It’s not over yet

A reader asks: “Is the IFE dirty?” It’s safe to say that the IFE did not dispel valid doubts about the result and the procedures leading to it. And it was in the interest of the IFE as a public institution, in the light of Mexico’s history and of a tightly contested outcome, to have them dispelled. An institution like the IFE is only worth as much as it is credible.

Yesterday, Reforma had a piece by José Woldenberg. He and others (José Agustín Ortíz Pinqueti comes to mind) laid the foundations of the current IFE. They persuaded congress to allocate large amounts of money to build its infrastructure, manufacture tamper-proof election IDs, etc. And, to say more about Woldenberg’s background and political genealogy, Woldenberg was a leftist, a founder of the PSUM. The PSUM (1981) was the daughter of the Mexican Communist Party (1919), the MAP/Punto Crítico (group to which Woldenberg belonged), and other splinter groups. The PSUM then became the mother of the PMS (1988) and, thus, the grandmother of the López Obrador’s PRD (1989).

In his article, Woldenberg defends the election, the PREP, and the IFE. He dismisses the idea of “worms” or other pieces of software smuggled into the system to manipulate the results, suggesting it is a silly conspiracy theory. Aside from his op ed, he declared yesterday that there should be no recrimination against López Obrador for contesting the outcome of the election before the federal electoral tribunal, because it’s his right — and it’s all within the legal framework. That’s to be appreciated, because Woldenberg has a reputation as a fair-minded person. And he’s saying it because the pundits are all over the airwaves calling López Obrador “irresponsible” and “authoritarian” for challenging the outcome.

For example, in today’s Reforma, Sergio Sarmiento, an intelligent commentator with liberal social ideas mixed with economic conservatism, is saying that López Obrador, by contesting the election before the federal electoral tribunal, is damaging Mexico’s democracy. He rejects the idea that this is in any way similar to the 1988 fraudulent election, when Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas’ triumph was stolen by Carlos Salinas de Gortari.

Sarmiento has it exactly upside down: By not opening the ballot packages, the IFE erodes its credibility, which is to say the credibility of the entire political system. And yes, there is an essential commonality between 1988 and 2006: the official winner (the PAN now, like the PRI then) is refusing to open the ballot packages. (Salinas even got the 1988 ballot packages burned, with the support of the PAN.)

Back to Woldenberg — I’m not willing to follow him in his defense of the security of the IFE computer system. Why? One, there are many possible ways in which a computer system can be compromised. And two, the stakes are high and the temptation to get around the locks and manipulate the results is proportional to those stakes. As the Wall Street Journal says, think Florida 2000 — or Ohio 2004. A healthy dose of skepticism, particularly when things look too funny, has nothing to do with being a conspiracy nut.

Woldenberg excludes the mere possibility of a “centrally machinated fraud.” I’m not sure about that either. It depends on what you mean by “centrally.” It’s perfectly possible to go Al Qaeda in committing an electoral fraud. After all, Calderón only needed to wink, insinuate to his followers, mid- and low-level party operatives, etc. that local and individual creativity to advance the goals of the party and stop López Obrador would be duly appreciated. Then you’d have both, a decentralized or retail attempt to commit fraud (therefore hard to pin down) and “plausible deniability” by Calderón and the PAN leaders. Would this kind of fraud suffice? In a tight election, yes.

(Let me add that, like Woldenberg, López Obrador has also excluded the possibility of a fraud in his statements. He is carefully avoiding the word “fraud.” López Obrador’s followers are saying it out loud, “It is fraud,” but not him. However, López Obrador’s ruling out a fraud is not a detached aprioristic, quasi-academic statement like Woldenberg’s, who is understandably defending his legacy as well. López Obrador’s is a call to action. The subtext of his statement is, “A fraud is impossible, because we will make it impossible! We will mobilize and we won’t permit it. Within the confines of the law, we will do whatever it takes to reverse it.”)

