Politics of Mexico - Current and Future Political Issues - Case Study Example

Mexican Politics Introduction There has been a huge movement of Mexico towards the North American sideand issues to do with politics seem to emulate the North American way. However, the collaboration has done little in changing the political landscape of Mexico. This country remains highly distinct from its partners (US and Canada) in terms of political development and even social as well as economic developments (Hal, 2010). There was an adoption of democratic governance in the years 2000 when the country held its first elections, a phenomenon that broke a long period, seventy years, of one party type of governance and set a stage for further political democratic events. This country’s 2006 election was chaotic and led to months of disputing the outcomes of the elections, where riots were held all over the capital streets. There have been some deep-seated political problems that Mexico has been trying to shed off, although at a much slower pace due to its entrenched customs (Carruthers, 1996). The politics of this country are influenced by so many factors and the war against narcotics that was started by PAN government led by Filipe Calderon in 2006 when it took over leadership of the government. The narcotics war has led to serious concerns over the future of Mexican political stability and has put bear many unanswered questions. The militarization of the narcotics war has led to some political pundits arguing that Mexico could soon be classified under failed states. This label seems very disturbing and paints the country as being on the verge of collapse, which might not be the case. However, there are numerous challenges that the political platform of Mexico faces when issues of societal order and political stability are considered. The political future of this Mexican state is of importance to its Northern counterparts (Manaut, 2004). A factor that has always posed challenges to those who get into analysing the politics of Mexico is the fact that Mexican society is complex in nature and its massive geographic size as well as demographic figures is quite phenomenal. It has over 32 states with an estimated 112 million people and has a metropolitan area that hosts over 21 million inhabitants (Merrill & Miró, 1996). This country has over 62 indigenous languages, although Spanish is the most dominant of them all. 60% of Mexicans are Mestizos, 30 % are Amerindians, while 10% are groups of European, Asian, and others. It has a federal form of government, a system that makes it possible for it to accommodate this demographic diversity and size. Mexican politics is quite an interesting field of study (Hal, 2010). This paper takes a look at the politics of Mexico and tries to analyse the political situation as it is. It puts into consideration the historical trends as well as current and future political issues. Analysis Mexico is a country that has very sharp definitions of regionalism and these regional variations have had a serious impact on the political landscape of this country. Many observers argue that this regionalism is to blame for the civil conflicts witnessed in the past and currently being seen, and also gives this as the best explanation for Mexico fitting well in the states where assertion of authority by the central government is necessary. This was most evident during the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas in 1990. There was also the need to suppress Yucatan during the Caste war of the 19th century. As is the case with many federal governments, Mexican states that are away from the capital city have expressed issues with the service given by the federal government and feel they have not been well served. This has led to the central government’s ineffectiveness to administer these marginalized states and some basic facilities such as schools have failed, leading to high levels of discontent (Harvey, 1994). An interesting twist to the politics of Mexico is the claim of democratic governance since independence. Democracy in Mexico has been a mirage until the presidential elections of the year 2000 when Vicente Fox took over power with his National Action Party (PAN), breaking a long history of one party state. Mexico has been interwoven with caudillos. Looking at the Mexican political landscape, one would not fail to notice the domination exhibited by entrenched strongmen (Carruthers, 1996). These strongmen are the political bigwigs that represent families that have grown very powerful from the times of colonial government. In this Mexican political scene, clientilism is very entrenched and massive corruption is the order of the day. The way Institutional Revolutionary Party stuck onto power for decades is a clear evidence of the aforementioned issues (Hal, 2010). Although democratization of Mexican government has tried to address these issues, the regional section of governing Mexico has not been touched and these politicians in those regions are still very powerful and strong and continue to take advantage of the backward areas dominated by indigenous people (Estrada, 2003). Mexicans have shown a high sense of national identity and this observation has been based on dominant religion of Catholicism, have a common history, and share a dominant language of Spanish. Religion of