Mexico

Mexico is Flunking in Education

Standard

Here is a link to my latest article on AQBlog, titled “Mexico is Flunking in Education“, published on July 25th, 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 22, the Mexican Education Ministry (Secretaría de Educación Pública, or SEP) published the results for the Knowledge, Ability and Teaching Skills National Exam, the annual test the Mexican government uses to award teaching positions in the country. The outcome paints a grim picture for children seeking quality education in Mexico.

A year ago, I wrote about the fact that the test in itself is not exigent enough and that the passing grade is a meager 30 percent. Back then I took a deep dive into the way the test is structured and concluded that it was practically impossible to fail. Well the results are in, and unfortunately, I underestimated the level of ignorance in the people responsible for preparing Mexico’s youth for the challenges of tomorrow. There’s something categorically wrong in Mexico’s education system when out of 134,704 people that took this simple test, over 70 percent don’t get half of it right and only 309 (0.2 percent) get a perfect score.

Of the over 18,000 teaching-position vacancies that will be filled this year, 309 applicants are up to par based on the already low standards SEP was able to negotiate with the National Educational Workers Union (SNTE). The rest of our new teachers present huge deficiencies in curricular content (actual subject matter), scholastic competencies, logic, and/or ethics.

This test was applied in all Mexican states except Michoacán and Oaxaca, where the teacher’s union is controlled by the National Educational Workers Coordinator (CNTE), a group which has opposed teacher evaluations in general and is even more radical than Elba Esther Gordillo’s SNTE. One can only imagine what the outcome of the test would have been in these entities. And if the teachers are flunking out, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what is happening with the students, which is good, because we apparently don’t have too many of them anyways (geniuses, not students).

Election after election, Mexico has heard the same story. In every race, candidates point to education as a critical issue and yet these promises seldom become more than empty political rhetoric. There are a number of reasons for this:

Amount of money is not the main issue. Contrary to popular belief, the education problem in Mexico has less to do with available federal budget resources and more to do with their allocation. About 5.3 percent of Mexico’s GDP goes to education. That’s more than Canada, Costa Rica and Australia and just under the United States. The problem is that while these countries actually invest in the quality of their teachers and improvements in infrastructure, Mexico’s education budget is funneled through depraved unions and very little actually seeps through to the schools.

There is no short-term incentive for long-term projects. Mexico’s federal projects and plans are created on a six-year window. Without reelection the president has no real reason to invest in a project that will not deliver tangible results during his tenure. The Minister of Education has little hopes for running for president (though Ernesto Zedillo did and won and recently Josefina Vázquez Mota had a run for the position but failed miserably) and even so, they can always blame the unions for the education having stagnated. Conversely, union leaders, which do not change every six years, have clear interests in maintaining control and power so it is in their interest to favor teachers above student development. The less that they have to hold their constituencies accountable for quality in the work, the more likely they are to continue reaping the benefits of leading the unions.

Our education system is based on memorization and not critical thinking. Students are “taught” to memorize dates and events, multiplication tables, etc. but going back to the question of quality in education, Mexico still has a long way to go. Here, the overwhelming role catholic religion plays in our children’s youth does not help at all. Mexico is not breeding thinkers or leaders; we’re raising followers and record players. We cannot keep pouring money into a system that’s broken in its core. A complete revamping of what is taught and how it is taught is needed for the system to evolve.

Myopically, low levels of education serve the political parties’ interests. It’s easier to get votes out of a dumbed-down constituency than a critical one. There is no clearer example of parties’ narrow-minded take on elections than the presidential race Mexico has just completed. Moreover, as long as our national economic projects continue to point toward cheap labor as Mexico’s source of competitive advantage, there is no real incentive to migrate to an economy of knowledge.

Literacy rates are can easily deceive. According to the CIA World Factbook Mexico has a 86.1 percent literacy rate but evidently, knowing how to read and understanding what it is that we are reading is not the same. PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) places Mexico’s reading comprehension levels second to last among OECD countries. Canada, which spends less of its GDP on education is almost on top of the list, only bested by Finland. It’s clear that having an over 85 percent literacy rate is in itself, nothing to brag about.

What’s the solution?

More important than “what”, “who” is the key to solving the education problem in Mexico. There are at least two specific groups that need to band together in order to pressure the government to deliver on education programs.

Organized civil society has to take a more active role in ensuring that governments are accountable for what they promise. We have to demand more from our elected officials. Hopefully the social mobilization momentum created around the recent elections can be proactively directed toward this endeavor. The second group that needs to take an active role in education is not surprisingly, the private sector. More businesses need to understand that by fostering, promoting and supporting better education programs, they are investing in more wealth creation capabilities in their consumers and thus, more business. It just makes sense for big business to partner with civil society and government in implementing effective education programs which will give them return on investment in the long run.

Seven lessons from Mexico’s electoral process

Standard

Here is a link to my latest article on AQBlog, titled “Seven lessons from Mexico’s electoral process“, published on July 2nd, 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.

—

With an estimate of around 37 percent of the votes, Enrique Peña Nieto’s victory in Mexico’s presidential race will be analyzed from multiple angles, including what this will mean with regard to the war on drugs, the economic model in place, relations with the U.S. and the rest of the world, and many other topics.

For the most part, Peña Nieto’s tenure will not imply radical changes in Mexico, for better or worse but the return of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (Institutional Revolutionary Party—PRI) to power does say a lot about the way Mexico’s society thinks and operates. This electoral process has opened up an interesting window into the Mexican collective psyche. These are some of the lessons from the 2012 election.

Debates are not yet a vehicle for voter decision in Mexico.  There were three presidential debates (two official ones and one organized by #YoSoy132 to which Peña Nieto did not attend) during the presidential race. Peña Nieto’s participation in these dialogues was considered lukewarm at best. His rhetoric was empty but his poor performance was not enough to shift voter preference away from him and toward a second viable option.

We still have a long way to go to build political awareness and education. Peña Nieto’s success cannot be attributed to a strong and enriched political platform or to his superiority as a candidate over his competitors. One could not say that he is smarter, better prepared or better equipped to be president than his competitors. Peña Nieto’s success shows that Mexican voters can easily be manipulated (or convinced) through robust campaigning, a large TV presence and looks. As different media showed when they interviewed people at political rallies (for the three major candidates), a large quantity of voters had no idea of where candidates stood on relevant issues. “I trust him,” “He’s cute” and “I’ll vote for him because the other one is crazy” were some of the compelling arguments that gave Peña Nieto a victory on July 1. Sadly, we still have a long way to go to create an informed voter base. The candidate you saw more billboards and TV ads from, is the one that came out on top in voter preference.

Short-term memory plays a more important role than long-term memory. Peña Nieto won for many reasons but one of them was definitely that voters wanted to punish the Partido Acción Nacional (National Action Party—PAN) for its performance in the past 12 years and Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) for his lack of respect for the rule of law during his 2006 post-election shenanigans. Mexico was willing to forgive and forget and make peace with the PRI because as many voters put it “we were better off with PRI,” for the most part referring to the increasing levels of organized crime violence resulting from the active war on drugs set forth by President Calderón.

There is e-Mexico and then there’s Mexico. There is a clear divide among Mexicans with access to social networks and those without. On Twitter, users were appalled with the results. Even when all polls signaled Peña Nieto’s victory, Internet users were not willing to believe them. Conversations on Twitter and Facebook had been significantly dominated by AMLO and Josefina Vázquez Mota (PAN) followers.  A popular tweet on the night of the election was “I have no idea how they did it. Does anybody here know anyone who voted PRI?” For the most part, the answer was no. Peña Nieto was elected for the most part, by people who do not actively participate online. For upcoming elections, candidates should know that the segment of Internet users in Mexico will only become larger and they will need to actively engage them during the campaign.

The return of PRI does not mean the return of absolutism. This is not optimism; it’s just a very likely reality. Pessimists are evaluating the return of the PRI as a step back in our democracy because they remember the 70 years of absolutism; instead, it is yet another building block in our system which will put to the test whether or not we are a mature enough society to deal with altering power. The PRI will rule a very different Mexico from in the past. Civil society will be more vigilant and we will hold Peña Nieto accountable for his performance as president. Technology will play a significant role in maintaining a non-official discourse, with freedom of speech and free flow of information empowering a growing sector of society. Even with a party majority in Congress, Peña Nieto will have to answer to Mexicans who will either reward or punish his party in future elections.

PRI holding both the executive and a majority in Congress will be an acid test on government efficiency. Both Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderón of the PAN had a very good excuse when their effectiveness was questioned. They could just say (and many times they would have been right) that Congress was blocking their ability to operate and put forth structural reforms.  Peña Nieto will have no such excuse with a PRI majority Congress to not pass and implement the labor, energy, security and political reforms that society has demanded and that have been paralyzed by a non-cooperative legislature during the Calderón government. This will also lead us to question if Mexico’s democracy could actually work and be effective if a real system of checks and balances is in place.

Most people did not vote for Peña Nieto. There were more votes against Peña Nieto than in favor of him. Just like Calderón, Peña Nieto will preside over a country that for the most part, did not want him to be president and did not choose him. This is why last night he went on national TV to say that we should “set aside our differences and privilege our common goals […] we may have different preferences but we have something that binds us together: our love for Mexico […] we share the same challenges and must work together to overcome them.” While his inclusive rhetoric is exactly what Mexico needed to hear last night as it attempts to move forward from electoral campaigning divides, the fact of the matter is that winning by a relative majority surfaces yet again the need to implement a run-off electoral process, just like Calderón proposed to Congress (and was blocked). Given the results of last night’s election, would Peña Nieto have won in a second round of elections running only against López Obrador?

