[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

VOTERS' CHOICE (Re: Argentine's elections)

VOTERS' CHOICE

    I don't understand why people complain so much about what 
they call "leftist-populist" governments, when those governments 
actually maintained an almost uninterrupted period of progress 
in Mexico. Since the Revolution most governments in Mexico have 
tried to accommodate popular demands for better social conditions 
by establishing welfare programs, buying industries, and 
subsidizing services and education. 

    Defenders of neoliberalism always point to the governments 
of the 70's to blame the left for the economic crisis, even 
though the left has never governed Mexico. So at this point, 
it would be interesting to question the labeling they use and 
its coherence.

    In 1970 Luis Echeverria Alvarez became president of 
Mexico. He was labeled a leftist for several reasons. For one, he 
repudiated the repression of his predecessor, DIaz Ordaz, and also 
he criticized American imperialism, and flirted with the USSR and 
China in his bid for the UN general secretary post. He also bought 
and created a lot of state owned companies. That made him a 
socialist to the eyes of many although workers and peasants 
never saw one inch of gain in their control of politics and 
economics. Oil exports increased enormously, and a lot of 
money was borrowed from foreign sources. 

    In 1976 JosE LOpez Portillo took office, and continued 
the trend of nationalizing industries including banks while increasing 
government spending, and accepting more foreign loans on the basis of oil 
exports. He also refused to bow to pressures from Washington, and 
supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Then the international price of 
oil collapsed along with prices of other export products, 
and the first serious economic crisis hit Mexico. Much of the profits 
from the oil exports disappeared in corruption schemes, while capitals 
went abroad. The foreign debt became unbearable. Lopez Portillo is 
also considered a socialist, but people in Mexico were still kept out 
of power. Lopez Portillo gained the presidency almost unchallenged
thanks to the PRI political machine that discourages any kind of 
real opposition. 

    In 1982 Miguel de la Madrid became President, and inverted  
the trends of the Echeverria and Lopez Portillo administrations. 
He started to pave the way for his Secretary of Planning, and future 
president, Salinas de Gortari. In 1985 the prices of oil collapsed  
still further, apparently as a result of a concerted move by the 
US and Arab countries, and the economic crisis deepened. I don't 
know if he is considered a "leftist-populist", but probably he is. 

    The above governments are the ones who are considered to be 
"leftist-populists". Yet in Mexico there have been other governments 
after the Revolution who have done more heinous crimes against 
capitalism without having sunk the country in a crisis, yet they are 
invariably ignored. For instance, President Lopez Mateos nationalized 
the power utility company. President LAzaro Cardenas nationalized the 
oil industry putting the country at one step of being invaded by the US. 
Other Presidents, like Alvaro ObregOn were also accused of "socialism" 
for his refusal to respect American interests in Mexico when they 
tried to enforce the Constitution. Why then call "leftist-populist" 
only those Mexican governments who only had economic failures? 

    Since 1920, all Mexican governments have come from the same 
political entity, the "official" party, nowadays known as PRI. Most 
of those governments have maintained a more or less complicated 
system of services like public education, health, water, etc., 
for which they are "labeled-populist" or leftist. Yet the fact is 
that economic standards increased most of the time. As Mexico 
maintains now a chronic state of crisis, ideolgues maintain that 
the solution is to privatize everything, pointing to the last 
two or three administrations, and avoid mentioning the others. 
But this sounds suspicious. 

    Most economists recognize that the global economy is 
what has changed in the last decades. As Mexico became an increasingly 
oil exporter country, its economy became more dependent on the trends 
of the global economy. Most raw materials, which Third World countries 
export to developed ones, like oil or coffee, have decreased in price 
in global markets, creating economic austerity in exporters while 
helping the economy of the importer advanced countries. With this 
kind of trend, I think that any kind of government, be it from 
left or right is going to fail. The Mexican crisis of December 
1994 shows that in these times hundreds of investors in Wall Street 
can cause an economic crisis in any given country just by making a 
phone call to pull their capitals out of the country. In this 
situation, it seems that the concept of political independence 
of a country has become meaningless because the only way that the 
voters in a Third World country have to maintain their economy afloat 
is by choosing that system that keeps foreign investors happy. 

Vladimir Escalante Ramirez.
Follow-Ups: