AMLO: The New Mexican Revolution?

Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) is not the Mexican Chavez but a center-left leader, one of the many who existed before and who will be after Chávez. Because to imagine a policy without left is as absurd as to imagine one without rights. Peligo is another. The danger is that in Mexico we are witnessing the implosion of a whole political system. Implosion that began to occur before the victory of AMLO
By ordering the relationship of factors, it was not the victory of AMLO that caused the implosion of the political system , but the latter led to the rise of AMLO. Let's see the results. This 53% (Mexican record) obtained on his closest supporters, the continuitist candidate Jose Antonio Meade and the conservative hybrid Ricardo Amaya (right and left candidate at the same time) was a victory against the void. Empty program, empty policy, empty everything. Faced with what these appointments came to represent, not only AMLO, but any candidate who would have proposed an alternative against corruption, state gangsterism, organized crime by the parties, could have won. All the more so if this candidate has shown seriousness (the Mexico City Council has been administered with relative effectiveness by AMLO), very few virtues in the Mexican political class.
No, this is not a new defeat of the PRI. when Vicente Fox came to the presidency (2000). It is more about the relationship of complicity shared between the PRI and the other parts of the system. From a system characterized, fundamentally, by a kind of political corporatism that for many decades represented the PRI and later was extended to other parties such as the PAN, and the PRD itself. Well, politically, what prevailed in Mexico was, in the strict sense, a complicity. Now, against this part of society, engulfed in the darkest scandals that it is possible to imagine, AMLO has raised its bid. Thus, objectively, and disregarding the revolutionary rhetoric of the new president, his future government appears to many Mexicans as a factor of normalization and stability. And AMLO as the man able to save the integrity of the policy against institutional corruption and social anomie.
Not without reason, some publicists have written that AMLO and his party MORENA not only embody a foundational but -fundational moment, that is, the foundation of a new PRI. But appearances are deceptive. Despite all the similarities that may exist between the old PRI and the new MORENA, there are two major differences. The first is that the PRI founded by the Plitarco Elías Calle army was born with the aim of institutionalizing – or closing – the revolution born in 1910. MORENA, on the other hand, says with the words from AMLO, was born to launch a new revolution. Indeed, AMLO speaks of the beginning of a fourth revolution: that of Independence (Hidalgo), the Great Revolution (Madero) and that of the Reformation (Benito Juárez) are the first three. The fourth would be the social revolution of AMLO. The first three are united by two characteristics: in total, the great masses escape the direction of their leaders and all, bloody. Fortunately, AMLO, it's really a revolution, is something different. Mexico is the Latin American country that has given the most deaths to its great causes.
The second difference is that MORENA is the party of AMLO, that is to say that it belongs to AMLO, founded, organized and led by AMLO. The PRI, on the other hand, was an association of politicians and if it ever had great leaders – Lázaro Cárdenas and Miguel Alemán among others – they were always faithful to the line of their party. On the other hand, MORENA is only faithful to the AMLO line. Without AMLO, there is no MORENA. MORENA is the extension of AMLO. In other words, we are witnessing a new phenomenon: the end of the principle of political corporatism and the beginning of the principle of national caudillism. Because, whether you like it or not, AMLO is a national leader. Even more national if one takes into account that Mexico, following Trump's racist insults and shameful wall, trailed the pain of a deep narcissistic injury.
Thanks or because of AMLO, Mexican politics has entered the process of South Americanization. The "perfect dictatorship" (Vargas Llosa), without caudillo, gave way to the direction of the leader. From now on, the Government of Mexico will be personal, personal and personalized. If you succeed, the honor will be for AMLO. If that fails, the failure will be AMLO
The future will tell if AMLO uses caudillist personalism to reform institutions and develop civil society or simply become a new Latin American autocrat. For both roads, there are conditions. But some signs speak in favor of the first: Mexico is not an island like Cuba and a neighboring dictatorship of the United States does not seem to be a possible geopolitical possibility. The same AMLO, known for its pragmatism, opted, economically, to continue within NAFTA. In addition, he knows himself that he has largely won in the 2018 elections, not because he was "poor and poor Southern candidate" as he l? has been in previous elections, but because he has received support from the prosperous, industrial and industrial north. By the way, AMLO will always be a president who advocates social justice. But though he understands that there is no greater social justice than maintaining and expanding political freedoms, he could have a promising future.
From a Latin American point of view, it would be appropriate to think of the Mexican elections in parallel to the last two. which took place in the region. While in the center of the Colombian right of the technocratic candidate Duque the center-left candidate, Petro, in Mexico was going exactly the opposite: the two center-right technocratic candidates have been largely and without appeal beaten by the leftist candidate – center. Two directions not only different. In addition, definitely opposed. Thus, while the center was occupied in Colombia by the right, in Mexico it was occupied by the left. However, both elections have one thing in common. In both cases, more in Mexico than in Colombia, the lack of a democratic and liberal, autonomous and independent center was evident, in hegemonic conditions on both extremes.
But this absence has not been and is the big void? history of Latin American politics?
Fernando Mires

Source: https://polisfmires.blogspot.com