The voices that bother López Obrador

There is a group of people who will never eat at the National Palace and who never did before.

If they ever appear in the mouth of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, it is to be shaken.

Uncomfortable journalists, intellectuals, and activists from human rights organizations studying violence have recently been shaken from the National Palace, causing a divorce from political power.

The suppression of the trusts that helped finance sectors of civil society, including science and the arts, has brought new criticism to the Government.

Among them those of Roger Bartra, anthropologist and doctor in Sociology from the Sorbonne and emeritus researcher at UNAM, Jorge Carrasco, director of the weekly

, and Lisa Sánchez, director of

The three talk about security, the role of intellectuals in the current Administration, the weight of the Army and the media or the frustrated transition to democracy with the arrival of the self-proclaimed Fourth Transformation, the 4T.

THE COUNTRY.

What balance do you make of these almost two years of the López Obrador government?

Roger Bartra.

I have long said that López Obrador is a right-wing populist leader.

Not many people have listened to me about it.

There is a whole aura that Q4 is a manifestation of the left and the confusion increases now that we have the extreme right installed in the Zócalo, really now the extreme right with roots in the worst of political history in Mexico.

So the confusion increases, it is very great.

I am very pessimistic and I fear that the left has practically disappeared, clearly erased from the map and that seems quite serious to me.

Lisa Sanchez.

It seems to me that we are not seeing a government of the left.

We are not seeing a leftist leader who empathizes neither with the causes of the left nor with the forms of the left, quite the opposite.

He is a president who despises dialogue processes and despises participation mechanisms for advocacy.

That he likes very much to have his movement active, but not so that they participate and influence decision-making, but so that they legitimize what he wants to do.

I share the concerns because we as a sector, as civil society organizations, as the media, as opinion leaders, were the president's first target even since the transition.

The first three months of the morning were an attack and a very clear delegitimization.

This has been advancing little by little to build the enemies of his regime and has done so in a systematic way.

First it was the civil society organizations.

Then, certain media and opinion makers.

Then even women to delegitimize the feminist movement and the mobilizations against gender violence to brand everyone as conservative.

We wake up every day wanting to know what is the adjective that is qualifying any effort to do things differently.

One day he calls scientists thieves or those who have some kind of trust and other thief defenders whom they oppose.

In matters of security, he is a president who makes decisions that precede any legal possibility of implementing them.

He decided that he was going to start handing over the ports to the Army and before even modifying the law he had already made more than a dozen appointments of admirals, active or retired vice admirals, in charge of all port administrations.

The issue of customs is also being made through illegal appointments.

I am concerned about that, that I see a right-wing president and a delegitimization of what is not the movement or the cause that he defines.

I see an effort of institutional destruction that is also worrying and the few advances that we had made are gone.

He is a president who is in the way of the law.

So, decision-making is before any possibility of being implemented within the legal framework.

Jorge Carrasco.

In perspective, compared to the last three presidents, Vicente Fox, Felipe Calderón, and Enrique Peña Nieto, no one has been as surprising as López Obrador.

In the case of Fox, there were high expectations but nothing happened.

In the case of Calderón, the surprise was the war against drugs as a public policy and in the case of Peña Nieto there were no great hopes.

In López Obrador's case, it is the arrival of someone who, in principle, had always carried flags of the left.

But from the moment he wins, he not only takes control of power but also surprises with things such as his approach to the Army.

For years he questioned the role of the military and made reference to torture, dirty warfare and similar situations.

Weeks prior to taking office, he met with the military leadership.

I remember it was a Friday night almost secretly from public opinion.

The change is that López Obrador not only maintains the civic-military relationship of previous governments, but also gives them more power and new tasks outside the essence of the Armed Forces.

Another factor that stands out from these two years is polarization.

During the campaign he confronted, he was provocative and he disliked one or the other and that was part of the campaign, but now in power he has accelerated that polarization.

It is what we have ever written in

division as strategy.

It is a deliberate choice with the aim of staying in power.

When he said "together let's make history" it is perceived that in his mind is the intention of transcending but not as a democrat but as an autocrat.

Understand the power imposing the rules of the game and that everyone adapts to those rules.

Democracy is not conceived as a sum of different authors but as a movement typical of authoritarians with the aim of refounding the homeland again according to their ideal understanding and knowledge without taking the others into account.

Another important novelty is its approach to religious movements.

