Thread: 70 percent of all Mexicans are interested in migrating to US

http://www.mexidata.info/id653.html

October 24, 2005

A vicious circle of presidential politics in Mexico

By William J. Marvin and Anthony Raul Verduzco

Throughout history, seemingly unrelated events form confluences that change the paradigms of industries, economies, governments, and even entire societies. A recent confluence of such “random� events may have produced a new constellation of hope for Mexico as the pivotal 2006 presidential elections approach.



Three “unrelated� events



On August 16, 2005, following intensive research and surveys, the Pew Hispanic Center published a report on the attitudes toward immigration among “Latinos� in the U.S. and Mexico. While the report was well publicized in the U.S., the media focused almost exclusively on how native and non-native Hispanics/Latinos in the U.S. perceive immigration.



This is understandable, given that immigration is a hot-button issue in the U.S. Nevertheless, the U.S. media virtually ignored the extraordinary and potentially explosive finding derived from scientific polling in Mexico itself: given the opportunity, over 40 percent of all Mexicans – including the middle and upper classes – would leave for the U.S. The report further indicated that at least 70 percent of all Mexicans are interested in migrating to the U.S. These data, especially those relating to the middle and upper classes, clearly refute the generally accepted premise that immigration from Mexico will abate once economic parity with the U.S. is achieved.



In September, reports flowed from the Vatican that Pope Benedict XVI had encouraged bishops in predominantly Catholic Mexico to disregard longstanding legal prohibitions and actively participate in the political process to engender necessary societal change.



On September 29th, Latin America’s richest man – Carlos Slim – held a summit of Mexico’s business magnates, who historically were villanized and barred from politics. Under Slim’s leadership, the group reversed nearly 80 years of passivity by signing and issuing a manifesto, “The National Unity Pact,� declaring their intention to take a more open, activist role in Mexican politics. Some observers believe the business leaders were merely reacting to the popularity of leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) nominee Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Others, however, believe that Mexico’s internal woes have reached such a combustible stage that the business elite could no longer stand by quietly while the politicians tinkered, generating only cosmetic changes while preserving the status quo.



Mexicans have an unparalleled reverence for their country and culture. Yet, despite some significant economic gains, Mexico remains hobbled by a stagnant economy, corruption, lawlessness, and a general lack of opportunity. Mexicans have become even more aware of these obstacles through the massive migration of relatives and friends to the U.S. and through greater access to uncensored media.



The Pew report’s data and findings regarding Mexican immigration attitudes empirically quantify the pessimism with which many Mexicans view their country and its failed domestic policies. Moreover, the public declaration orchestrated by Carlos Slim clearly indicates that Mexico’s business leaders recognize the imperative for change. Finally, having apparently received a papal call to action, Mexico’s bishops might be on the verge of becoming another powerful force for positive change and rejuvenation of the country’s moral character. The collective magnetism of this constellation of events on the Mexican body politic cannot be ignored or underestimated by those currently seeking the Mexican presidency.



The once and future Mexico: Retread or renewal?



During more than seven decades of one-party hegemony, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) machine kept an iron grip on Mexico and preserved a dysfunctional status quo at any cost, including the wholesale defection of millions of its citizens to the neighboring U.S. Vicente Fox’s unexpected election to the presidency in 2000 was thought to be a harbinger of the PRI’s demise. The PRI, however, has rebounded aggressively since Fox’s election, largely through continued domination of the federal congress and the government bureaucracy.



After five years of a six-year term, the Fox presidency is widely considered to be a failure, having produced few of the changes that most Mexicans yearned for. The early legislative initiatives that Fox did attempt were stymied by PRI intransigence. Fox also squandered an opportunity to dilute the PRI-dominated bureaucracy by failing to emplace competent National Action Party (PAN) members who had worked to elect him. He instead elevated many non-PANista “Friends of Fox� with no loyalty to any party, as well as leaving a majority of PRIistas at their posts, further alienating his own party. Thus, the PRI maintained its control through legislative and bureaucratic gridlock, augmented by Fox’s own political ineptitude. And the migration of Mexicans to the U.S. throughout this period continued without pause.



Vicente Fox’s singular contribution to Mexico might be that his election proved, at least symbolically, that political change is indeed possible. Nevertheless, many Mexicans are nervously wondering what changes might accompany the 2006 elections?



Of Mexico’s three major political parties, the conservative PAN appears to be the best positioned to cure the systemic malaise that infects Mexico. For decades, the PAN has advocated progressive economic reforms consistent with “The National Unity Pact.� The PAN also is closely aligned with the Catholic Church, supporting its message of spiritual rejuvenation.



In contrast, the PRI and PRD have pursued reactionary agendas that either aim to maintain the status quo or reanimate the failed quasi-socialistic policies of past administrations by using government power and programs to sustain – not elevate – the lower classes. Neither maintaining the status quo nor pandering to the poor will have a salutary effect on slowing migration to the U.S.



In regard to the PRI, it matters little whether Roberto Madrazo or Arturo Montiel is the presidential candidate. The PRI’s goal will be a return to the status-quo oligarchy it enjoyed for most of the 20th Century. That goal runs counter to the aspirations of the masses that crave the opportunities available in the U.S. If Fox’s presidency was symbolism without substance, the election of a PRI president will ultimately symbolize the return of a stagnant, bygone era.



Contrary to its propaganda, the PRD is actually the most reactionary of the major parties and its ascendancy, while continuing the symbolism of rectitude, would portend renewed delivery of the worst possible aspects of the PRI’s ruinous economic policies. Ambitious Mexicans who desire to leave their country for opportunities in the U.S. will find nothing useful in Lopez Obrador’s “backdoor� socialism exemplified by his promise to “put the poor first.� As only the PAN seems to understand, free-market policies and reforms – not nationalization, wealth transfers, and class divisions – are Mexico’s hope for keeping its productive and upwardly mobile citizens at home.



In sum, the PRI and PRD, and their candidates, symbolize Mexico’s failed political past, which has spawned widespread disaffection and continuing massive migration to the U.S. Unfortunately for President Fox, his handpicked successor, former Government Secretary Santiago Creel, is also more “past� than “future.� Creel has utterly failed to inspire the loyalty or imagination of his own party’s rank and file, let alone the rest of the country. Mexico doesn’t need “old wine in new bottles.� What it desperately does need is a strong new candidate, unsullied by “politics as usual� and unafraid to speak the truth.



Thus the inevitable question: Who has the strength and vision to lead Mexico?



To be continued.

Who has the strength and vision to lead Mexico?

What about those hard-working Mexicans dreaming of a better life?

How about they lead their democracy and improve their country?