I don’t know much about Mexican politics, but I’m puzzled by the PRI’s big win in yesterday’s elections. They won five of the six governorships up for grabs (the state of Sonora is still in dispute), and they now control the Chamber of Deputies, which is the lower house of Mexican Congress.
Does anyone else think this is weird?
The PRI ruled Mexico with an iron grip for 70 years. To keep themselves in power, they did some pretty atrocious things: stuff ballot boxes, create fake voter lists, ignore complaints from opposition parties… not to mention they were the party in power during the 1968 student massacre at Tlatelolco, in which armed soldiers killed hundreds of innocent people. Well, actually, no one knows the real number of people who were killed, because the PRI government at the time refused to release any numbers. And PRI-controlled newspapers refused to report the true story.
This is the party that, in 1988, pretty much stole the presidential election from Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas and unplugged computers from the wall to prevent opposition parties from seeing the true election results, before the PRI had fiddled with them. How do I know all this? I’m reading Opening Mexico, a fascinating/depressing look at 20th century Mexican politics. It’s written by two Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporters who were former correspondents in Mexico City.
Really: How can this party have any type of majority power again? The NYT and BBC say the Mexican people were fed up with the drug war and shrinking economy and wanted a change. Maybe voters really believed the PRI’s new slogan — “The PRI of Today: Proven Experience. New attitude.”
On a sad note — sad in my opinion — nearly six percent of voters across the country cast a “null” vote, meaning they didn’t vote for anyone at all, in protest of Mexico’s political machine. In Mexico City, this figure was as high was 11 percent. This strikes me as crazy. In a country where the first true democratic election happened in 2000, people are now refusing to exercise their democratic right and choose a leader?
No entiendo.
I think it is pretty obvious what happened with the PRI’s new rise to power. A morning coffee blend of “nulo” votes and a very low voter turnout mixed with a magical 8 political parties–most of which magically founded by former PRI members (i.e. PRD, PV, PSD, PT, etc)– gave the PRI a very easy chance at winning.
Many people are knocking the “nulo” campaign, but I get it. These people weren’t saying don’t express your democratic right to choose a leader. Instead they were saying we don’t have any leaders to choose from! Nobody knows their candidates or elected officials in Mexico, the law states that you must belong to a party to run for office –which means the person fixing the system is fixed to be out of it—and plus one look at the current list of candidates says that these people are in it for one thing and one thing only “money money mooooooooney…money”! Why? Because is more than obvious that the parties have zero interest in the better future of this country.
I agree with GingaInMexico.
There is a strong moral logic behind the Voto Nulo movement. People should look into it a little more and not just dismiss it as some kind of spoiler. I can tell that’s what some people in the foreign press in Mexico have been doing.
I guess I just don’t understand how voting for no one can affect change. If everyone cast a “voto nulo,” how would that really change the political system in Mexico? How would it change the laws? Would the current system in power suddenly be swayed to “listen to the people” and relegate itself to the back room? My guess is no. I could be way off on this, but the best bet seems to try to change it from the inside, to create a party you believe in, and nominate candidates who you think would be genuinely good leaders. That’s what Cuauhtemoc Cardenas did with the PRD, and although it’s gotten a bit loony now, the party did eventually end up gaining some seats in Congress. (Or that’s my understanding anyway.)
You’re right about the PRD. But parties in Mexico come and go. (PSD is losing its registration after this round.)
There was a sign out there on Sunday that said, “Nulo is only the beginning.”
x
Mexican parties get their funds from the IFE electoral institute, which in turn gets its money from taxpayers. In order to “register” as a legitimate party (no independent candidates allowed) there’s a minimum amount of votes that parties must receive. If they don’t get this minimum amount, they’re out, but if they do, they qualify for millions of taxpayers’ money, and as I understand, there isn’t a lot of accountability in how they spend it.
Under this system, a lot of small parties, rather than being authentic vehicles for change, are rather like little family-run fiefdoms, the Green Party being one prominent example. The parties don’t want to get big — then they’d actually have to govern and be accountable. If they stay small, they can just say “We’ll team up with you” to the PRI or PRD or whoever and they play a valuable role to the larger parties. (Witness the Green Party’s alliance with the PRI, giving them a majority in the Congress now)
This helps the big parties push their agenda, and the smaller parties get just enough votes to qualify for the IFE jackpot. And the party leaders can maintain a cushy lifestyle.
The PSD, which appears to have lost its registry due to the “votos nulos,” was one example — it started as a modern, moderate left party that promoted diversity and minority rights, but got taken over by long-time politicians that just wanted to piggyback on other parties and keep their cushy jobs.
So the voto nulo is a kind of a warning to force some of these smaller hangers-on out and say “hey, we want real parties!” And I can sympathize with Mexicans who don’t want to vote for the PRD (in-fighting loonies), the PAN (Macho Catholic businessmen) and the PRI (root of all evil).
The voto nulo folks also want more accountability in how the parties use their funds, and think too much money is going to political parties that could be used to fight poverty or build schools and bridges, etc.
Wow. Thanks for the detailed explanation, Juan. The nulo stuff makes a lot more sense now. But one question: Who is in charge of actually changing the elections laws? Is it the President? Or Congress? Because now that the PRI is in charge of the Chamber of Deputies, I don’t see anyone making a fuss to make sure they receive a fair and equitable amount of taxpayer money. (Rather than millions.) What if the nulos formed their own party? Is there any talk of that?
Congress would be in charge of passing electoral/political reform. The amount of funding parties get is based on the % of votes they receive, I believe, and that’s written into the law. So until Congress decides to change this, parties are legally entitled to these large sums of money and that’s not going to change.
So yeah, that could be seen as a flaw of the voto nulo – it doesn’t change that situation. But hopefully it does send a message to the parties that “hey, we’re not buying what you’re selling” that could cause them to reflect a bit and try to change the way things are done.
Haven’t heard of any “partido nulo” but it’s a good idea!!