The fact that we have openly evangelical legislators in Congress is somewhat surprising.

THE COUNTRY.

Why do journalists, activists, civil society or intellectuals take up so much time in the morning?

Why are they so important to him?

Roger Batra.

There is an aggression by the president against intellectuals, feminists, environmentalists, NGOs and different expressions of civil society.

That is really disturbing.

That motivated many to sign that manifesto that we made talking about a siege on freedom of expression and that it caused a lot of resentment, many blisters came out.

People linked to the regime even accused us of coup plotters and that we wanted to silence the president and that it is not true that there is no freedom of expression.

No, of course there is freedom of expression.

What we said is that it was under siege.

Many things are under siege, many things Lisa has mentioned very well.

I want to add another dimension that worries me a lot.

I believe that what we called is under siege, although the concept is unfortunately not used much anymore, the transition to democracy in Mexico.

The transition to democracy in Mexico was a very complicated process, it really did not have the level that we could expect.

It generated a rather lame and deficient tripartite system but it operated quite well.

That tripartite system and the transition to democracy are under siege because in addition to the aggression against intellectuals, opinion-makers, the 4T and the López Obrador government are attacking the political parties that survived or that led that democratic transition.

I don't want to defend the transition en bloc because it had many setbacks and the politicians who became president left much to be desired, of course they did.

However, without a party system that emerged from the transition, democracy is at risk.

Why?

We have seen it now that there has been a match registration process.

There are only those parties: there are no others, no other forces have emerged, no movements have emerged.

In civil society there is a lot of restlessness and a lot of movement, but new political parties have not emerged.

Therefore, we have to resign ourselves to these that we have and if these are destroyed and out of play, then what is going to be out of play is democracy itself.

As the official party [Morena] is also in unfortunate conditions, as we have been able to observe these days, because not only is freedom of expression but also democracy in this country being under siege.

I'm not saying that he died far from it, right?

It's like freedom of expression, the media are very active, they fight, criticize, etc., but all this is under siege and that is very dangerous and worrying.

Lisa Sanchez.

The orphanhood of representation generates a lot of conflict for my generation.

That is, for those of us who are in our mid-thirties and who started voting with the transition to democracy during Fox's election. Many of us supported the idea of ​​a left-wing government because it was extremely necessary to make inequality visible and it was very important and urgent to serve you.

There were also progressive demands such as connectivity, the future of work, the feminist movement, abortion, drugs ... that needed to be supported without hesitation from the left.

With the arrival of this government, one ends up understanding that, indeed, it is not from the left, that the PRD is in tatters and reduced to a micro-dome of leaders who plundered the franchise and that, basically, the only thing that semi-revives, but with a lot of setbacks because it has two leaderships that are deeply problematic, it is the Citizen Movement.

But how can you have a true leftist agenda with that Nuevo Léon candidate?

With that governor in Jalisco?

With that leadership that has also despised its own feminist leaderships such as Martha Tagle or Patricia Mercado?

So, today many of us feel completely orphaned of representation because you don't see yourself in any of those surviving parties because they were also very bad political options.

One of the reasons why I think Andrés Manuel has delegitimized the struggles is because there is a lot of civil society with a cause and I am not speaking for myself, I am speaking precisely for organizations like Tlachinollan, in the Sierra de Guerrero, which have legitimacy. Unquestionable for thirty years looking for the most unprotected and that even them, instead of adding them, it alienates them and points them out.

That is one of the biggest disappointments and it is creating an important void that in some way influences that new possibilities do not arise.

There is a clear demobilization orchestrated from power, but there is also an orphan of representation that makes it very difficult to mobilize with someone else.

Jorge Carrasco.

Part of the division strategy has been to lash out at the critical media and there is a lot of manipulation on his part.

It is not true that he was the most criticized president.

Ernesto Zedillo, for example, the criticisms against him were harsh.

Especially when the PRI loses the majority in Congress and is weakened, the press has questioned and very harsh investigations.

It is enough to go to the newspaper library of various media to see the criticism of Zedillo, Calderón, Peña Nieto not even mention it.

It is true that the press-power relationship has been perverse, an almost structural defect, but there are plenty of examples of how the press has had a permanent challenge to power.

The president is wrong when he says that he has been criticized like no other.

And all this also causes another very dangerous phenomenon, which is that it mobilizes public opinion against the press.

