Opinion and Editorial

An archive of previous AQBlog articles, opinion posts, Global Voices contributions etc. Anything you find here is my real opinion and/or my translations. The rest of the content in this site is a display of sarcasm, irony, comedy, etc.

Mexican Electoral Politics Hit Rock Bottom

Standard

Here is a link to my latest article on AQBlog, titled “Mexican Electoral Politics Hit Rock Bottom”, published on Apr. 17th, 2012. Please feel free to visit and comment. Here is a verbatim copy of it in case you prefer to read it on my personal blog, though I recommend actually going to the site because of additional content, other blogger’s articles, etc.

—

The 2012 electoral process is the most uninspiring we’ve seen in recent history. Therefore it’s no surprise that Mexican society is increasingly disenfranchised with the political system. In fact, trust in the political elite is at an all-time low. Where interest groups saw possibilities of working hand in hand with the government in 2000 and 2006, the division between those governing and those being governed grows day by day.

The age group most alien to the electoral process this year will be young adults. A recent UNDP-sponsored study carried out by the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (UAM) posits that 7 out of every 10 voters ages 18-29 will not turn out to vote due to “disenchantment with Mexican democracy.” Enrique Cuna Pérez, the head of the sociology department at the UAM, points out that Mexican adolescents do believe in democracy but not in the way it is implemented in the country. “Young people are not shying away from democracy as a system, they are shying away from Mexican democracy. They consider themselves as democratic people. They understand the importance of voting but they are not willing to participate in Mexican democracy as it stands today,” says Cuna.

There are many reasons for this. For one, people are finding it harder to believe in and rally for the different candidates. The turn that political campaigns have taken—toward destructive criticism, finger-pointing and whining—is far from inspiring. Since the actual political platforms and proposals show nothing new, candidates are focusing on projecting their persona, trying to get people to believe in them, but they are doing it by saying “you can’t believe in the other candidates” as opposed to showing the country why they are fit to lead.

Enrique Peña Nieto, who according to the latest BGC-Excelsior poll leads the race at 50 percent of voter preference, is doing what he does best: photo-ops with as little speech as possible in the different states he visits. He continues to be the one to beat, though the reason is based more on publicity saturation than substance. Doing what his Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) does best, towns all over the country are now flooded with enormous billboards showing the candidate as a man of the people, hugging an over-eager supporter.

Josefina Vázquez Mota’s party, the ruling Partido Acción Nacional (PAN), has recently launched a tactical attack toward Peña Nieto’s credibility, running radio and television spots that label him a liar based on commitments made during his tenure as governor of Mexico state and presumably did not deliver on. While this may be effective in bringing Peña Nieto’s numbers down, the campaign does nothing to engage young voters or to build up a constructive conversation on the future of the country. The candidate will likely use the upcoming presidential debate to take a stab at Peña Nieto’s list of undelivered promises.

And Andrés Manuel López Obrador? He’s been gradually abandoning his more moderate stance and become militant and combatant. Slowly but surely, we start to see the López of old. Worried about the growing trend of this election becoming a two-person race and himself being relegated to a respectable—but distant third—player (the same poll places him dropping to 20 percent of voter preference, 9 points behind Vázquez Mota), he has chosen to go back to accusing “the system” of being against him and the PRI and PAN of working together to minimize his participation in the race. Most recent outbursts include saying that the upcoming presidential debate structure somehow favors the PRI candidate and that the current PRI-PAN confrontation over Peña Nieto’s credibility is “a smoke screen to detract attention from Peña Nieto’s campaign spending.”

But the presidential race is not the only reason young people have stopped believing in Mexican democracy. A lot of it has to do with the negligence shown by the Mexican Congress, which has hijacked President Felipe Calderón’s proposed structural reforms for political means and become completely stagnant. Add to this the level of impudence shown by all parties with regard to the candidates they’ve put forward for upcoming legislative elections and you start to see why a low voter turnout is likely in 2012.

The party lists include such individuals as Dolores Padierna, wife of René Bejarano who in 2004 was the subject of a video scandal showing him taking wads of cash from a shady Argentine businessman. There’s also Fernando Larrazabal, the mayor from Monterrey whose brother Jonás until recently presumably ran an extortion scheme charging casinos for their right to operate. Emilio Gamboa was the subject of a political scandal in 2006 due to a leaked phone conversation linking him to child pornographer Kamel Nacif.  With this representing part of the future of Mexico’s Congress, it’s no surprise that young voters want nothing to do with it. 

As a result, Mexican electoral politics have hit rock bottom. The political elite would do well to stop ignoring this important trend and work to regain the public’s trust. Otherwise, Mexico’s emerging democracy could prove to be more fragile than they think.