Catholicism plays a very critical role in their political life and patron-clientelism is quite dominant. This patron-clientelism has its roots in the warlordism and full loyalty shown to political-military rulers known as caudillos in the 19th century (Fox, 1997). These warlords and caudillos did return favours to their political supporters, a situation that led to the camarillas establishments. This political game is expressed in the context of distributing political rewards to the people who are seen as very loyal and willing to play along their masters’ demands. Such a system has managed to seclude control only in the hands of the elite few who control the masses that follow blindly (Inigo, 2009). The concept of adopting democracy has tried to break up the camarillas through the modernization and legitimization process. However, the pace is very slow and often plagued with political intrigues that help in keeping the interests of a few bigwigs in the Mexican society. There is a lot of office trading where offices are exchanged for certain benefits and support. This was the main way of running the government during the PRI before the elections of 2000. Political sycophancy has been a major factor in the determination of who holds a given office and why. In this organization, peasants who should observe unquestionable loyalty levels are rewarded with jobs, family advice, financial help, and food and shelter in exchange for continued voting. This explains why PRI developed a capacity to stay put in power for over 70 years (Fox, 1997). The politics of Mexico have been all along defined by protests and revolutions. This could be explained by the fact that Mexicans have always been operating as subjects to their political system and this has been propagated by the persistent authoritarian rule that has been practiced by the few political elites (Horst, 1998). Some of the worst protests were thee Tlatelolco protest of 1968 by students that led to their massacre by government military where 400 people were killed; Zapatista Uprising of 1994 of the Chiapas rebellion where the people were reminded that majority lived in unhealthy conditions, and poverty as well as lack of education were very serious problems that had not been solved (Harvey, 1994; Rubin, 2002). The revolution that started as a conflict among the political elites resulted into civil conflict. This revolution reshaped into social and political cast, and a strong agrarian revolt, factors that fuelled inter-elite conflicts. The revolution has little or no impact at all on the political establishments because nothing changed and power was still held by the few elites, a factor that questions the starting of this revolution in the first place. This situation is changing with the past decade of democratic rule where legitimacy and elections have been seen. Modern elements have however faced some highly entrenched conservative interests as far as Mexican politics are concerned and have persisted until of late (Carruthers, 1996; Hal, 2010). In the context of the above mentioned modernization and legitimacy trend, Mexican politics have been seen to take different turns, albeit very slow. These have been the modernization of political landscape and in essence constructing a democratic system of governance; persistence in the addressing of regional issues, which have had a serious impact on the progress of Mexico as a nation; and the integration of Mexico into the larger economic and political blocs and modifying the poor relationship that has existed between it and its Northern Counterparts (Edwards, 2009). To this extent, one would be safe to argue that Mexico has and still remains a fragile democracy, if the events of the past one decade are anything to go by. The trend to stability of the Mexican politics has been hindered or blurred by the increased power of trade in narcotics, consequent corruption brought about by these drug cartels, and the efforts being exhibited by the federal government in its pursuit to root out narcotics cartels. The 2006 election to elect a president led to conflict that exposed the entrenched divisions seen in the Mexican society (Estrada, 2003). Fear of violence due to wars by drug cartels have always kept the Mexican voters away from the ballot box. If one looks at the gubernatorial election results that were held in July 2010, a clear indication of what will happen in 2012 when Mexico goes to the ballot is seen. The 2012 elections appear to be hotly contested (Edwards, 2009; Cooper, 2010). The power of narcotics in Mexican politics can be well illustrated by the arrest and subsequent extradition of Mario Villanueva, the then governor of Quintana Roo, for taking part in the trafficking of drugs, and the arrest of the main candidate of the leftist section in gubernatorial elections, Cancun mayor. Diego Fernandez de Cevallos, PAN presidential candidate in 2010, was reported missing and has been presumed murdered by drug cartels members. More assassinations linked to drug cartels have been seen or reported. The anti-narcotic war waged by PAN has been more negative to the political stability of Mexico bringing about violence and discouraging people to participate in Mexican politics (Hal, 2010). Mexican politics are still embroiled in scandals and high levels of corruption, and parties have been seen to place