Ultimately, it is about controlling and managing the agenda, but those who are with him echo and demonize the press and what has sometimes resulted in physical attacks against journalists.

In general, the Mexican political class has never understood the role of the press and is uncomfortable.

THE COUNTRY.

They have cited the feminist movement.

Is it the clearest opposition that López Obrador has?

Lisa Sanchez.

I do not know if it is the movement that faces the most, but I do know that it is the most difficult thing for him to delegitimize because at the end of the day it does end up being a just, historical, necessary, poorly attended demand, transversal to all States, to all municipalities, all socioeconomic levels, but also mobilizes.

It is a movement that takes people to the streets and López Obrador has been assumed for many years as the legitimate force of social mobilization and the taking over of public space.

There can be many other just causes such as freedom of speech, political representation, party structure, or the militarization of security.

But none of these causes really mobilizes and occupies the public space like feminism and that is why Andrés Manuel has a particular interest in delegitimizing those voices and that occupation because there is a force that counteracts the monopoly of that occupation.

I think that is why it has also been so important for him to classify it and even make use of Claudia Sheinbaum in the Government of Mexico City to say: "There are men, interests, dark things behind, operating them like puppets. Don't be fooled. We are a feminist government. ”At the same time, it launches“ count to ten ”campaigns to prevent domestic violence in times of confinement and pandemic, that is, it slaps you with one hand and slaps you with the other as well.

Roger Bartra

.

It is a real disgrace, but in Mexico democracy came from the hand of the right.

It was cooked for many years on the left since 68, but the decisive moment came from the right and the left was completely out of control and disoriented.

Now we are experiencing the failure of the left that for decades promoted a democratic projection even though the transition came from the hand of a right-wing party.

We are seeing the consequences and within the main supposedly left party, the PRD, which was a total disgrace.

There, a right-wing populist government was cooked, which is the one that ended up triumphing in the name of the left and still in many parts of the world it is still believed that the López Obrador government is left-wing.

That, well, is one thing that needs to be clarified.

Regarding this Government, I believe that there was a turning point, in which it was deeply wounded, and that was the moment of the great mobilization of women, of the feminist movement, which took to the streets and stopped the country.

I think that was a deep wound from which he has not yet recovered or been able to counteract.

Of course what they have done is try to put it down and put it aside, to try to forget that critical moment.

From those two days in which women mobilized in progressive territories, they slowly began to change things and see themselves differently.

That must be recognized and that is why we see that the López Obrador government stutters at the demands of women.

It is something that they cannot handle, that they have a hard time just stigmatizing it.

They have tried, but it has not turned out well, and I think that it must be taken into account because it is going to be tremendously important and it will continue to affect, for example, next year's elections.

Jorge Carrasco.

Yes, it is one of the movements that puzzles him the most.

Because the president has easily disqualified some non-governmental organizations, the press or the opposition with an easy weapon that works for him and that is the fight against corruption.

But in the case of feminism there is nothing to reproach him for.

THE COUNTRY.

López Obrador has demanded blind faith from his team and the cabinet that surrounds him.

What significance does this have?

Roger Bartra.

Look, it's very clear that López Obrador demands blind faith, blind obedience, but things work differently.

In reality, I believe that López Obrador's policy has generated what could be called a great riot in the government.

Riot even in the almost etymological sense that it is getting out of hand.

The course of the river is flooding, there is enormous chaos and disorder and inefficiency.

This can be seen in what happened in Morena, which is a mirror of the Government and a faithful reflection of that chaos.

Therefore, what we see is a contradiction between this demand for blind faith and monolithic thinking and a riot in Morena's currents and actors who maintain a deaf struggle, with few ideas, but with many interests and very corrupt within the match.

This combination of dogmatism, blind faith and verticality is combined with disorder, inefficiency and chaos.

It is a very confusing situation and very difficult to understand because many things are getting out of control.

Lisa Sanchez.

I detect complete and utter disorder.

López Obrador is asking not to question, wait, see and trust when there are so many decisions that they are making that go against the evidence and common sense.

Let alone the scientific evidence of a more quantitative, comparative nature.

But there is another thing that draws my attention a lot about the personality and type of government of López Obrador and that is that it is such an active government at the end of the day that it forces us to always be in a reactive position.

So there is no room to think, as Roger says.

There is no space to organize or process things because every day you have to dodge a different bullet and every day is not figurative, it is every day.