¡Curry Sultan es grande!

Standard

Dedicado lectores regiomontanos que buscan buenas opciones para cenar.

El viernes pasado volví a ir al Curry Sultan, restaurante de comida de la India ubicado en el casco municipal de San Pedro, en la Calle Juárez esq. con Porfirio Díaz. Toda la info aquí: http://www.currysultan.com/

En resumen: los precios son justos, el servicio personalizado y la calidad de la comida EXCELENTE. Todo el mérito al dueño y chef de dicho restaurante: Russell Ramaswamy, cuya experiencia lo ha llevado a deleitar paladares en Australia, Turquía, Estados Unidos, India y ahora México.

Algunas razones para visitar el Curry Sultan:

  • Si eres de las personas que valora la calidad, el Curry Sultan es para ti. Los ingredientes que Russell utiliza son del más alto nivel. Sus platillos son artesanales y no el resultado de un proceso industrial. Olvídate de platillos que se hicieron es freidora con aceite de tres días, grasas trans, etc.
  • Si eres una persona que valora probar cosas nuevas y se deleita con sabores exquisitos, el Curry Sultan es para ti. Que no te preocupe si no conoces los platillos en el menú. El staff del Curry Sultan te puede ayudar a ampliar tu paladar y te aseguro que a menos que seas de los que no sale de tortilla con frijoles, las opciones que te recomienden te van a encantar.
  • Si eres ávido fan de la comida de la India, el Curry Sultan es para ti. Por mi ascendencia he tenido la oportunidad de probarla en distintos lugares y la cocina del Curry Sultan no le pide nada a los mejores.
  • Si eres de los que no les gusta pagar por mal servicio, el Curry Sultan es para ti. Como lo mencioné anteriormente, siendo un restaurante pequeño se facilita la atención personalizada y el staff del lugar está más que abierta a resolver tus dudas y dejarte con el mejor sabor de boca.
  • Si te gusta que no te vean la cara con los precios, el Curry Sultan es para ti. La comida de la India no es fácil de hacer. Los ingredientes no se consiguen en cualquier lugar. Sin embargo, los precios del Curry Sultan son bastante accesibles y justos.
  • Si te gusta compartir experiencias con amigos, el Curry Sultan es para ti. Aunque puedes pedir platillos de manera individual, el concepto recomendable en este establecimiento es pedir varios platillos, probar de todos y pedir de nuevo los que la mesa haya preferido. Compartir y comentar los distintos sabores se vuelve parte de la experiencia y abre posibilidades para probar de las múltiples opciones en el menú.
  • Si te gusta la variedad, el Curry Sultan es para ti. El menú del Curry Sultan no es el mismo siempre. Russell va cambiando las opciones e introduciendo nuevos platillos con la intención de sorprender a los comensales y acercarlos a distintos sabores. Les recomiendo seguirlo en Facebook y Twitter para recibir actualizaciones.

Vayan al Curry Sultan. ¡Les aseguro que les encantará! Y si mi opinión no les es suficiente, aquí les dejo dos ligas a reseñas adicionales del lugar:

Cony Delantal

GL Othon

Russell, thanks once again for your hospitality and delicious food.  I wish you the utmost and continued success here in Monterrey and in your upcoming US expansion. See you again soon!

Proud to be a T-Bird…

Standard

…and to be bound by the Thunderbird Oath of Honor.

Thank you, President Cabrera.

Religious Awakening in Mexico and the Pope’s Visit

Standard

Here is a link to my latest article on AQBlog, titled “Religious Awakening in Mexico and the Pope’s Visit” , published on March 22th, 2012. Please feel free to visit and comment. Here is a verbatim copy of it in case you prefer to read it on my personal blog, though I recommend actually going to the site because of additional content, other blogger’s articles, etc.

—-

Pope Benedict XVI’s first visit to Mexico will begin on March 23 but unlike his predecessor, Benedict will not feel as comfortable calling Mexico siempre fiel—and so hopefully some of his agenda will include discussion on religious diversity. 

Pope John Paul II called Mexico “forever faithful” in 1990 due to Catholicism being the dominant faith in the country. However, rising popularity of other religions and the emergence of atheist and agnostic thought in the country could very well be pushing Mexico to a tipping point, leading to question the favored role Catholicism plays in sociopolitical life.

To this day, many large companies in Mexico (national and international) hold posadas, celebrate Christmas and observe other Catholic holidays such as Easter. Some even hold mass within their facilities to kick off special events. On the flip side, there are very few companies in Mexico that observe Yom Kippur or Ramadan. It is still a commonplace human resource practice to ask potential employees what their religion is during recruitment and—though none will publicly accept it—religion still plays a criteria in actual talent selection (otherwise, why would they ask about it?). This, by the way, is illegal under Article 3 of the Federal Labor Law.

