Inside Tucson Business: Mexico chooses its next president

Mexico chooses its next president

By Matthew Casey and Martin Arvizu, special correspondents Inside Tucson Business
Published on Monday, July 03, 2006

BAHIA KINO, Sonora, Mexico — After playing a friendly game of American touch football, Pedro sat on the beach to dine on fresh fish tacos. His annual family vacation at this Mexican resort community, about an hour’s drive from the state capital, Hermosillo, depends on suppliers in the United States.

Each month, early on a Saturday morning, Pedro arrives in Scottsdale where he scours garage sales. He then takes the stuff Americans don’t want and re-sells it as treasure in Mexico.

Sunday (July 2), Pedro was to participate in something else very American-like - having a choice in an election. It’s only the second time in Mexico’s history there has been a choice for president.

If the United States is not paying attention to Pedro and the politics of its southern neighbor, then it is asleep at the wheel. The results of Mexico’s presidential election will yield consequences for the people and institutions of the United States because it could affect things such as the flow of both legal and illegal immigration and the price of gasoline.

Mexican style democracy

Beginning with the end of the Mexican Revolution in 1920, Mexico was ruled by one party, the official Party of the Revolution (PRI) until 2000. Originally penned “the perfect dictatorship” by Peruvian-born writer Mario Vargas Llosa, many scholars agree the PRI dominated Mexican politics through electoral fraud, voter suppression and violence.

In July 2000, the PRI was peacefully overthrown by the fairest elections in Mexican history. Vicente Fox, candidate for the National Action Party (PAN) stunned the country and the world by winning the popular vote and assuming the presidency.

Now, after six of the most economically stable years in Mexican history, the presidency was put up for grabs. The Revolutionary Constitution of 1917 does not permit re-election of the president in Mexico.

Three strong candidates, representing Mexico’s three strongest political parties, battled to be Fox’s successor.

Going into Sunday’s election, polls said Mexico’s citizens will use their newfound political voice to choose between the two most polarized candidates, Felipe Calderón Hinojosa of the incumbent conservative PAN and Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the leftist Democratic Revolution Party (PRD).

PRI candidate Roberto Pintado Madrazo was significantly behind in the polls and was most likely going to be the spoiler for one of the two frontrunners.

But the PRI is still the majority party in Mexico’s Congreso de la Unión (Congress) as well as a major power in Mexican state politics. A miraculous “comeback” - rigging - of the election was not completely out of the question and that could result in violence or revolt.

Immigration and

the PAN candidate

For over a decade, the U.S. Congress and the White House declined to address legal and illegal immigration from Mexico. That was until the events of Sept. 11, 2001, when it became a high-profile issue. In an attempt to stem the flow of illegal immigration and secure the U.S. from a possible terrorist attack, President Bush has now placed the National Guard on the border with Mexico.

By calling the National Guard in to assist in securing the border, President Bush sent a message that the United States will not solve Mexico’s economic and domestic problems by continuing to allow an unabated stream of people seeking opportunity to illegally cross the border. President Fox, on the other hand, made his position clear by calling Mexico’s citizens living in the United States “heroes.”

Calderón, Fox’s former energy minister, supports a European Union model for North America. A possible variable in the solution to the causes of illegal immigration, the European Union model calls for large and small companies to work closely together to create more employment opportunities in Mexico and throughout North America.

Additionally, Calderón has placed tourism development and universal health care on the tip of his campaign spear.

His campaign slogan, “Para que vivamos mejor” (“so that we may live better”) plays to a U.S. political tactic where political parties point out they deserve to remain in power because citizens’ lives are now better than they were at the time of their election.

PAN influence in Hermosillo

Pedro and many of the almost 700,000 people living in Hermosillo seem to support Calderón’s bid for Mexico’s presidency. Hermosillo’s middle class is quite large. At first glance, many citizens appear to have benefited from the economy’s slow growth and stability under Fox.