Interesting analysis of the three main presidential candidates in Mexico, by Denise Dresser

Standard

A worthwhile lecture from Denise Dresser profiling the three main presidential candidates in Mexico.

Thanks to Xipactli who shared this link with me.

The Path of #YoSoy132

Standard

Here is a link to my latest article on AQBlog, titled “The Path of #YoSoy132“, published on June. 27th, 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.

—

#YoSoy132 has been called many things: “the voice of a new generation;” “the Mexican Spring;” and “young people manipulated by the PRD [Partido de la Revolución Democrática, or Party of the Democratic Revolution]” are just a few. Whatever its true nature, this youth movement has left a new mark on electoral processes in Mexico—one which could shape not only the outcome but the aftermath of the 2012 Mexican elections next Sunday.

It all began on May 11 when Enrique Peña Nieto, presidential candidate of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (Institutional Revolutionary Party—PRI), belittled a group of student protesters that had gathered at the Universidad Iberoamericana to repudiate his presence there. Peña Nieto called them a small group of rabble-rousers, accused them of not being actual students and minimized their protest to opposition made up of only 131 people.

This led to the students uploading a YouTube video showing their university IDs and claiming that their cause was shared by many more young people. The video went viral and the story spiraled into Twitter via the hashtag #YoSoy132 (“I Am 132”). Without a cohesive agenda or clarity with regards to what “being 132” really meant, people sympathized with the students and began retweeting that they too were 132.

A series of strange events followed, making the nature of the movement even less clear and more confusing. Initially, it seemed that the movement’s sole purpose was to demand objective coverage from the largest television news outlet in the country, which allegedly has given favorable coverage to Peña Nieto’s candidacy. However, allegiance to PRD presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) from some of the movement’s leaders despite being a nonpartisan movement, an inconsistent rhetoric of formally campaigning against Peña Nieto while calling for media objectivity, and conflicting messages from its members have left most Mexicans wondering what it actually means to state that Yo Soy 132. 

Students attempted to organize; they took to the streets and demanded that the second presidential debate be broadcast over the main TV channels; they held an assembly in order to look for an aligned, common vision. Judging from their concluding declaration and the following fallout of rogue mini-groups, they failed at this objective—but the movement continued to grow in a somewhat chaotic manner. #YoSoy132 was even able to hold a presidential debate on June 19 with an innovative format and the use of internet to connect different students from their homes to pitch questions to candidates. Playing it safe, Peña Nieto declined the invitation to participate.

Recently, the hacktivist group Anonymous, through its Mexico branch, published a video which calls out the federal electoral authority—Institudo Federal Electoral (IFE)—of apparent intention to manipulate the final voting tally in favor of Peña Nieto.

The “preparation for fraud” discourse has been heightened not only by Anonymous, but coincidentally by #YoSoy132 and by AMLO himself. While #YoSoy132 has been threatening that “Si hay imposición habrá revolución” (if there is imposition there will be a revolution), López Obrador has stated that he knows that the PRI is preparing a fraud but his team will be more vigilant to prevent it, similar to his accusations six years ago when he was the presidential runner-up to Felipe Calderón. To make matters more worrisome, the Ejército Popular Revolucionario (Popular Revolutionary Army—EPR) guerrilla group has recently applauded #YoSoy132 and stated that they would take AMLO at his word and support taking arms in order to avoid “a neoliberal candidate” seizing power.

For the sake of any functional democratic state, electoral fraud must be avoided. A system of checks and balances which is actually built in to the Mexican democratic system—including observers and scrutinizers, exit polls, citizen participation in the actual vote counting, and other mechanisms—seems to be insufficient. And while one should not be disingenuous and think that that these mechanisms fully prevent fraudulent practices from taking place from any candidate, a bigger danger is now present: What if #YoSoy132, Anonymous, EPR and others simply don’t like the outcome of the election because their choice did not come out on top, fraud or no fraud? What if Peña Nieto actually and fairly wins but AMLO, as in 2006, does not recognize defeat?

In the first weeks of #YoSoy132 emerging, people started comparing the movement to the Arab Spring and specifically the Egyptian deposition of Hosni Mubarak. While there is simply no comparison between the Mubarak regime and Mexico’s current political and institutional reality, there is one thing in common: Whenever a grassroots movement with no clear agenda, vision, values, or follow-through plan is able to cluster different groups together in order to eliminate or threaten a common enemy, it may be effective in damaging or removing the unwanted player from the mix—but dangerously ineffective in providing a long-term outcome which benefits all those who pulled together. Given the current state of Egypt, Mexicans should learn from this example.