Catholicism is not just favored in the private sector. During the first weeks of December and leading up to the 12th (Day of the Virgen de Guadalupe) Catholics are not only allowed to march on some of the busiest streets in the cities as part of their pilgrimage while causing transit chaos, they are even escorted by public officials to guarantee their safety. This is a nicety not usually awarded to other faiths and it is funded by taxes paid for by people of all faiths.

In Monterrey, people who park in unauthorized spaces close to a Catholic church on Sunday seldom get a ticket and, in the municipality of San Pedro, traffic officials stop cars in order to let the faithful cross the street to and from mass. This is the same municipality which in 1996 famously repealed (without clear legal justification) a permit given to the Mormon Church to build a temple next to a Catholic school. The Mormons were then left with the only option of establishing it in the outskirts of the metropolitan area. 

This differentiated treatment expected and accepted for and by many Catholics, is usually justified through statements such as “95 percent of the country is Catholic so it is ok to favor them” or the less defensive “this special treatment doesn’t hurt anyone. It doesn’t really matter.”

But religious intolerance does hurt society and becomes even more relevant when a critical mass of it is affected.  When my taxes are being used to protect and legitimize a group of people who block an avenue not because they are participating in some form of social protest but just so they can practice their faith, it matters. Every time somebody gets a parking ticket for breaking the law but a Catholic doesn’t because public officials look the other way if the offender is on their way to Sunday mass, it matters.

Moreover, according to the 2000 census the percentage of Mexican Catholics was not 95 percent, but actually 76.5 percent and rapidly dropping. It would be a conservative assumption to think that today at least 30 percent of the population is not Catholic—so when a governmental action disregards or minimizes the beliefs of more than 33 million people in the country, it certainly does matter.

It is understandable that Mexican Catholics would want to hold on to this favored position (who wouldn’t?) but for the sake of social wellbeing, they need to come to terms with the fact that Mexico can no longer be thought of as “a Catholic country.” Forward-thinking companies and government agencies would do well in recognizing that they need to start revising the assumptions under which they operate and evolve their practices in order to become more inclusive. The non-Catholic groups and their rights cannot and should no longer be ignored.

Why I am leaving Goldman Sachs – By Greg Smith

Standard

This was published today bythe NYTimes. An interesting Op-Ed “artilcle”/resign  letter by Goldman Sachs Executive Director worth discussing:

TODAY is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.

 

To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.

It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.

But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our grueling interview process. I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world. In 2006 I managed the summer intern program in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied.

I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.

When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.

Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. My clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave.

How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.

What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.

 

Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.

It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as “muppets,” sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God’s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don’t know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.

It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.

These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, “How much money did we make off the client?” It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about “muppets,” “ripping eyeballs out” and “getting paid” doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.

When I was a first-year analyst I didn’t know where the bathroom was, or how to tie my shoelaces. I was taught to be concerned with learning the ropes, finding out what a derivative was, understanding finance, getting to know our clients and what motivated them, learning how they defined success and what we could do to help them get there.

My proudest moments in life — getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics — have all come through hard work, with no shortcuts. Goldman Sachs today has become too much about shortcuts and not enough about achievement. It just doesn’t feel right to me anymore.

I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer.

 

Mexico’s Presidential Race: Running on Air

Standard

Here is a link to my latest article on AQBlog, titled “Mexico’s Presidential Race: Running on Air” , published on Feb. 15th, 2012. Please feel free to visit and comment. Here is a verbatim copy of it in case you prefer to read it on my personal blog, though I recommend actually going to the site because of additional content, other blogger’s articles, etc.

—-

The stage is finally set for the presidential race between Josefina Vázquez Mota (PAN), Andrés Manuel López Obrador (PRD/PT) and Enrique Peña Nieto (PRI/PVEM). What is about to unfold in the coming months is a barrage of party propaganda and news media stories designed to pull the undecided electorate toward one or the other candidates, but the actual content of the messages will surely show the lack of political consciousness in Mexico.

The product of a school system in crisis, a large portion of Mexico’s constituency is comprised of uneducated voters. Moreover, for those lucky enough to have gone through formal schooling, two essential things are missing: development of a widespread civic/political culture and embedding the capacity for critical thinking.  With regard to elections, Mexicans’ decisions have traditionally been based on a simplistic understanding of what candidates represent, if we like the way they talk and even their looks.