more emphasis on individuals who are elites as opposed to being grounded in programs that could benefit the majority and the country as a whole (Randall & Konrad, 1995). Its international politics across its borders are also very fragile if we go by the delicate relations seen between Mexico and US. Historically, the US has played a serious role in shaping the politics of Mexico. There have been historical invasions by the US on a constant basis, the forceful cessation of almost half of the territory of Mexico towards Washington in the 19th century, and the repeated support of the anti-reform people within Mexico by US government. These factors have always led to more rejection of US in the politics of Mexico (Hal, 2010; Weeks, 1929). When one looks at the degree at which state and society embraces illegalities in the Mexican nation, it is easy to form a perception that there is widespread anarchy. This is however, not the case. The truth is Mexico is a complex, diverse, and dynamic state considering its people and the history behind them (Estrada, 2003). Mexico has a very large network of rules that are quite informal and has numerous institutions that dominate the country and are rooted in power relationships that could be identified easily. It also has economic incentives, friendships, and these factors play an important role in supplementing institutions and other legal options. This brings forward a very interesting phenomenon of the Mexican political governance that of friends’ government and the legal system operates on the platform of being innocent until one is proven to be rich. As such, the Mexican politics do operate on the ability of one to establish ambiguity, create legal claims that are ever competition, and putting in place variations in hierarchies of full power which have the capacity to give amble space for negotiated settlements (Hal, 2010). In such a scenario, a normative state is characteristic of Mexican politics where key intermediaries operating with considerable influence on each other. In the operation of these intermediaries, exceptions are negotiated, and they are further justified by the stamping of the state emblem, and normative order is realized. In such a case, it becomes difficult for one to legitimately claim that Mexico is a failed state because this balance has the capacity to give order, and it does not technically undermine the power of the state or even put a direct threat to its legitimacy (Weeks, 1929). Conclusion Cultural orientation seems to play a significant role in the Mexican politics. The past decades have been plagued by serious political issues. However, the current trend towards democracy seems to be bearing fruits, although to a smaller extent because of the entrenched problems (Skaff, 2009). Without the government being able to address the serious issues relating to legitimacy, stronger state, enforcement of laws, and addressing the complaints made by the marginalized states, it will be difficult to realize an internationally recognized and accepted political order. The ambiguity and intrigues surrounding Mexican politics are far from over due to the power wielded by drug cartels. Public security in Mexico has a major part to play in the ensuring of order within the state. Elimination of camarillas would not be an easy thing given the political interests that surround this system. However, more education of the masses and economic empowerment of the Mexican people could help in realizing the needed democracy and rule of law in this country. References Carruthers DV (1996). “Indigenous ecology and the politics of linkage in Mexican social movements”. Third World Quarterly, 17(5):1007-1028 Cooper T. (2010). “Drug violence cutting deep into Mexican economy,” CNN Edwards E. (2009). Contemporary Mexican Politics. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Estrada G (2003). Profile of the indigenous people of Mexico political movements and indigenous organizations. Forest Resources: 4-5 Fox J (1997). “The difficult transition from clientelism to citizenship: Lessons from Mexico”, in Chalmers, Douglas A. Vilas, Carlos M. Hite, Katherine, Martin Hal K., Ph.D. (2010). Mexico: Current and Future Political, Economic and Security Trends. Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute Harvey N (1994). “Rebellion in Chiapas: Rural Reforms, Campesino Radicalism and the Limits to Salinismo.” Transformation of Rural Mexico, No. 5. La Jolla: University of California, Centre for U.S.-Mexican Studies Horst R (1998). “Authoritarianism, Indigenous resistance and religious missions: Paraguay, 1958–1992‟, Ph.D. thesis, Department of History, Indiana University Inigo G. M., (2009). “Mexico’s Strategy,” National Strategy Forum Review, vol. 18, no. 3 Manaut R. B. (2004) Mexico and the New Challenges of Hemispheric Security, Washington, Woodrow Wilson Centre Merrill T. L. & Miró R., editors. (1996). Mexico: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress Rubin, J (2002). “From Che to Marcos,” Dissent magazine Skaff R. (2009). “Destabilizing Mexico,” Global Research Randall S.J. & Konrad H., eds. (1995). Nafta in Transition. Calgary: University of Calgary Press Weeks, O. Douglas. (1929). “The League of United Latin American Citizens: Texas-Mexican Civic Organization.” South-western Political and Social Science Quarterly Read More