Today, apparently #YoSoy132 means “I don’t want Peña Nieto to win”—but for different reasons. Some support the group because they feel traditional media should not be biased. Others like it because they want AMLO to be the next president. A few think that they support Josefina Vázquez Mota, candidate of the incumbent Partido Acción Nacional (National Action Party—PAN) by saying they are 132. Anonymous seems to want the IFE to be impartial and EPR says that being 132 means taking arms and not supporting the world’s predominant economic model. Some consider being 132 good and active citizenship; others a call to arms against the establishment.

While I applaud the awakened spirit of youth taking a more active role in this election and hope this will mean a larger young voter turnout than what was projected prior to the movement, as long as there is no consensus about what being 132 means, Yo No Soy 132 and I hope for avoidance of post-electoral violence, no matter who Mexico elects as its president this Sunday.

Pensando en deslindes…

Standard
Yo quiero que ALGUNO de los candidatos a la Presidencia de México asuma liderazgo y responsabilidad en lugar de perpetuar el juego de los deslindes. AMLO se deslinda de sus plantones del 2006, del endeudamiento del DF, de Narciso Agúndez, de Bejarano, de Padierna, de Ponce, de Imaz, del canteo de Slim, de Bartlett, del charolazo de 6 millones de dólares, … Peña Nieto se deslinda de la Maestra, de Yarrington, de Salinas, del viejo PRI…, de Montiel, de sus propios hijos, de la investigación/amenazas a estudiantes… Vázquez se deslinda de su trayectoria accidentada, de las campañas ANTI y del descaro de que el Presidente de su partido haya asegurado la chamba e impunidad de Fernando Larrazabal al darle el primer puesto en la lista de representación participativa para ser uno más de nuestros orgullosos representantes en el Congreso (mismo que después reviró para sanear y mandarlo por vía de voto popular). Quadri -aunque en realidad no perfila- se deslinda de conocer a la líder del partido que lo postula y de tratar de ligarse a la edecarne del IFE. Con esos ejemplos y estas pobres opciones, ¿cómo quieren que la ciudadanía no se deslinde de participar en el proceso electoral que es su DERECHO y OBLIGACIÓN?

Mexico’s Innovative Youth Offer Hope in the Midst of the Presidential Campaign

Standard

Here is a link to my latest article on AQBlog, titled “Mexico’s Innovative Youth Offer Hope in the Midst of the Presidential Campaign”, published on May. 21st, 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.

—

In the midst of Mexico’s presidential election and the heated debate on who is the best candidate, we are reminded of the myopic and paternalistic view citizens still have of this emerging democracy. It is not uncommon to hear people saying they will vote for a candidate because he/she “is the one that will put an end to poverty” (or some other priority development issue) as if the responsibility and power to do so lies solely in an ever-powerful and almighty political leader.

My intention is not to undermine the role government plays in paving the way for development and growth through policies that promote and attract investment and catalyze job creation and opportunities for economic transformation. But the fact is that our political leaders cannot and will not do it alone. For this reason, it is comforting to learn that MIT’s Technology Review recently awarded and recognized 10 innovative young (under age 35) Mexican individuals whose ideas and creations provide a beacon of hope for the country’s future value development.

Mexico needs more people like José Manuel Aguilar from Monterrey, whose participation in developing procedures and a biotechnological platform to make H1N1 vaccines more readily available throughout the country helped stop an immeasurable amounts of deaths during the 2009 crisis. Or 31-year-old Ana Laborde, whose company has developed a patented bioplastic with 70 percent made from Agave waste (the plant used for Tequila manufacturing) and is 100 percent recyclable. Inventions like these are a challenge the country’s mentality of being a provider of raw materials with little added-value to industrialized nations.

Given the national scarcity for jobs, 29-year-old Rodrigo Martínez challenged the traditional recruitment processes and in 2010 launched Wowzer. This platform uses social media and multimedia components to push the boundaries of job creation by building bridges across talent.  Another committed leader is Manuel Wiechers, a 25-year-old industrial engineer whose company, Iluméxico, is responsible for bringing electricity to over 4,000 people in 60 rural towns in Mexico thanks to Prometeo, an intelligent and renewable solar energy panel technology.

Mexico needs the innovative ideas of Javier Gomez, who at age 25 has developed affordable mobile technology to detect heart problems; and Damar López Arredondo whose work in transgenic farming significantly reduces the need for fertilizer use.

