Democracy without pirinola

López Obrador, along with the president of the Supreme Court and the president of the Senate this Wednesday.GUSTAVO GRAF MALDONADO (Reuters)

To argue openly, polarize and criticize the adversary is reprehensible and unhealthy for political life; On the contrary, everything that is negotiation, sitting down to dialogue and reaching agreements is good for democracy, right? No, not necessarily or not in all cases at least. A few days ago Andrés Manuel López Obrador recalled the times when the compromises between the leaders of the party fractions in Congress were passed off as an example of parliamentary civility. "Support me in that vote and I release resources for your governors", "Three citizen advisers for me, two for you and the chairmanship of the Competition Committee for your candidate."

For years the construction of the "democratic" building in our country was based on this type of agreement.

A simulation in both senses: political practices that seemed the fruit of modernity and civility and that were little less than mafia agreements, on the one hand;

and institutions of accountability, competition, and balance that seemed to constrain the power of political elites in favor of greater participation by civil society, but allowed the system to be legitimized.

The first, the mafia agreements, no matter how much dialogue they require, did not translate into a benefit for the public interest, rather just the opposite.

The second, the founding of institutions chaired by elite officials, offered an impressive democratic facade but with little result for the great majority of the country.

The truth is that this entire period of political smoothness, absence of authoritarian acts, public versions and private arrangements, apparent fragmentation of power in a multitude of organizations, etc., coincided with the time of greatest violence of the public administration in the modern history of Mexico. and one of the most damaging in terms of social inequality. The market society, particularly when it operates with such distortions, does not need to be authoritarian to reproduce the power of the elites and guarantee their privileges.

False democracy does not require slapping or repressive acts to shield inequality in favor of some and to the detriment of others. It is enough with the “invisible hand of the market”, opportunely pressed with the suitable stimuli, so that certain social sectors, geographic regions and economic branches prosper while others worsen or stagnate. The elites did not perceive in time, they still do not quite do it, that the majorities remained on the losing side and they decided a change as of the 2018 election.

That said, one might wonder if the only alternative to all these polite and polite mafia agreements between the elites lies in the shouts and hats of polarization. López Obrador is convinced that there is no other way than public scourge, social pressure and the use of all the legal and political resources of the State and Morena, his movement, as long as they are peaceful. The opposition and critics will see in every government initiative aimed at straightening "the invisible hand" an authoritarian act; AMLO will consider it an action aimed at reestablishing equilibrium and repairing an anomaly or a simulation.

I largely agree with the president's diagnosis, but I am not sure that the alternative of belligerent polarization is the best alternative to gangster arrangements in the dark. The approval of the budget in Congress a few weeks ago illustrates this. Before, it would have resulted from a series of behind-the-scenes deals, many of them unpublishable; now, instead, it was the product of the public and transparent confrontation of two open visions of the country. Better not? Not so much.

The confrontation was resolved with the imposition of the majority, in such a way that the views of the minorities were not incorporated even in a comma (specific instruction attributed to the president). For democratic purposes, the two procedures, the one before and the one now, are not very edifying (apart from the benefits or drawbacks of the resulting budget, which would merit another discussion). The celebrated slogan of "do not negotiate in the dark" was replaced by the worrying one of "do not negotiate at all".

The simulation of public acts intended to legitimize unspeakable private agreements should not now be replaced by another type of simulation: one that tries to sit down to negotiate and dialogue knowing that the final result is decided in advance without the slightest intention of considering the points of view. of the counterpart. It may be the appearance of a member of the cabinet in the Senate, the discussion of a bill or the supposed negotiation with the students and professors of the CIDE.

The problem with the hostile and disqualifying polarization that demonizes those who think differently in such a way is that it makes it legitimate to ignore their arguments: worse still, incorporating them constitutes a kind of betrayal of the cause. It seems to me that AMLO's use of his Mañaneras to display excesses, stop blows, or provoke discussion of issues that needed to be debated has been very helpful. I may not agree with all your views on the UNAM and other universities, the INE and so many institutions that have been harshly addressed from the morning microphone, but it is not entirely wrong to maintain that they also had to be aired.

However, they should be discussions aimed at improving such institutions, not putting them at risk. Once the problems have been identified, bridges should be built and not blown up. The space that the director of Conacyt has to negotiate the claims of the CIDE community, listen to them and reach mutually conciliatory positions, is very limited when the National Palace has already described such disagreements as perverse attempts to maintain privileges and inadmissible theoretical orientations .

In sum, I believe that López Obrador is right when he affirms that we should not fear public discussion of our problems and differences. That is better than pretending that everything is fine in institutions to which we owe a lot, it is true, but which were not alien to an economic and political model that generated such discontent. We question the governments of the PRI and the PAN, but we pretend that the institutions with which they were accompanied are sacrosanct and cannot be questioned. The challenge is how to do it without devastating them, without overwhelming them, without stopping listening to them. Many of these institutions were founded by pressure from society as a whole and against the wishes of the political class. That politicians have managed to neutralize or qualify the scope of these institutions, at least in part,It does not mean that they are not essential to build a more just society.

Sanitizing the public conversation, as proposed by AMLO, would have to happen not only by airing the problems but also by the possibility of building coexistence despite this.

But that implies leaving behind the mandate of the pirinola, that childish game that demanded that the winner take everything.

@jorgezepedap

Subscribe here

to the

of EL PAÍS México and receive all the informative keys of the current situation of this country

Sign in to continue reading

Just by having an account you can read this article, it's free

Sign upLogin

Thanks for reading EL PAÍS