It is a government that has gone by leaps and bounds in its so-called transformation and has had more than a dozen constitutional reforms.

Nowadays it is practically impossible to know how the state of things as elementary as security work because we have had so many reforms and also the reform to the General Law of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the counter-reforms to the penal system is coming.

And there are great changes every day that you have to be repelling and to which you have to be reacting all the time.

That also generates a kind of immobility that is very convenient for the president and that is a very stressful dynamic.

I think part of the strategy is to tire and you will win.

It is absolutely frustrating because we should be concentrating all our energies as a country on finding solutions to very complex problems and rethinking debates that have already been overcome.

We would not have to question, for example, trusts and the complete and absolute disappearance of federal subsidies for municipal security.

Those were battles that we already had somehow won and yes, every year some things had to be renegotiated but today we have to start building from scratch.

To this add the art for control and the monopoly of the narrative set by the president himself.

There is confusion for those who look at it from the outside and for those of us who are trying to understand what the shape of this amorphous thing that presents us every day really is and if it makes sense to try to survive the whirlpool.

It is a feeling of suffocation that perhaps the ruling party will be very happy and it is in that position that they want to have the conversation and make decisions.

All this causes me a lot of anguish because it hinders the search for long-term sustainable solutions and more productive dialogues than what we are having today.

I, frankly, declare myself exhausted.

Roger Batra.

I have a slightly different view.

I think yes indeed so much movement every day, driven from the morning, gives the impression that every day it changes, every day the play is different, but in the end what has been happening is, to use the metaphor classic, the birth of the mountains.

That is to say, there is a lot of noise, din, threats, contradictory laws, but there is nothing that can compare this supposed Fourth Transformation with the Independence, the Reform or the Revolution.

From that point of view it is the birth of the mountains because every day a little mouse comes out that screams like crazy and puzzles us, but there is little real transformation.

They are more threats.

In reality, economic policy is a disaster, it is not a great transformation or a threat to capitalism, but rather it promotes backward capitalism, of friends.

This is a model that has been through the sieve to remove its neoliberal elements and that ends up being not very functional.

There is not really a great transformation, but there is a great upheaval.

And indeed, as Lisa said, it has us exhausted because it forces a reactive position.

There are no threats to the capitalist system, no social democratic or even socialist project.

It is a little mouse that screams like crazy every morning.

Jorge Carrasco.

He is in the idea that he is making history and he wants the whole world to be aligned on this.

It is a practice that denotes a way of doing politics that does not coexist well with democratic principles.

THE COUNTRY.

How do you see the security situation?

Lisa Sanchez

.

In terms of security, what frankly has me terrified is the amount of power and formal powers that have been legally transferred to the Army to the detriment of civil governments.

Yes, we are going to be the second and only country in Latin America that under democracy has militarized its ports.

The only other that has them militarized in any way is Chile and it was a Pinochet law, it was not a law of democratic Chile.

Yes, there is a very important transfer of powers and to return police to tens of thousands of soldiers under the facade of the National Guard.

There is also a use, a constitutional approval to be able to use the permanent armed force as police officers during the entire six-year term, but there has also been delivery of very specific functions of logistics, infrastructure, construction that may at some point increase independence or the autonomy of the armed forces as a generator of resources.

In other words, they are giving them airports, they are giving them sections of the Mayan Train, the branches of the Banco de Bienestar, the logistics of gasoline and the distribution of free textbooks, medicines, hospital protection, renovation of government buildings everywhere. .

They are bags, bags and bags of money that are being collected and that if you look closely, they also do not correspond to any austerity policy.

The Armed Forces did not have their budgets and the Sedena [Defense Ministry] trust is the only one that is not extinguished.

There is a regime of privileges that gives more and more money to the military despite the rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that oblige Mexico to better monitor and regulate the use of the military in security.

Despite the fact that the killings and atrocities do not end.

Despite the fact that it is proven that the military does not bring more security and does exacerbate violence.

THE COUNTRY.

Is the Army the new actor on the political and business scene?

Roger Batra.

This situation of betrayal and disorder typical of the Government is clearly seen here.

From the beginning, it continues to operate, but around a motto that I think is still applied, which is hugs and not gunshots.

In other words, the Army is being used, but it is being used as an instrument, let's say, that it has been castrated, impotent, castrated military forces that do not know how to deal well with security issues, that they are not a coherent business force, that They are prepared to manage the country's port system, they are employed in such a way that they carry a burden all the time and that, of course, generates this absurd situation.