These and other young individuals (learn about them here) present inspiring stories of leadership. They are examples of committed Mexican nationals who in their journey for self and professional growth have found ways to contribute to society and give the country specific tools for future development. They provide proof that today and tomorrow, Mexico can abandon the simplistic idea of creating competitive advantage through low-wage manufacturing or natural resources. These 10 individuals create their competitive advantage from an abundance of another, more valuable resource: knowledge.

Does Mexico really want a president who promises to eliminate poverty by waving a magic wand (read their unrealistic proposals)? The answer should be no. I’m hopeful that the country would prefer to vote for a president who understands his/her role in ensuring the promotion of further innovation and development.

The country would benefit from a broader understanding of investment in education. This does not mean merely opening up more low-quality schools run by unionized teachers who fight performance evaluations, but by investing in high-quality upper-level education and creating an improved technical and engineering capability and skill-building mechanism.

A personal tribute to these young leaders and all value-creating citizens. And to MIT and its Technology Review affiliates and sponsors in Mexico (UNAM, BBVA Bancomer, Microsoft, CNN México and others), who by recognizing them with this prestigious award helps their work in the way that more Mexican institutions should.

Elecciones: ¿Le podemos creer a las encuestas?

Standard

PRIistas, PANistas, PRDistas, PANAListas y todos los demás istas que nos toca vivir este proceso electoral coincidimos en una verdad indiscutible: hoy en día no hay medio de comunicación tradicional que no esté comprometido o sesgado hacia uno de los bandos contendientes por la silla presidencial.

En su oleada de encuestitis se dan de topes los distintos campamentos y descalifican unos a otros. Excélsior publica un número, El Universal otro, SDPNoticias uno más y así seguimos… y lo más triste es que se publican números con limitada transparencia. No se ahonda en el método, no se publican los controles, no se habla de la muestra y la manera en que fue generada, etc., etc., etc. Entre discrepancias, se invalidan y nulifican. Las encuestas se vuelven herramientas para tratar de jalar la opinión pública en base a técnicas de borreguismo hacia uno u otro candidato.

Por lo mismo quiero invitarnos a un ejercicio 100% plural, abierto y sin mayores tintes que buscar obtener un verdadero termómetro de la preferencia actual entre los mexicanos que votaremos el 1ero de julio.

Les invito a responder la siguiente pregunta, cuyos resultados son generados automáticamente por una herramienta sobre la que no tengo control alguno. Abiertamente reconozco que por tratarse de un medio electrónico y de proyección limitada no será más que un ejercicio adicional pero la diferencia estará en la imposibilidad propia del medio para manipular los resultados.

Les comparto como dato adicional que este espacio lo visitan en promedio 1000 personas a diario y que aproximadamente el 90% de ellas lo hace desde IPs en México. El segundo país que más visita este blog es Estados Unidos. Por los comentarios que recibo puedo decirles que tengo visitantes más o menos equilibrados y variados en ideologías por lo que independientemente de mi opinión personal, creo que el universo con acceso a esto es representativo.

Veamos qué resulta:

Las opciones son listadas de manera aleatoria en cada iteración para no mostrar prioridad en ninguna de ellas.

Estos resultados reflejan solamente la voluntad de las personas que visitan este blog y deciden participar. No soy el IFE (no tengo edecarnes) ni Mitofsky ni ninguno de los periódicos en la nómina de alguno de los partidos.

Si te interesa este ejercicio comparte con tus conocidos para que seamos más y por ende la muestra sea más representativa.

La lógica de López

Standard

Ya sé que más de uno empezará a decirme que tengo agenda oculta, que no es cierto que no tengo afiliación a algún partido, etc. pero les comparto mis ideas, opiniones y la información que publico en este espacio porque es mi convicción personal hacerlo, porque creo que estamos en un país al que queremos y que necesita de mucha ayuda… y porque me preocupa ver falsas esperanzas, engaños y manipulación DE CUALQUIER FUENTE que venga. Y se los digo honesta y abiertamente: no es el único pero uno de los campeones de la manipulación en estas elecciones es López. Por eso en esta ocasión me centro en este candidato.

Reservo derecho de hablar de otros en un futuro, así como de cambiar de opinión respecto a cuál de todos los candidatos es el campeón de las mentiras, de la deshonestidad y de la incongruencia… todavía hay mucho espacio y tiempo para que otros le roben el puesto y vaya que hay talento para hacerlo.

Por mi formación preparatoria y universitaria he aprendido a valorar la lógica fundamentada, los argumentos validados y la justificación de aseveraciones en base a fuentes de información confiables. También me consta que hoy en día los medios de comunicación masiva en México han perdido credibilidad porque al igual que muchos de los medios estadounidenses (especialmente Televisión), han entendido y capitalizado sobre el poder y valor que tienen para influir en la opinión pública. De tal suerte existen cadenas como FOX News con agenda partidista bien identificada en Estados Unidos y en México no nos quedamos atrás. En el caso de México además de los intereses monetarios de por medio, habría que añadir otros factores de sometimiento. Justamente el día de hoy el titular de FUNDAR mencionaba en una entrevista en MVS que la relación medios-fuentes de poder es complejísima en México y que hay territorios en que los medios someten a los partidos políticos y viceversa.

Habiendo dado algo de contexto, quisiera compartir con ustedes una serie de reflexiones en torno a recientes posturas y declaraciones del candidato López Obrador, con la intención de dar claridad y veracidad en un entorno plagado de desviaciones, acusaciones y argumentos débiles…y que cada quien tome sus propias decisiones.

LA ACUSACIÓN DEL BLOQUEO GENERALIZADO A AMLO por parte de los medios de comunicación

López habla de la mafia del poder que le bloquea espacios y que manipula a los mexicanos para que voten por Peña Nieto. Existen muestras claras para decir que Televisa ha elegido apoyar a Peña Nieto. No las niego ni las minimizo… pero si López quiere acusar a los medios de ser tendenciosos que sea claro y diga las cosas como son: los medios son tendenciosos, pero los de mayor impacto y alcance no se fueron con él y por ende “son parte del compló”… pero él juega al mismo juego. Basta ver/escuchar MVS televisión y radio, leer La Jornada, Reporte Indigo y SDPNoticias (por mencionar a algunos) y tener dos dedos de frente para notar la tendencia de dichos medios en apoyar ciegamente a López. Dígalo claro, candidato: cada medio con su gallo y a usted le tocó bailar con la más fea (y para que no se confundan, al decir “la más fea” no me refiero específicamente a Carmen Aristegui).

DOS EJEMPLOS DE LOS MEDIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN AL SERVICIO DE LOPEZ

Reporte Indigo publica http://www.reporteindigo.com/reporte/mexico/el-factor-quadri-0 , una pieza que vale la pena leer por múltiples razones. En torno a la intención de confrontar a López con respecto a su hipótesis de “nadie me quiere, todos me odian, mejor me como un gusanito” que arroja a los medios, resalto:

• Dice que Quadri “mandó a los war rooms” a los líderes del PRI y del PAN. Menciona que a ellos les preocupa mucho “el factor Quadri.” El artículo omite que el factor Quadri le preocupa a AMLO y que hay más razones para que le preocupe a él que a los otros dos candidatos. En una reciente encuesta pregunté a los lectores de este blog a quién le quita votos Quadri y la respuesta fue contundente: a AMLO. Quadri atrae al joven alterno, al intelectualoide, al que está harto del aparato político desgastado… En síntesis, Quadri atrae al target audience que había acaparado AMLO con su estrategia de decir que el PRI y el PAN eran más de lo mismo, con el discurso “PRIAN” y su promesa de una República Amorosa. No niego que Quadri se haya puesto después del debate en el mapa y que seguramente ganó algo de respeto de parte del resto de los candidatos pero me mofo de la tendencia que muestra al hacer parecer que al que más le afecta Quadri aparentemente ni le importa.
• Grupo Indigo declara ganador del debate a AMLO, con un segundo lugar a Quadri y a Vázquez y Peña disputando el último lugar. ¿Qué debate vieron los amigos de Reporte Índigo? Da risa que ellos mismos ponen en evidencia las tendencias de los distintos medios al decir que sólo ellos y Carmen Aristegui declararon a López como ganador. Es una conclusión simplista y habría que entrar a fondo para ver que pregunta precisa hicieron en cada uno de los medios para que RI diga que “los declararon ganadores” pero independientemente de ello la tendencia del medio y los consumidores que lo consumen se comprueba. La realidad: no existe consenso en los medios respecto al ganador del debate y era de esperarse porque cada uno tiene su agenda y cada uno atrae a distintos consumidores.

Las cosas como son: Reporte Índigo no es y nunca ha sido, un medio de información noticiosa. Es un espacio de opiniones disfrazado de periódico. En la mayoría de los casos su cobertura no cita fuentes, presenta afirmaciones sin sustento y cuestionable. Es una publicación MUY BUENA en términos de diseño y definitivamente vale la pena visitarla y consumirla… pero no comamos pizza pensando que es una ensalada.

