Guest Column
A dubious Christmas truce for Mexican presidential candidates
- By Kenneth Emmond/The Miami Herald/Mexico
- December 19, 2005
At last we're being treated to a five-week respite from the political posturing that assails us day by day in the news media during the seemingly endless presidential election campaign.
Or so we're told.
Starting Dec. 12, courtesy of the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE), we're to have a Christmas "tregua," or truce, among the presidential campaigners. It will last until Jan. 18, the day the campaign officially kicks off.
Now, a few days into the tregua period, it seems to be less than meets the eye.
Last week we had Felipe Calderón, presidential hopeful for the National Action Party (PAN), meeting privately with members of the business community to pass the hat.
We had Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) in meetings at party headquarters to discuss who knows what.
The candidate for the Party of the Institutional Revolution (PRI), Roberto Madrazo, was quietly planning strategy during this time but, noting all the activity going on in the other parties, he's wondering what kind of ceasefire this really is.
President Vicente Fox of the PAN was making speeches extolling his five years of accomplishments and urging citizens to come out and vote; even that was enough to draw fire from the other parties.
In the absence of clear definitions of the non-marching orders from the IFE, every candidate has interpreted them differently.
Last Thursday the IFE awoke from its torpor and sent letters, signed by its leader, Luis Carlos Ugalde, to everyone involved, to provide some clarification of what can and cannot be done during the tregua.
It's not reassuring for those of us who had the illusion that we would get a rest from campaign frenzy. No doubt it's even more of a disappointment to the families of the candidates who had hoped to see more of their political relatives during the festive season.
It turns out that candidates will be able to take part in "private" meetings, provided "there is not intention of doing anything that constitutes campaigning."
They can even grant interviews to the news media "as part of their right to freedom of expression," again provided that they do not make campaign-ish or vote-seeking statements.
They must not place advertising of any kind in the news media to promote their parties, nor can they organize political meetings. They cannot put up political signs or provide new campaign information on the Internet, although existing materials do not have to be taken down.
You see the problem. The IFE's blandishments leave plenty of room for interpretation, and it's reasonable to expect that party lawyers will be poring over the IFE letter in search of loopholes or technicalities that allow their candidates to push the envelope, while denouncing other candidates for what they consider breaches of the regulations.
The IFE has said violators will be punished, but this columnist has not seen anything that tells us what those punishments will be, or whether they will be strong enough to dissuade campaigners from rule-breaking.
For those seeking relief from the political barrage, it is instructive to remember that these rules apply only to presidential candidates. This means that all candidates for the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate will be free to campaign.
But there remains the question of what happens if they slip a phrase or two into their speeches promoting their party's presidential candidate? It's not clear.
What about editorial writers? Will they be taken to task if editorials appear in support of a presidential candidate? If so, what criteria will be used to establish the limits to their editorial freedom?
What all this means is that we can expect a cacophony of objections from all parties, and perhaps even calls for sanctions, according to each interpretation of the rules of the game. That will come on top of the normal complement of outcries that occur in every political campaign.
There has been little objection from either the PAN or the PRI over the principle of having a tregua, but the PRD is indignant
. True to their candidate's track record of concerns about plots, the López Obrador camp cried "foul!" It claims that the idea was hatched by the PRI and the PAN to limit the time during which their candidate could play to López Obrador's strength — meeting the people and selling his ideas in person, rather than relying on media advertising.
Whether or not the candidates stick to the rules, it seems that there will be plenty of white noise about next July's election throughout the Christmas season, even though it's nearly 200 days in the future.
- So, if you want to tune out, the same advice will apply with or without the tregua: you'll have to turn off the television set and stop buying newspapers.
- Kenneth Emmond is a freelance journalist and economist who has lived in Mexico since 1995. Kemmond00@yahoo.com
- Article at: http://www2.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/web_columnas_sup.detalle?var=27331
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed by HispanicVista.com (www.hispanicvista.com) without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)