 A very young and sensationalist media also works against the creation of a politically informed voter base. Mainstream newspapers and TV networks are more interested in covering and making fun of the latest verbal gaffe by one of the candidates than really doing an in-depth analysis of the actual platforms they are running on. And the worst part is some of the current candidates have caught wind of this so their campaign focus will be less on substance and more on giving the media what they want in order to get more exposure. A secondary concern is the actual proposals and solutions to the country’s biggest challenges.

Of the three candidates, the only one who has provided public discourse with a somewhat clear and consistent direction is López Obrador. To be fair, his campaign is six years ahead of the other two but that doesn’t excuse the fact that Vázquez and Peña have been unable to effectively communicate what they stand for and what their governments would seek. They might not even be trying to do this, as they’ve found they can try to win the election through other strategies.  

Today we know that López Obrador opposes the neoliberal model and his macroeconomic policies are less focused on healthy management of public debt and more on building infrastructure. In his presidency, public spending would likely go up via populist programs, less worried about sustainable finance (the way his administration ran Mexico City). We know he opposes the military’s involvement in the war on drugs and gang-related violence, though we are not yet clear on his proposal for an effective alternative. Because he includes it in his rhetoric, we are clear on his views on supporting the agricultural sector and the ever-pervasive and violent SME (Sindicato Mexicano de Electricistas), a union which represents employees of a public company that doesn’t exist anymore. His foreign affairs policies would likely skew away from the globalization dynamic and steer more toward regional bloc building with Latin America. Somewhat ironically, being open about his platform has done very little to help AMLO gain support. According to a recent poll, his numbers have been stagnant since October 2011 despite heavy campaigning.

Josefina Vázquez Mota will use her political background and take advantage of the gender-role dynamics to position herself as the modern, socially-focused candidate. We will likely see her include education and jobs as the cornerstones of her campaign but her views on the economic model might only be inferred from her allegiance to the PAN party. On her official website, the closest thing to an actual political platform is an invitation to build a national plan through social inclusion and civil participation. Her public appearances follow suit, with statements on how we must build the nation together but lacking substance. Vázquez’ popularity has recently jumped in the polls, catapulting her as the viable alternative for voters who wish to keep the PRI from coming back to power and (at least for now), relegating López to a distant third place position. Her role in the race is being questioned by the media not for her position on any of the issues but by raising the question “is Mexico ready for a woman to be President?”

The leading candidate is still Peña Nieto but his numbers have been on a tailspin due to a series of statements that validate López’ criticism against him for being a “product” or “junk food” candidate. Of the three, Peña is the one whose positions on anything are still a complete mystery.  His public speeches have been empty and unclear. Besides representing the return of PRI to power, Mexicans have no idea what he stands for or his value proposition. He apparently opposes the ruling party’s recent administration but his platform called “An Effective State” provides nothing new, different or innovative that has not already been pushed forward by Calderón’s administration.

Why is Peña leading in the polls?  Because Mexicans do not vote based on substance. Part of his popularity might be attributed to people disappointed of the PAN alternative looking back to the PRI and thinking “we were better off back then.” Add to this Peña’s good looks and his marriage to a soap opera star which helped him gain points early on in the race. However, Peña is running out of fuel and has nothing with which to fill the tank. Until he proves otherwise, Peña is the candidate “running on empty” as López has pointed out. The possibility of either Vázquez or López catching up, is still very much on the table.

It’s too late for this presidential race, but if Mexicans are to make the right decisions in elections to come, we must invest in creating a better informed and politically conscious voter base and we can’t expect the political elite to do it for us. It’s easier for them to run on personal popularity.

*Arjan Shahani is a contributing blogger to AmericasQuarterly.org. He lives in Monterrey, Mexico, and is an MBA graduate from Thunderbird University and Tecnológico de Monterrey and a member of the International Advisory Board of Global Majority—an international non-profit organization dedicated to the promotion of non-violent conflict resolution.

De panzazo – Trailer de la película

Standard

Se ve interesante y tengo interés en ir al cine para conocer más del documental. Una observación sin embargo: veo que es dirigida por Carlos Loret de Mola y por lo menos en el trailer considero que hay un elemento importante faltante en el análisis: el rol de los medios (particularmente la televisora para la que él trabaja) en estupidificar a nuestra población y proveerla de entretenimiento basura. Ojalá dentro del documental se incluya este componente.

¿Vamos al cine?

La pasión por tener la razón y el evangelio sexenal

Standard

Ya empieza a brotar, como lo ha hecho por muchos ciclos, cada seis años, cada que nos toca entrar en tiempos de campaña política. Respondiendo a la misma naturaleza que responde esa hambre por querer evangelizar al vecino y traerlo a las arcas de la religión que hemos decidido adoptar, en México empezamos a vivir una época más, protagonizada por la pasión por tener la razón en torno a la elección presidencial.

