no long-term benefit.  Mr. Peña has a tough road to travel but he has the resources, both in the land and the people, to make Mexico the envy of the developing world.  A great many things need to fall in place but if political courage can rise with public outrage and indignation, the major problems of Mexico today could well be studied in the history books tomorrow.

The Dangers of the Upcoming Mexican Elections

With the approaching Mexican presidential elections, there has been a great deal of turmoil and unpredictability that culminated in recent polls, released and called into question this week.  The polls showed Enrique Peña Nieto of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in the lead.  However, the left-leaning Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and its candidate, former Mexico City mayor Andrés Manuel López Obrador, are only a few points behind.  The ruling party, the National Action Party (PAN) and its candidate, Josefina Vázquez Mota is third.  In the midst of all this jockeying are some important possible consequences to the Mexican elections.

Since the writing of the new Mexican constitution in the 1920s, in the aftermath of the Mexican civil war, only one party existed and the PRI kept a stranglehold over the government and the direction of the country for the subsequent eighty years.  As one might find in one-party states, the PRI was known for horrible corruption, connection to “unsavory” types to say the least and an institutional disregard for the lives and lot of ordinary Mexicans.  In 2000, Vicente Fox became the first non-PRI president.  Over the last twelve years, Mr. Fox and current president, Felipe Calderón, have sought to put in place a series of reforms to change the calcified rapacity that existed under the PRI. 

It would be, potentially, very dangerous for the PRI to return to the presidency in Mexico.  Mr. Nieto has said that his time as the governor of the state of Mexico and its economic success could be segued into Mexico as a country.  He blasted the failed reforms and policies of the PAN but not all is as it appears.  First of all, Mexico’s economy has done quite well over the last twelve years.  Its GDP, GDP growth rate and its GDP per capita are all on the rise.  There is a greater level of true democracy seen in Mexico than at any time in its history.  As for the PRI attacks on the PAN, it is more complicated.  The PRI has maintained a sizeable minority in the Mexican parliament and the majority of Mexican states are run by the PRI.  This has put the formerly authoritarian single-party group in a strong position to obfuscate the government’s plans. 

Of course, the biggest charge levied on the PAN is the violence that has characterized the country over the last couple of years.  Yet, there is something positive to be taken from this.  Even with the horrific tales of violence and mass killings, deaths are down overall.  Additionally, the amount of stories reported and the gun battles that have dotted the countryside suggest it’s a reaction.  Comfortable drug cartels do not make trouble for themselves and the violence suggests that the government is making headway in their efforts.  Having said that, the government needs to press their work because the gang violence has the potential of destroying the many gains Mexico has made since 2000.

What does Mexico have to lose by turning to the PRI?  I imagine there is a small chance that PRI has seen the error of its historical ways.  However, that would require an organizational introspection and reform that is not supported by the evidence.  The violence with drug cartels has forced Mexicans to reconsider the direction of their country and the PAN might suffer as a result.  It does not help that Ms. Mota has received less than lukewarm support from President Calderón and Mr. Fox.  A return of the PRI can lead to a return to the previous way of doing things in Mexico.  That could make the cartel violence pale in comparison.   

At the turn of the 20^th-century, the United States went through a progressive period where institutional corruption and illegality were combated.  Movements spanning the spectrum attacked one societal, industrial and governmental ill after another.  Mexico needs its own progressive movement and the leadership with the courage to confront those bringing the country down.  The PRI has not shown a capacity to do this.  Whether the PAN or PRD can, only time will tell. 

The Court Takes on the Arizona Immigration Law

Last week, the Court heard arguments regarding the controversial Arizona immigration law that required people in Arizona, upon police instructions, to show proof of residency.  The case has political implications as well.  If the Court rules in favor of the law, it could be the second major defeat of an Obama administration measure (assuming the health care measure also loses in the Court).  If the Court rules against the law, it could force Mitt Romney to be more vocal about the need for comprehensive and federal-dedicated measures to stop the flow of illegal immigrants at a time when he is trying to tone down the rhetoric to win over more Hispanic votes.  However, as usual, these conversations have deeper complexities that I would like to discuss. 

I’m not too far removed from the old country myself and as a historian, I’m intensely interested in immigration history.  Therefore, I think I’m speaking from a certain level of sympathy and understanding.  Additionally, our struggles with immigration (illegal or otherwise) are also being experienced throughout Europe as well.  If anything, the difficulties in countries like Germany shadow the U.S. struggles.  However, states like Arizona are taking a harder line, themselves hardened by years of problems stemming from the large presence of Latin American immigrants.

I have a bit of a different take on the issue.  I spent seven years teaching in a predominantly Mexican-American school.  From time to time, we discussed immigration.  My students were torn – those whose family entered the country legally were miffed at having waited the time required, paid the money ordered, dotted the I’s and crossed the T’s and arrived here legitimately.  They were irritated that illegal aliens had foregone all of that and broke the law in their first step into their new country. 

 

However, all that said, it might be a moot point and that too might affect the election.  The Pew Institute (www.pewresearch.org) released some startling information about the flow of Mexican and Latin American immigrants into the United States.  The Institute said that Mexicans are leaving more than entering into the United States due to a variety of reasons; among these are the recent economic issues and stricter anti-illegal immigration measures.  However, things are transpiring in Mexico that is also affecting the number.  First, the Mexican economy is doing quite well, certainly growing at a larger rate over the last five years than what is seen in the U.S.  From 1980 to 2010, the Mexican per capita gross domestic product has risen 22%.  A sign of a growing prosperity (in any country, let alone Mexico) is that the fertility rate has dropped dramatically.  In 1970, the rate was 7.3 per woman – compared to 2.4 in 2009.   

The Pew Institute went further in suggesting we will never see the numbers of Mexicans coming across the southern border like we have in the past.  Yet, it still leaves a perplexing question.  What should we do with future and current illegal immigrants?  During President Bush’s first term, he suggested the concept of an amnesty program and while he was torched by Republicans, the Democrats said nothing in support of a plan they have suggested since.  Others have suggested the punitive measure of hunting down and deporting illegal immigrations as President Dwight D. Eisenhower did in the aftermath of the bracero program after World War II.  That plans sounds like it would cause more problems than it would fix.   

However, what can be done, in the course of official business, is to ask people to show their identification.  I’ve traveled a bit and in every country I’ve been to, I’ve understand that I must show identification upon request by officials, including police.  To suggest that such a program would be inherently racist and lead to profiling, is assuming that America’s police and government officials are inherently corrupt and ambivalent to their obligations and duties.  It must be a hard way to go through life.