The Army have to build hundreds and hundreds of Welfare banks, but what happens?

Very few have built.

Why?

Because they are not prepared as you are not prepared to face security tasks.

What I fear may be happening is that the Army is becoming contaminated with all the evils that affect society, mainly corruption, and that can be very dangerous.

Of course it is very dangerous for there to be disorder within the Army because it would be going back to ancient times.

Jorge Carrasco.

The Army has had a significant public presence for many years.

The most significant thing is in terms of security, they have even adapted all the legislation to justify the presence of the military in the street.

The Congress, the Supreme Court of Justice and, of course, the Executive has done it.

This is so from Zedillo.

In the case of López Obrador this has deepened.

And when does this start?

Sorry for the self-reference, but in

published five years ago when the Army obtained its first contracts for the construction of buildings from the Council of the Judiciary.

The argument was that they were better and cheaper and the way was opened.

What we did not expect was that the president supported himself in such a way that he has turned them into construction entrepreneurs: the Mayan Train, the airport, the branches of the Banco del Bienestar ... it is a juicy real estate business.

It is not only about the construction but it grants them the exploitation and all the profits that they will generate from the airport.

THE COUNTRY.

Polls continue to give him high approval.

Do these serve as an engine to endorse the management?

Lisa Sanchez.

In fact, it seems to me a quite natural phenomenon considering the type of leadership that Andrés Manuel exercises.

I believe that it continues to build causes that mobilize from an almost emotional point of view.

Of course people who want to be against corruption, of course they want to be in favor of the poorest, of course they want to see Don Quixote go against the windmills, but the people are not stupid either.

So, if you read those surveys and at the same time also read the perceptions, what are the concerns of society as a whole, because you will also realize that this bubble is going to burst when one of the two basic concerns of people, which is security and economy, start to go worse than normal.

On security issues, I do not necessarily agree with the position that the Armed Forces carry ballast or are unable to exercise their power or their tactical operation.

They exercise it and the Nuevo Laredo episode [a case of human rights violations at the hands of the military] makes it very clear to us.

Extrajudicial execution ordered by military chain of command is a systematic thing that happens and the burden is to use the military for tasks for which they are not prepared.

The military is the burden of security in Mexico, not the civilian government that does not allow them to fully operate.

Something magical is doing and relatively it is working, slower than I think the president would expect, but homicides are stabilized, at an unbearably high level of 99 homicides per day, but they are stabilized.

2019 brings the same levels as 2018 with a slight decline of 200 fewer homicides compared to 2018. 2020 so far is only 1.5% above 2019, which, weighted by population, would basically leave it in exactly the same place if the trend continues.

In other words, there are things that I don't think are attributable to public security policy that are happening, that are stabilizing homicides and moving them around.

Sonora is a red light that we have to be looking at, before it was Tamaulipas, Chihuahua, Jalisco, Michoacán, the usual ones.

Today Sonora is a very important focus of homicidal violence.

When that bubble bursts, perceptions will change.

When the bubble of not having counter-cyclical policies against crises bursts and then we have millions below the poverty line again, I think those perceptions will also change, but so far he has been very intelligent and played his first three years of Government narratively to keep on the mobilization of the people who voted for him and win on 21. After winning on 21, we will really see if it maintains that strategy or modifies it.

Roger Batra.

It remains to be seen how he wins in 2021. There is the possibility that he will win it with much fewer votes and with a not very strong majority in the chamber.

This homicide issue is extremely complex.

I am not an expert on that, but it seems to me that homicide rates do not respond mechanically to public policy.

It's a bit like the polls, the poll results.

They escape, they have different rhythms.

During the Calderón period, homicides were also highly variable, as in the Peña Nieto period.

There is quite strange behavior there.

In such a way that it is not easy to understand or say that they move in accordance with the policy carried out by the Government.

Anyway, I do think you're right.

The Army is extremely powerful, but it is limited.

You set a good example, but there is also the example of Culiacán where the Army was effectively castrated, it was a completely absurd and ridiculous outcome.

This contradiction is experienced all the time, not only in the security issue itself, but as I mentioned in business issues.

Now, the polls have been going down, let's see what happens.

I aspire that all this activity that we have mentioned in civil society causes a certain effervescence against Morena, against the López Obrador government and I believe it will be reflected in the 2021 elections, but here a factor has entered that messes things up a bit, that it is this far-right movement that can generate great confusion.