Aprovecho para reiterar que yo no sé si hubo un “ganador” indiscutible del debate. Creo que más importante que decir si alguien se sacaría la medalla de oro, sería ver qué candidato sacó mayor provecho al debate. Es decir, ¿qué candidato logró atraer más simpatizantes o cambiar la decisión de voto? Mi opinión personal es que el que más utilidad sacó del ejercicio fue Quadri y el que menos fue AMLO pero es una apreciación subjetiva. En realidad, esta pregunta será difícil de contestar con encuestas parcializadas u opiniones y la mejor aproximación que podríamos tener estará en la decisión que tomemos juntos el 1ero de julio… a menos que los que pierdan aleguen que les robaron la elección (se pone uno nostálgico del 2006 y casi casi se me sale la lagrimita de la emoción). Pasemos al siguiente ejemplo:

Después del debate, La Jornada raudo y veloz le dio espacio a la pieza de Enrique Galván Ochoa que los invito a leer en http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2012/05/09/opinion/008o1eco . La tesis de la pieza en resumen es que Quadri es el nuevo elemento de negociación de Elba Esther Gordillo hacia el PRI y el PAN. Galván asegura (de nuevo, sin citar verdaderas fuentes) que Quadri declinará después del segundo debate a favor del mejor postor entre Vazquez Mota y Peña Nieto, el que más le llene el ojo a la maestra. Algunos apuntes al respecto:

• Sin duda la sombra (sombrota) de Quadri es el partido que lo postula. Coincido con la opinión de AMLO en torno a Elba Esther. La señora es un cáncer y ha obstaculizado el progreso del sistema educativo mexicano. No es la única responsable, pero es de las principales. El rol indiscutible del PRI en mantener al pueblo subyugado e ignorante para su beneficio durante más de 70 años es notable y tema para otro momento de expresión. Con todas sus letras: la razón principal por la que Quadri no puede ser presidente es el partido que lo postula.
• La pieza de Galván se alimenta de la teoría de conspiración de “todos unidos contra López Obrador.” Si se supone que Quadri va a declinar a favor del PRI o el PAN, ¿entonces por qué se supone que están tan preocupados por el efecto Quadri? En su defensa, son dos medios diciendo dos cosas opuestas, pero es risorio que en ambos casos el contendiente del PRD es el que sale bien librado y la tierra le cae a los otros tres.
• La hipótesis de Galvan es posible e interesante aunque no probable. Quisiera que me dijera cómo es que declinar ayudaría al PANAL a mantener su registro. La gente no votaría por un candidato que ya no está postulándose para la presidencia. Declinar no tiene ningún sentido si la intención de Elba Esther es retener el registro del partido que lidera.
• Adicionalmente, si es que Quadri declinara, sería ingenuo pensar que sus simpatizantes automáticamente comprarían la candidatura de la persona a favor de la cual se pronunciara. El appeal de Quadri es que no es político. Que es distinto y conecta con quienes no nos dedicamos a vivir de los impuestos de otros. Si mañana nos dice “vota por Peña Nieto” pierde TODO lo que ha sido atractivo de él y su propuesta.

Un último apunte antes de pasar al siguiente subtema: cabe mencionar que el espacio o tiempo aire que da cada medios a cobertura o mención de un candidato u otro no refleja necesariamente la la preferencia/tendencia/canteo del mismo. De ser así, cualquiera diría que al dedicarle estas líneas a López, soy su fan #1.

EL NO-EQUIPO DE AMLO

Recientemente, el periódico EL NORTE dedicó una página a ocho columnas de su sección principal a entrevistar a Poncho Romo vendiendo a López como la mejor opción a los lectores regiomontanos. La pieza se llama “Por qué voy con AMLO” y puede consultarse aquí http://busquedas.gruporeforma.com/elnorte/Documentos/DocumentoImpresa_libre.aspx?ValoresForma=1173837-325,PonchoRomo&md5libre=7acc43048f8c2f960c6d92011bb21731

El objetivo principal de esta pieza es desvincular a AMLO de sus aliados incómodos. Menciona a René Bejarano, Dolores Padierna y Fernandez Noroña pero valdría la pena añadir de entrada a Gustavo Ponce y Carlos Imaz. En el artículo y en el debate presidencial, López pinta su raya y dice “ese no es mi equipo.” De hecho el momento de lucidez y la estocada principal que AMLO dio en el debate fue cuando le dijo a Peña “¿Cómo son las cosas?, ¿cómo es este mundo? Ponce, secretario de Finanzas en el tiempo que fui jefe de gobierno, está en la cárcel, lleva 8 años; Bejarano también estuvo en la cárcel, y usted que fue secretario de Administración en el gobierno de Arturo Montiel, está aquí… de manera inexplicable o explicable si vemos lo que voy a mostrar.”

