|
Tuesday, 28 November 2006 14:23 |
| John North
Editor & Publisher |
I have to hand it to Andr?©s Manuel Lopez Obrador ÇƒÓ he is a man who has absolutely no "quit" in him.
The leftist candidate for president of Mexico lost narrowly in the election last July by 240,000 votes, or 0.58 percent of the 41.7 million votes cast ÇƒÓ at least according to the official results that were corroborated later by a special commission.
(Perhaps he was looking northward to President Bushës victory over Al Gore in 2000, despite losing the overall popular vote by roughly 300,000. However, Mexico does not have an Electoral College.)
In the latest twist, Obrador swore himself in as "the legitimate president of Mexico" last week and set up a shadow government in Mexico City to pressure the official government of conservative Felipe Calderon to adopt his partyës leftist platform.
Sticking to something often can be a key to success, but there are times when one would be better off taking a different tack.
To that end,
Obradorës obsession reminds me of the lyrics of the Kenny Rogersë
classic, "The Gambler," wherein he rhapsodizes about the virtues of
knowing when to hold them and knowing when to fold them.
Obrador
represents a large proportion of a country where there is a strong
feeling, with at least some justification, that a corrupt oligarchy
holds sway, leaving the poor and working-class Mexicans with little or
no voice. For fighting to make their voices heard, Obrador deserves
their admiration.
However, if
Obrador is an ego-maniac, trying to establish a cult of personality, or
making a power play, then all Mexicans should beware. Time will tell if
the aforementioned is the case ÇƒÓ or if he can be a genuine moral force
in a country desperately needing one.
For most of
Mexicoës modern history, one party ÇƒÓ the Institutional Revolutionary
Party (PRI) ruled ÇƒÓ with current President Vicente Fox breaking that
tradition with the National Action Party.
Interestingly,
the PRI allied with Foxës party in the last election to defeat Obrador,
doing nothing to assuage the fears of poor Mexicans that the new boss
is just the same as the old boss. There was a vivid north-south split
in the election results, with Mexico City about on the dividing line.
Calderon carried most of the more prosperous north, with Obrador taking
the historically improverished south.
After pondering
the Mexican situation, I canët help but wonder what would have happened
in 2000 if Gore had followed Obradorës course and not conceded the
election to Bush.
It could have
ended up as a travesty, or perhaps it would have put much-needed checks
and balances on an admistration that has proven to be prone to hubris.
It seems to me,
though, that if many candidates around the world began following
Obradorës path, election season would never end and anarchy and chaos
would rein. Then again, sometimes such actions can result in nonviolent
revolutions, such as in Ukraine.
I think
Calderonës best strategy would be to seek a compromise with Obrador, in
recognition of the fact that the election was so close.
Perhaps Calderon
might appoint Obrador to an appropriate Cabinet post or some other
position of real responsibility in an effort to reach out to all of the
people of Mexico.
However quixotic
a gesture, more than 100,000 people showed up at Obradorës
"inauguration," showing that, to many Mexicans, his quest is anything
but foolish.
ï
John North, publisher and editor of the Daily Planet, may be reached at publisher-at-ashevilledailyplanet.com.
|