Me parece sumamente interesante en esta ocasión, ver manifestaciones del mismo mal tomar nuevas vías gracias al desarrollo de los medios de comunicación a través de la tecnología de internet y los dispositivos móviles. “Te comparto este video que me topé en YouTube de Peña Nieto”, “mira esta imagen que te muestra que los del PAN y Televisa están coludidos”, “lee este artículo [falsamente] escrito por este autor en donde explica por qué no votar por el Peje” ahora sustituye lo que en previos sexenios fue el rumor de boca en boca de “es un mujeriego” o “es un alcohólico que le pega a su mujer y por eso no voy a votar por él.”

No es que esté en contra del intercambio de puntos de vista e ideas. Todo lo contrario. Creo que es sólo a través del flujo libre de la información que realmente crecemos y obtenemos lo mejor el uno del otro. Lo que me impresiona es ese incremento en la intensidad de las discusiones que continúa creciendo hasta el día de la elección. Por las razones que queramos, adoptamos la decisión de apoyar a un candidato y a partir de ello, nuestras interacciones sociales se vuelven una misión por atraer a los demás. La razón de ello no es más que la soberbia de estar seguros de que la nuestra es la mejor elección para todos y que por lo mismo, estamos obligados a convencer a otros.

Más me sorprende que justo después del ritual de gratificación instantánea que culmina al ungir nuestro pulgar de tinta indeleble, la pasión por tener la razón empieza a pulverizarse… porque de manera subconsciente sabemos que sobreglorificamos al candidato y NUNCA llegará a la promesa que o nos hizo o decidimos creer que nos hacía, tanto así que la compartimos con otros. Los “este candidato es el que sí va a hacer las cosas bien” rápidamente se tornan en “era el menos peor” y poco después en “nos quedó mal y nos robó.”
Que polares somos y mucho más nos volvemos en tiempos de elección. Queridos amigos con quienes normalmente ni siquiera toco el tema político, hoy tratan de “abrirme los ojos” para que le de oportunidad a uno u otro candidato que nunca ha tenido nada en común con los ideales que me hacen la persona que orgullosa pero humildemente soy. No es que los culpe por ello… sólo que el día de hoy capturé en mi mente lo similares que son (y somos) a aquellos grupos que pensando que profesan “la palabra del Señor,” invaden el espacio personal de otros para tratar de llenarlo de su fe sin que nadie los haya invitado a hacerlo.  Por lo menos la pasión por tener la razón electoral viene tan sólo cada seis meses, mientras que la intolerancia y avalancha religiosa es cosa de todos los días.

Quienes hemos sido honrados con ser considerados líderes de opinión (por unos cuantos o por millones, en mi caso por unos cuantos) enfrentamos esta realidad con mayor responsabilidad. En nuestro caso, hay una audiencia que nos pide nuestro punto de vista para apropiarlo. Yo no estoy buscando a alguien o persiguiéndolo para cambiarle su opinión pero al expresar la mía debo asumir la responsabilidad de entender que en algún lado del mundo, otra persona tomará mi visión como verdad y posiblemente se volverá predicador de ella.

Al enfrentar esta verdad tengo que concluir lo siguiente: la mejor postura que puedo asumir… la más sana, es la de profesar un agnosticismo electoral. Seguir compartiendo mi punto de vista, sí. Pero siempre declarándolo como tal y no la verdad fáctica. A final de cuentas dicho concepto absolutista existe sólo en la mente del necio que prefiere no abrir los ojos. Estoy seguro de que allá afuera hay alguien para quien López Obrador es la mejor elección. Estoy seguro de que allá afuera hay alguien para quien Vazquez Mota es la mejor elección. Estoy seguro de que allá afuera hay alguien para quien Peña Nieto es la mejor elección. SUS verdades y con mucho derecho las tienen y con el mismo derecho se les respeta.

Mi sugerencia no es que nos importe menos el proceso electoral. Mi sugerencia es que nos afecte menos saber que gente cercana a nosotros no piensa igual que nosotros… y que no tendría por qué hacerlo. Compartamos más no tratemos de imponer nuestras ideas… mucho menos cuando nadie las solicitó.

Quiero pensar que tenemos cosas más relevantes y significativas que hacer que volvernos porristas. Infórmate, vota a conciencia y no dejes que nadie te tape los ojos… y recibe mis palabras como mías, nunca presumiendo ser la verdad absoluta.

Llega la calidad y el servicio a Main Entrance. Se llama Reynera.

