Izquierda mexicana = AMLO

Ayer se transmitió mi segunda aparición en Zona Abierta (grabada quince días atrás). El tema original era “izquierda, legalidad y democracia en México”. A la hora de la verdad, el tema fue “AMLO, legalidad y democracia”. El panel estuvo un poco sesgado pues ninguno de los presentes éramos grandes admiradores de AMLO, pero fue divertido de cualquier modo.

Las preguntas centrales fueron estas, seguidas de mis respuestas sintéticas:

1. De llegar al poder, ¿qué tan serio es el compromiso de AMLO con la legalidad?

AMLO se concibe a si mismo como un “luchador social” que ha usado con éxito tanto medios legales como extra legales–ojo, no digo ilegales sino movilizaciones y marchas–para lograr sus supuestos objetivos de justicia social. Gran parte de su credibilidad pública esta basada en esta muy estratégica imagen.

El sistema legal en México es frágil, y muchas veces injusto. Por ser frágil, el presidente tiene amplios márgenes de maniobra para usar la ley como instrumento de política. Por ser injusto, es electoralmente rentable para un candidato prometer luchar por la justicia antes que por la legalidad. Esto implica una disyuntiva riesgosa: hacer política con la ley o mas allá de la ley.

A menuo AMLO parece enviar el mensaje de que, de llegar al poder, usará su honestidad valiente y sus ideales de justicia para resolver los problemas del país independientemente de los límites de la ley. Para cualquiera que entienda algo de estado de derecho, esto es un serio riesgo de regresión.

2. ¿Es posible que AMLO sea una especie de Hugo Chávez mexicano?

Ésta es fácil: No. México es 1) una economía diversificada muy ligada a los E.U., en vez de monoexportadora como Venezuela; 2) el poder político en México está más descentralizado: los partidos son fuertes y la separación de poderes es joven pero parece más sólida que allá. La combinación de ambos factores impone más contrapesos al presidente en México que en Venezuela (One hopes!)

3. ¿Son suficientemente sólidas las instituciones mexicanas para hacer contrapeso al voluntarismo de AMLO?

Opino que si. Aunque la democracia mexicana es joven, los usos y costumbres de sus actores políticos y sus instituciones son suficientemente sólidas (ojo, no digo que sean socialmente eficientes). ¿Sería deseable tener mejores instituciones? También, pero ese es otro tema.

4. ¿Tiene razón AMLO en decir que por “el bien de todos primero los pobres”, y que la corrupción es el principal problema público de México?

No conozco a ningún político que opine que la pobreza y corrupción no son un problema nacional grave. El problema es cómo se pretende atender tales problemas. Ambos requieren reformas serias–es decir, políticamente costosas. AMLO no parece querer decirnos qué tipo de reformas impulsaría ni cómo lo haría. Cuando tuvo amplia mayoría en la Asamblea del D.F., no pareció haber impulsado grandes reformas: más bien se mantuvo lejos de temas controversiales y politicamente costosos.

La plataforma de AMLO es básicamente ofrecer un mayor esfuerzo redistributivo, pero no quiere hablar de la reforma fiscal necesaria para financiarlo, por ejemplo. Detonar un mayor crecimiento económico generaría beneficios sociales más amplios que la mera redistribución. Pero eso requiere muchas y muy bien pensadas reformas. Un voluntarismo redistributivo, por más honesto y valiente que sea, no será suficiente si AMLO no sabe mucho de políticas públicas eficientes.

Left vs. right across the Atlantic

I lived for about four years in the U.S. and it took me a while to understand their left-right dimension. In Mexico it would take an exceptionally apt candidate to make me vote for the lefty PRD (or similar)–oddly enough, if I was an US citizen I can see myself voting for their slightly lefty Democratic party. How come? You have to understand where the status quo and the policies preferred by the median-voter stand in each country. Comparing Europe vs. U.S. is very illustrative also:

The Other American Exceptionalism
By Gerard Alexander

Not so long ago, American conservatives seemed to be converting the world to their ideas. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, country after country abandoned socialism for free markets, embracing such Reaganite themes as incentives, individualism, and responsibility. It looked as though the sun would never set on the friends of American conservatism. Yet today, American conservatives have never felt so alone.

This is not a matter of how many people around the world like American conservatives, but of how many are like them. To be sure, many political movements don’t have counterparts in other countries. But Europe and America are politically kin, and when in the 1980s Ronald Reagan took his stands for markets and against the Soviets he found ready and stalwart allies in Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, and other indigenous conservatives. Yet all we hear of these days is the “exceptionalism of modern American conservatism.” What happened to Europe?

Finding an answer begins with a comparison of contemporary American and European conservatives, especially concerning their basic assumptions—or operating principles—about economics, foreign policy, crime, and morality.

Market vs. State

American conservatives believe that a healthy modern economy is so complex and innovative that most economic decisions have to take place in the private sector, where scattered information is located, and risk may be rewarded or punished. Government is best at enforcing rules of the game and engaging in limited redistribution. When it does much more than that, it creates inefficient regulations and bureaucracies prone to expanding rather than learning.

This basic assumption runs deep in American life, not merely because we’ve spent too much time in post office lines—everyone on earth has done that—but because we’re in a position to compare the post office to responsive, dynamic private businesses of all kinds. Many Europeans think similarly, especially business leaders, free-market activists, policy wonks, center-right politicians (including, apparently, the German Christian Democrats’ Angela Merkel), and the occasional center-left leader such as Tony Blair or Gerhard Schroeder.

But most Western Europeans fear that markets will fail to meet their needs and satisfy their interests. They maintain a faute de mieux faith that government is the indispensable actor in economic life. Even when compelled by economic crisis to trim taxes, privatize, and curb spending—that is, even while recognizing implicitly that these measures attract investment and encourage growth—European leaders rarely offer principled criticism of government intervention, much less positive rhetoric about the marketplace. (Jacques Chirac’s center-right cabinet is now privatizing state entities, not because private ownership is more efficient but primarily to cut the deficit and pay down the debt.) The European Union’s proclaimed drive to become internationally competitive is top-down and government-centered. Not surprisingly, “Thatcherite” and “neo-liberal” continue to be labels insultingly applied and hotly denied. All this is true even for several right-wing “populist” parties, such as France’s National Front, which calls occasionally for tax limitation but more often emphasizes protectionism and a welfare state generous to native-born Frenchmen.

These views have not been dislodged, even by serious economic problems. And Europe’s economic problems are serious. The unemployment rate is stuck at around 10% in Germany and France, and if anything this underestimates the true figure–even more unemployment is concealed through extensive job-training and early-retirement schemes. The fact that many continental European economies have such mechanisms for sidelining less-skilled workers makes it all the more striking that labor productivity still generally grows faster in the United States. For decades, France and Germany had narrowed the gap in labor productivity with the U.S., but in the past 15 years their progress slowed and then reversed.

The result is that average U.S. per capita income is now about 55% higher than the average of the European Union’s core 15 countries (it expanded to 25 in 2004). In fact, the biggest E.U. countries have per capita incomes comparable to America’s poorest states.


If you like this much, you should read the whole thing.