Evidence of American owned and influenced businesses is everywhere. You can gorge yourself at the Pizza Hut lunch buffet, pick up household items from Sam’s Club or test drive an American-brand car.

Pedro said he would vote for Calderón, because in his opinion President Fox and the PAN party are similar to President Bill Clinton’s administration and the business-friendly legacy it created during the booming economy of the 1990s. Clinton opened North America’s door to the growing global economy in 1993 by signing into law the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Pedro, who says he is not a fan of President Bush or Madrazo, also says if Obrador won the election, he would hold the country back.

“He has some ideas that sound good, but will they will cause Mexico to go in debt by using credit with other nations,” he said.

The challenger:

Humanitarian voice for change

PRD candidate Obrador has been compared by Calderón to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez for his leftist radical reform policies. Chávez is seen by many as an enemy of democracy because of his rhetoric and dismantling of free markets through the nationalization of Venezuela’s oil industry.

At the last presidential debate held June 6, Calderón in his closing statement called Obrador a “danger” to Mexico.

As former mayor of Mexico City, Obrador was successful in re-building city infrastructure, implementing an extremely popular elderly pension fund, and now says that if elected, he will save the Mexican federal government $9.1 billion in his first year simply by cutting wages for himself and other government officials.

Obrador’s campaign slogan “Para el mejor de todos, primero los pobres” (“For the better of everyone, first the poor”), places his bold ambition to reach out to Mexico’s majority impoverished population at the top of his campaign platform.

Obrador says both poor and educated Mexican citizens are being forced to migrate to the United States and calls that an “embarrassment.” He has publicly accused President Fox of being “weak” in negotiations with the United States on immigration.

Gerardo Venegas, an agricultural engineer from the Mexican state of Durango, now lives with his family in the U.S., in Mesa. He says that due to the President Fox’s failure to deal with lack of employment opportunities, poverty, and corruption, it is logical for Mexicans to elect Obrador.

“I originally voted for Fox as an alternative to the PRI. Now, six year later, things are worse. Fox has done nothing,” he said.

Venegas legally migrated with his family in 2001. He says he would love to be able to live with his family in Mexico, but he cannot find work there as an engineer that would pay enough money for him and his family to survive. He currently works two jobs busing tables to support his family, and the house they purchased in 2004.

“Obrador can not implement all of the reforms he presents, but you can not say that he will not be successful (as president) because you will not know until you see it,” he said.

Bubbling crude politics

With his stance against privatization of PEMEX (Petróleos Mexicanos), Mexico’s government-monopolized oil company, an Obrador victory could cause prices to rise at U.S. gas pumps. Mexico is responsible for the second largest amount of crude oil imports into the United States. Any change in the amount of oil Mexico can or will supply to its northern neighbor - perceived or real - could make for a volatile situation throughout the U.S.

Privatization of PEMEX could lead to the discovery of more oil reserves and attract companies with the technology and finances to extract fossil fuels from the earth. If PEMEX does not have the resources to locate, extract, and refine its oil, its ability to supply oil to the world could be affected at any time.

Dr. Juan Hernandez, former head of President Fox’s Office for Mexicans Abroad recently visited Phoenix to meet with Hispanic leaders and promote humane federal immigration reform. At a luncheon for alumni of the Valle del Sol Leadership Program, Hernandez said he thinks that if Obrador is elected, he will make a political move back towards the center. But, he also said an Obrador victory “will create doubt for investors because he is not currently seen as someone very open to working with the world.”

The aftermath

Regardless of the outcome of the election, the United States will certainly receive an aftershock from the Mexican peoples’ presidential decision.

Will Calderón take steps to provide domestic opportunities for Mexico’s best and brightest?

Will Obrador cause a fuel crisis due to his government monopoly’s inability to supply America’s oil necessities?

If Madrazo steals the election, will the Mexican people revolt?

These questions hang in the balance.

E-mail comments for publication to editor@azbiz.com.

© 2006 Inside Tucson Business. All Rights Reserved