Standard

Hace tiempo reseñé mi pésima experiencia al visitar por primera vez el restaurante La Bandida. Entre otras cosas, hablaba de mi la percepción de que a los regiomontanos (específicamente los sampetrinos)  les importa menos que los traten mal que el asumir un rol social que los categoriza de manera diferenciada, exclusiva. Es decir “con tal de sentirme especial, diferente y élite, no me importa que me traten mal o den un mal servicio.” Mi observación era con respecto a “La Bandida” pero no era el único caso en este nuevo espacio llamado “Main Entrance” que se presentó inicialmente como el nuevo “lugar nice” de San Pedro.

La burbuja de la novedad de Main Entrance al parecer ya reventó. El viernes pasado asistí a este lugar y la menor afluencia que hace algunos meses era notable. Sigue siendo uno de los lugares favoritos de los sampetrinos para ir a cenar en fin de semana, pero ya no parece antro retacado de gente. Caminar entre restaurantes ya no es una carrera de obstáculos. Excelente para mis gustos.

Pienso que la baja marginal en demanda permitirá que la administración de los restaurantes en este espacio se den cuenta de que no pueden  valerse sólo de la novedad para atraer negocio sino que tendrán que encontrar fórmulas para aportar una mejor propuesta de valor. En la industria restaurantera el elemento crítico para hacer esto, es el servicio. Definitivamente la calidad de la comida juega un rol básico PERO el servicio es el driver principal. 

Cuando critiqué el pésimo servicio de La Bandida, recibí comentarios duros de algunos visitantes a este espacio (sospecho que uno de ellos era el dueño del restaurante), diciendo que debería de apoyar en lugar de criticar. Los comentarios en su mayoría no tenían sustento, ya que mi reseña de La Bandida simplemente describía un lugar que poco aportaba para sus comensales: la comida sin sazón y cara, el servicio inexistente, el lugar incómodo.

 Por razones alternas a la demanda por sus servicios pero con un delicioso tinte de justicia poética, el tiempo me dio la razón y hoy los bandidos de La Bandida ya no ocupan un lugar en Main Entrance. En su lugar, llega un nuevo restaurante que deja en claro que el éxito se puede lograr con una propuesta sencilla y simple siempre y cuando cuidas aquello que más importa: un servicio impecable. La siguiente reseña la comparto con mucho gusto en reconocer cuando las cosas se hacen bien. La dedico a la extinta Bandida, cuyo inevitable deceso se adelantó por cuestiones legales pero que igual hubiera llegado. Todavía quiero pensar que eventualmente la gente se da cuenta de cuando le venden basura y decide dejar de comprarla al identificar alternativas.

 Mi primer visita a La Reynera Cocina-Cantina

 Éramos un grupo de 9 personas que originalmente planeaba cenar en otro lugar del Main Entrance pero de último momento cambiamos de opinión ya que el menú no era compatible con las restricciones alimenticias de algunos de los del grupo. La primera pareja en llegar al restaurante original se había adelantado y pedido su comida, lo cual podría haber presentado un problema ya que normalmente los restaurantes no te permiten ingresar comida de otros establecimientos. Se la jugaron y pidieron que su orden se las entregaran para llevar.

 Nos acercamos a La Reynera, vimos el menú que no es extenso pero tiene suficientes variantes para satisfacer los gustos de los regiomontanos en un amplio espectro. En algunos sentidos el menú se asemeja al de La Nacional, pero donde La Nacional se enfoca en carnes rojas, La Reynera aventura un poco más e incluye algunos platillos con camarones. Reitero, llegamos al lugar sin tener reservación y el capitán y meseros inmediatamente nos dieron bienvenida. Acomodaron un espacio para que estuviéramos más cómodos y nos invitaron a tomar asiento.

 Mi amigo explicó al capitán que él ya había pedido su comida de otro restaurante y que quería traerla para comer en La Reynera. No sólo el capitán le mencionó que no sería ningún problema, sino que le pidió el dato de qué restaurante era y a nombre de quién estaba la orden para que él personalmente fuera al restaurante a recoger la comida. Minutos después, el capitán llegó con la orden de mi amigo empacada para llevar y con $6 pesos de cambio que el otro restaurante no había entregado previamente. Dado que el resto de nosotros apenas estábamos ordenando, el capitán ofreció guardar la comida de mi amigo en su cocina y traerla con el resto de los platillos asegurando que estuviera todavía caliente. Incluso ofreció servirla en los platos de la casa, dividida en dos ya que mi amigo había pedido el platillo para compartir con su esposa.