Inteligente el candidato en distanciarse de las lacras previamente mencionadas. Deshonesto, pero inteligente. Previo a su rediseño como plataforma de campaña el sitio de AMLO http://www.gobiernolegitimo.org.mx/ listaba a su gabinete legítimo. Ya no está ligado en el sitio principal pero la página vieja sigue en línea y puede consultarse aquí http://www.gobiernolegitimo.org.mx/secretarias/

En este espacio destaca la honorable presencia de Martha Elvia Pérez Bejarano, Secretaria para el Estado de Bienestar. ¿Quién es Martha Elvia Pérez Bejarano? Prima hermana del Señor de las Ligas, ex – titular de SEDESOL en el DF. ¿Esto comprueba que López está ligado a la finísima pareja Bejarano-Padierna? No. Yo no quisiera que me juzguen por mis primos (no se enojen familia, los quiero pero cada uno de nosotros somos diferentes personas).

Las reuniones en que participaron AMLO, Ebrard y Dolores Padierna durante el proceso primario de la izquierda previo a seleccionar a López como candidato tampoco comprueban NADA… Pero esa es la bella ironía: si López pretende atacar a Peña en el debate con fotos de él y Carlos Salinas o Montiel, no puede negar que la misma lógica de asociación puede utilizarse en su contra al afirmar que sigue siendo asociado a los miembros del partido que lo postula hoy como candidato a la presidencia. Insisto, el punto no es afirmar que Peña está libre de pecado, que no es del mismo PRI que controló las elecciones o que no es aliado o lacayo de Salinas. El punto es madurar la discusión y decirle al candidato que su lógica es falaz si pretende que compremos sus embates pero no lo midamos con la misma vara. Y no, no se me olvida el Moreirazo como tampoco se me olvida el episodio Bejarano.

A Alfonso Romo lo convenció que López le dijera “ese no es mi equipo.” Ponchito, resultaste muy fácil de convencer.

NO ESTOY EN CONTRA DE LOS ADINERADOS SINO DE LA RIQUEZA MALHABIDA

En su más reciente libro, en múltiples foros, López habla de la mafia del poder que lo controla todo en México. Dice López que entre Televisa, BIMBO y otras empresas (pero Televisa principalmente) se orquesta “el pillaje nacional.” Dice que no está en contra de los ricos, sino de la “riqueza malhabida” (whatever that means) pero no descalifica a su aliado y a uno de los hombres más ricos del mundo: Carlos Slim. Y quien lo niegue no tiene que irse nada lejos para ver la asociación si sabe quién es Miguel Torruco Marqués, propuesto para ser el Secretario de Turismo en el gabinete de López http://lopezobrador.org.mx/secciones/gabinete/ Si les da flojera hacer un Google Search: Torruco es consuegro del magnate de las telecomunicaciones… por eso no es sorpresa que AMLO hable del duopolio televisivo y prometa que si gana Slim podría tener su canal de televisión (ver múltiples medios y declaraciones al respecto… no voy a listarlas aquí a todas).

¿Se beneficiaría México de mayor competencia en la televisión abierta? DEFINITIVO. Pero si López dice estar en contra de la riqueza malhabida, Señor candidato sea serio: no hay mayor ejemplo en México de riqueza malhabida que la que obtuvo Carlos Slim cuando EL PRI que usted tanto repudia le puso en bandeja de plata el monopolio de la telefonía en México. Si lo que quiere es ser congruente no se vale que lo que está mal para Televisa esté bien para Telmex. Como tampoco de vale que nos diga que quiere modernizar el sector energético al mismo tiempo que se mete en la cama con el SME.

LA CEREZA EN EL PASTEL: EL INTERNET SIN APARATOS

En el primer debate presidencial López dijo que quería darnos a todos internet “pero sin aparatos.” Que a toda madre… es la nueva tecnología que nos permitirá a todos entrar a sitios porno de alta velocidad sin tener que usar computadora, Smartphone o tablet. ¡López nos trae el futuro, muchachos!

En síntesis

Concluyo y repito porque ya han caído los seguidores de AMLO a quejarse: NO DIGO QUE LOS OTROS CANDIDATOS SEAN ANGELITOS. Lo que comparto en estas líneas es la ironía en los intentos de López de presentarse como alguien diferenciado al mal común en nuestra clase política siendo él uno de los portadores más volátiles del virus.

Es irónico que uno de los taglines de la campaña de AMLO sea “¡Despierta!” si los amigos de AMLO no quieren que despertemos a los argumentos aquí expuestos también. Si lo que quieren es prevenir que vuelva el PRI al poder, se vale. Pero díganlo así.

Digan que no quieren que vuelva al PRI y que consideran que el candidato de izquierda que tiene los medios de comunicación menos populares apoyándolo, el que tuvo a la Ciudad de México rehén con su plantón para prevenir una guerra civil en México, el candidato que es patrocinado por Carlos Slim, el que apoya al SME y que a su parecer no tiene NADA que ver con Padierna, Bejarano, Ponce, Fernadez Noroña e Imaz, es para ustedes la mejor opción. Se vale.

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.

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.