By Richard N. Baldwin T. /HispanicVista.com México's "Parallel Government"
For the sake of brevity, I will refer to Andrés Manuel López
Obrador by his familiar name, AMLO. He is the man who ran for president of
México and came in second in the 2 July election in México by 0.56%.
Publicly AMLO refused to accept his loss even after México's federal
election court declared his rival, Felipe Calderón the winner even after
recounting the votes that AMLO initially proposed.
Now, AMLO has declared himself as the "Legitimate President of México".
He swore himself into this "office" along with his appointed cabinet on 20
November. I will not use of the word "legitimate" here because it insults
the language. Better to call him the leader of a parallel government; and I
would advise him to stop wearing the presidential sash in public. Doing so
identifies him as an impostor.
As far as a "parallel government" goes, this is well within the
structure of a functioning democracy. To address problems and propose
alternate solutions to the legislature is what democracy is all about. And
if AMLO intends to function in this capacity, I applaud him. If, however, he
decides to run a parallel government based on threats of insurrection and
mass demonstrations, he is courting sedition, a crime.
So, let's take AMLO for his word for organizing a parallel government.
We should remember that the former ruling party (PRI) announced that as an
opposition party, they would oppose, not propose. What resulted was gridlock
in the congress for 6 years. In the 2 July election, the PRI went from
having the most seats in congress to the third place. And their presidential
candidate, Madrazo, lost big time. Let's hope that the PRD (the party of
AMLO) has learned this lesson.
Calderón offered his hand to the PRD to work together on programs that
they were in agreement on. That hand was refused by the PRD. That was seen
by many as a return to the old "oppose, not propose" position of the PRI.
But maybe not. If the PRD were to enter in little agreements with the ruling
party, their position as an opposition party would be seen compromised. And
that leads us to something that happened in the last week of November.
The PRD congressmen will put a proposal from AMLO on the congressional
table with an antimonopoly bill (through the normal legal process). They
point out that monopolistic business practices drive up the prices for basic
services for the Mexican public. And they offer a lot of proof.
While recognizing the fact that the minimum wage for workers in the US
is ten times the rate of the Mexican worker, look at what the Mexican worker
pays for necessities compared to the US:
For electricity and cable service, twice more. For long distance
telephone service and cement, three times more. Cellular phone service, four
times more. Up to thirty-five times more for bank service charges! More for
gasoline in México than in the US. AMLO points out that prices in these
sectors are among the highest in the world.
The proposal also presents figures that show that big corporations
doing business in other countries besides México make far more profits in
their Mexican operations. And this is on the backs of the Mexicans.
This proposal is parallel but stronger than other legislation to be
submitted by the incoming president. For me, I like this. This will tend to
make everyone honest in trying to do something real for those who need help
the most instead of just making lip service to the problem.
The history of the bank re-privatization illustrates the problem. When
the Salinas administration re-privatized the bank sector in México (after an
abortive nationalization under the Portillo administration) they played a
trick. In order to get a good price for the bank sector, new banking laws
were crafted, as one observer noted, to give the banks a license to rob the
depositors and thereby giving the prospective bidders a guaranteed highly
profitable venture. Yes, the price for the bank sector was good. But what it
did to the Mexican bank clients was something else . . . and still is. As it
is now, there are no major banks that are Mexican owned. As an example,
Banamex, owned by Citigroup, makes a profit of 33%. The US operation of
Citigroup turns in a 24% profit. Get the picture? And it is the same for
many more operations here.
If AMLO's parallel government can make a difference on matters such as
this, it is a good thing for all of us in México. If, on the other hand,
AMLO turns this parallel government into an operation to suit a
megalomaniac, then all bets are off.
AMLO, it would seem that you are on the verge of doing something very
good for México. Don't loose your way.
_____________________________________
Richard N. Baldwin T., a HispanicVista.com (http://www.hispanicvista.com/)
contributing columnist, lives in Tlalnepantla, Edo de México. E-mail at:
R1041643422@aol.com
By
Richard N. Baldwin T. /HispanicVista.com