 En cuanto nos sentamos, un mesero con notable amabilidad nos ofreció bebidas, incluyendo recomendaciones de varios martinis y el portafolio de cervezas que tenía disponibles. Olvidó mencionar que tenían Sol Cero, una cerveza sin alcohol y excelente alternativa para quienes están a dieta, ya que sólo contiene 42 kilocalorías… Sin embargo, cuando le pregunté si la tenían afirmó que sí así que le pedí una. A menos de un minuto regresó para decirme “con una disculpa, le voy a quedar debiendo la Sol Cero porque sí la tengo pero acaba de llegar y recién la metieron al refrigerador. Todavía está al tiempo. ¿Le puedo ofrecer una Tecate Light?” Con una sonrisa le contesté que no se tenía que preocupar y que podíamos resolver el tema de que estuviera al tiempo la Sol Cero porque se me había antojado una michelada, que podría traer en un tarro con hielos y no tendría problema utilizar la Sol Cero al tiempo. Mi sorpresa llegó un par de minutos después cuando el mesero regresó con una Sol Cero helada y diciendo “como quería Sol Cero y no teníamos fría, fui corriendo al Seven-Eleven compré un six frío ahí.” Inmediatamente después trajo un tarro con mezcla para michelada y debo decir que sabía deliciosa. La calidad del producto definitivamente pesaba, pero creo que el nivel de servicio detrás de que pudiera estar disfrutando de la bebida que yo quería, hacía toda la diferencia.

 Por una cuestión médica, mi esposa tiene actualmente una dieta en la que tiene que evitar platillos grasos y teniendo un paladar muy selectivo, estaba teniendo algunos problemas para identificar lo que pediría para cenar. Indagó con el mesero quien ofreció preparar un platillo que no estaba en el menú pero que cubría ambos sus gustos y las restricciones ya mencionadas.

 Yo pedí un atropellado (que es una entrada y no un plato fuerte) a lo que el mesero me dijo “le voy a hacer una mejor recomendación ya que no tiene tanta hambre. ¿Qué le parece si mejor le traigo un molcajete de chicharrón de rib-eye? Viene mejor servido que el atropellado, con guacamole y está muy rico.” Acepté la propuesta y debo decir que fue muy atinada, ya que el platillo venía muy bien servido, de excelente calidad y a un muy buen precio.

 El resto de los del grupo coincidió conmigo en torno a la calidad de su comida. Algunos de los comentarios que compartieron incluían “este lugar sí está para volver”, “un excelente servicio” y “que diferencia de cuando era La Bandida.” Durante toda la noche y con cada interacción con los meseros y el capitán, me pude dar cuenta que en Main Entrance, la mayor ventaja competitiva que tiene La Reynera, es su orgullo por hacer las cosas bien y rendir un excelente servicio. Da gusto cuando surgen lugares así.

 Ya había visto en el menú que los precios de la comida no eran excesivos, pero en muchos establecimientos lo que hacen es desquitarse con la bebida, particularmente con el alcohol. Al llegar la cuenta vi que el precio de la cerveza estaba incluso por debajo de lo que hubiera esperado y el monto total de la noche alcanzó un total de aprox. 20% menos de lo que normalmente gasto al salir a restaurantes de similar nivel.

 Quiero volver a La Reynera y probar más platillos para seguir confirmando la calidad de su menú y para verificar que el nivel de servicio se mantiene después de haber cumplido su ciclo inicial (con la rotación de personal tiende a descuidarse el tema de capacitación en los restaurantes y la calidad del servicio puede bajar). Dado que el resto de los establecimientos en el Main Entrance llevan más tiempo y ya han creado su audiencia regular, La Reynera puede que vaya contra corriente pero si se mantienen como hasta ahora, no me queda duda que en poco tiempo tendrán mayor demanda. El reto será seguir siendo igual de dedicados y mantener el su compromiso por el servicio cuando tengan casa llena.

 Una última recomendación para los dueños del establecimiento: quiten las fotografías que indican damas/caballeros de las puertas de los baños, ya que son las mismas que tenían los bandidos de La Bandida y no le hacen justicia a la buena oferta que ahora tienen con La Reynera.

 Felicidades a La Reynera por este buen inicio. A los lectores de este espacio les recomiendo este lugar ampliamente.  Bandidos de La Bandida: pasen a su ex casa para que aprendan de quienes sí saben hacer las cosas bien.

Calificación. Servicio: 110/100. Calidad de alimentos: 95/100. Variedad de platillos: 85/100. Bebidas: 110/100. Experiencia en general: 95. CLARO QUE VUELVO.

Para mis lectores acostumbrados a leer sobre política y para los que prefieren digerir irreverencias, no se preocupen. No tengo intenciones de volverme una nueva Cony Delantal ni nada por el estilo. Es sólo que cuando recibes buen servicio, dan ganas de gratificarlo.