It has already been generated, I believe, and it can contribute to further disorganize the political party system.

Let's see, but I think that here yes, to repeat the expression, this extreme right movement has fallen like a glove for the Government, which without changing course in the slightest can appear to be from the left facing these barbarians from FRENAAA .

Well, they come from the older and right-wing typical traditions of the Abascals [the leader of Vox in Spain], for example.

In the confusion I believe that the Government tends to win, at least for a time.

Jorge Carrasco.

Polls don't say so much.

The president has almost 60% approval and he presents it as the endorsement of his government but what happened in the elections of Coahuila and Hidalgo [where the PRI won] tells us that these polls must be taken at a distance.

THE COUNTRY.

López Obrador announced in his government report that a second stage is beginning.

How do you see the years to come?

Lisa Sanchez

.

I see them difficult because I feel that to a great extent there are going to be realities that will reach it and will overcome it.

The issue of the loss of the investment grade rating for the Mexican economy, the health of public finances, the imbalances of energy policy, the election of the United States, what if we have to prescribe four more years of Donald Trump or no and how that can affect immigration policy, the issue of drug prosecution, criminalization efforts and the orientation of criminal policy.

I think that the scenario is not at all promising because there are many things that accelerated with the covid-19 crisis, but that eventually will come and you will have to make very difficult decisions of the type whether there is a tax reform or not, things that can hit in the degree of sympathy that can generate forward.

And in closing, the only thing I would say is regardless of what happens in the election of 21, because Mexico is going to have many years to rebuild those minimum degrees of legality and institutionality on which we operated and that today in day either they are already destroyed or they are completely and absolutely relegated.

At least in terms of safety, it is very sad that instead of progressing we stayed six more years in a place where all the conditions worsened and we will only have to start over, but from much lower down.

This issue, for example, that the subsidy to the municipalities comes to zero when we know that almost 70% of the work of security and combating crimes of the common jurisdiction is done by the state and municipal police, it seems very serious because to many it goes to be a death sentence.

You have more than a thousand municipalities in this country that have police of less than 30 troops, they are extremely poorly equipped, that depend on federal subsidies and leaving that in a centralization of security that is also military, can be a very bad recipe.

No longer say you for the subject of homicides, but for everything else: extortion, sexual crimes, family crimes, robbery, robbery with violence, injuries, a lot of other things that we do not realize and that we do not value are in the battered police hands we have.

Roger Batra.

I see the picture very dark, but, let's say, I do have certain hopes in a kind of resurgence of the party system that is very deteriorated, it is corrupt, it is very beaten.

The 2018 elections hit him hugely, but I think next year's elections can, I hope, hope they will bring about some resurgence of the party system.

And if it coincides with an impulse from civil society movements of a progressive order, in defense of rights ..., we may have managed to save the democratic system in 2024, which is what is really in danger.

The economy, obviously, Covid is destroying it, all over the world, but here what has happened is that the advent of the pandemic has produced practically no change in government policy.

It's the same 100 commitments, the same 100 points, investment in stellar projects.

If perhaps a certain greater investment in the medical sector has had no choice, but the economic destruction caused by the mismanagement of the pandemic itself and also the mismanagement of the Covid, that will generate a truly catastrophic situation this year coming.

If it turns out that in a year there are ten million more poor people, the weakened middle class, etc., from the economic perspective it will be terrible and in those conditions of crisis, you never know what can happen in politics, how it can happen. impact, it is very difficult to foresee and I cannot foresee anything, but simply hope that somehow, among all Mexicans, we will be able to save the democratic system and that the damage that comes and later will not be too deteriorated.

Jorge Carrasco.

The 2021 elections are very important because that is where the future of Q4 is at stake.

If they manage to maintain or increase the majority they have now, I do not rule out that they want to convene a constituent to shape what I call

.

If they don't succeed, that reform is going to cost them a lot.

But I am very clear that the president wants to change the Constitution from the grassroots, that is why those 2021 elections are so important. Because he is not a president who leads a movement, but he is everything.

And we have seen it clearly in Morena's internal elections, which has clearly shown that López Obrador does not have a strong party at his side, such as the PRI, but rather a confluence of interests at his side.

The breakdown of the Labor Party and the division in Morena tells us that it is not a homogeneous movement, but simple allies for the electoral victory.