Mexico needs a runoff election process

Standard

Here is a link to my latest article on AQBlog, titled “Mexico Needs a Runoff Process” , published on Jan 13th, 2012. Please feel free to visit and comment. Here is a verbatim copy of it in case you prefer to read it on my personal blog, though I recommend actually going to the site because of additional content, other blogger’s articles, etc.

—-

On July 1, Mexicans will choose their president for the next six years. This will be the fourth time the electoral process is not organized by the government but by a supposedly non-biased institution, the Instituto Federal Electoral or IFE.

Mexico likes to boast (especially since 2000) that we hold free, fair and transparent elections. And while that may be the case to some extent, the country could learn a lot from its Latin American neighbors with regard to the process in itself. More than ever, Mexico would benefit from the implementation of a two-round runoff election as opposed to its current majority rule system.

Prior to 1994, general elections were but a façade to legitimize the perpetuation in power of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI). Without an independent regulatory body to observe the process, elections results were heavily and systematically manipulated, voting booths with opposition preference were ransacked and official tallies always placed the PRI as an absolute majority winner. Under these circumstances, the official rules of the process were irrelevant and a second round of elections would have never made sense as the PRI would always get over 50 percent of the supposed electorate preference. 

The PRI’s control over elections had been so blatant that the country was led to believe that José López Portillo had won fairly in 1976 with an impressive 87 percent of the vote. In 1988, Carlos Salinas de Gortari was the last president to win an absolute majority (50.7 percent) of the vote.

Not by coincidence, and after four years of the IFE existing, the first non-government organized elections saw Ernesto Zedillo win with only 48.69 percent of the votes in 1994. Besides recovering from the 1994–1995 crisis, which started with the so-called “Error de Diciembre ,” Zedillo’s most important legacy was probably to pave the way for the IFE’s full independence, and thus allow for the democratic transition of power. In 2000, Vicente Fox of the Partido Acción Nacional (PAN) won the election with 42.52 percent of the votes. He was the first president to take power in a situation in which the sum of votes from the two other major parties was actually larger than those awarded to him (52.75 percent between the PRI and a Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD)-led alliance). The trend continued in 2006, where President Felipe Calderón (PAN) took power with only 35.89 percent of the votes—a less than 1 percentage point advantage over one of his closest competitor.

Single election, majority rule voting systems work in situations of a two-party system or when one of the candidates is able to conjure up an absolute majority on the first try. But as Mexican electoral history has shown, it’s time to reassess the situation for the country and consider second-round voting.

Mexico has developed into a multiparty system and that system is here to stay. The country has seen the strengthening even of previously discarded small parties such as the PT, PVEM and PANAL. But, more importantly, three major players have emerged and none looks to be going away anytime soon.

Thus, 30/30/30 scenarios become more likely; in fact, since 1994 the country has been run by a person most of its citizens voted against.  This is not just a problem of mathematical relative majority, but  it also reflects on the ability of the leader to govern. It raises the probability that the president might not have been a voter’s second choice had they been given a shot at a runoff.

A two-round system like in Argentina, Chile, Peru, and many other Latin American countries would permit citizens to express their real preferences on round one. Then when two front-runners are left, they could vote for the “least bad” alternative, or as we say in Mexico “el menos peor.”

It would also eliminate the vice of the “useful vote” in which voters cast their vote based on how they think the majority will. In 2006 when Calderón took power, he did so in great part due to “useful votes.” These people did not necessarily agree with Calderón’s proposals or principles but they thought he would be the only one to be able to beat Andrés Manuel López Obrador (PRD) so they gave him their support as a means of blocking the PRD from taking power. While it is understood that in a two-round process the useful vote predicament does appear in the latter round, at least citizens can freely vote their conscience initially. Their first choice can be made for the right reasons and their votes are not thrown out on a whimsical guess.

Runoff elections also provide the elected leader with a level of legitimacy we have not had in Mexico since Zedillo took power. Further, if you consider the fact that elections were fixed before him, one could say that it is a legitimacy no Mexican president has ever had. In clearer terms: no Mexican president has been freely elected by an absolute majority (on a first or second round).

In the 2012 elections people will be voting against PRI because they don’t want them back in power, against PRD because they believe López Obrador to be a danger for the neoliberal model and against PAN because they have deemed them ineffective in the war against drugs and organized crime (and yes, a few constituents will vote for their preferred candidate). This conjecture is way too complex for a single majority vote electoral system to resolve in an effective constructive manner.

Arjan Shahani is a contributing blogger to AmericasQuarterly.org. He lives in Monterrey, Mexico, and is an MBA graduate from Thunderbird University and Tecnológico de Monterrey and a member of the International Advisory Board of Global Majority—an international non-profit organization dedicated to the promotion of non-violent conflict resolution.