Did Calderón, the PAN leadership, and the big donors of his campaign send a message to their troops to cheat? Absolutely. The all-out propaganda campaign launched by the right, a sector of the business class, the government of Vicente Fox, and the leaders of the PAN against López Obrador sent that kind of message. If López Obrador is a “danger to Mexico,” then you get rid of it. You do whatever it takes to stop him — yes, including his assassination.

Am I exaggerating here? Absolutely not! Again, consider history: in 1994, Luis Donaldo Colosio, the presidential candidate of the then ruling party (PRI) was killed in a campaign event. If you only read the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, you may get the sense that the PAN is a modern political party, led by a dynamic group of highly educated yuppies, with a well groomed, wholesome, Harvard educated candidate. Yes, a stratum of wealthy, white European business people and yuppies with good jobs in the the formal sector, banks, brokerage firms, foreign corporations, etc. is one of the PAN’s core constituencies. Moreover, it is clear that in issues that have the biggest impact on the lives and livelihoods of the Mexican people (i.e. economic policy and management of public resources) this is the group in the PAN that sets the agenda.

But the PAN has another core constituency, a crowd that turns out real votes (and, my suspicious mind would add, some fake ones on top) in densely populated areas of central and western Mexico. It is no accident that two of the states where the PAN has absolutely refused to open the ballot packages are Guanajuato and Jalisco. These states have a long and bloody history of Catholic, right-wing extremism — including terrorism, assassinations, and political intimidation. For more on this, google the word “Yunque”. Or google the name of a journalist who has studied them closely (Álvaro Delgado, from the magazine Proceso).

In brief, I cannot rule out that a “centrally machinated fraud” is being attempted in Mexico. I think there is strong evidence pointing to that possibility. And, in a country like Mexico, with its history, the burden of the proof must fall on the PAN, on the party of the rich and powerful, and on the IFE, an institution that has cost much to the public. With a political floor so uneven, the attribution of political responsibilities must be be apportioned in accordance to wealth, power, and opportunities.

But it is true that, in this electoral cycle, the poor have been all but victims. However imperfect, they have used their organization — and their numbers — to improve their condition. Still, they clearly have an uphill battle. But this game is not over yet.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “It’s not over yet”

  1. T.L. Brink Says:

    This is an interesting conspiracy theory, with much more speculative theory than hard evidence of conspiracy.

    At the micro level, I observed the voting and counting of the votes in three precincts, and detected no fraud.

    At the macro level, I notice a great consistency between the exit polls of many different organizations, the PREP, and the current counts: all show a slight lead for Calderon. As a social scientist specializing in questionnaires

    http://heuristicbooks.com

    I think that attributing all of these consistencies between these separate polls and the IFE totals is more than a reasonable stretch.

    Let´s admit that Calderon got more votes on Sunday.

    If you want to say that the balloting was not valid because slick media duped the average voter into being afraid to vote for his own best interests (e.g., AMLO), that is another story, but don´t try to invent vote totals that don´t exist.

    For a different view of the election, consult my blog

    http://mexicopolitics.blogspot.com

  2. panchovilla Says:

    Thank you for visiting and linking my blog.

    Re. your comment: I guess you can say that my so-called “conspiracy theory” is more speculative than factual. From a distance, my evidence is the results supplied by the IFE and the complaints coming from the PRD. I don’t have any independent or inside information.

    But all I’m saying is that, in a very tight race, “small” manipulations of the vote at the local level can make the difference. Knowing what I know about the PAN in El Bajío, I can’t give them the benefit of the doubt.

    And I have to say that the argument that you provide in support of the idea that Calderón won is not very strong. At the macro level, the PREP and the sums of polling-place tallies district by district may have been consistent (in both of them, Calderón leads), but that doesn’t make either of them right.

    The black box is still the relation between the polling-place tallies and the actual ballots in the packages. According to El Universal, in the cases where the packages were opened (some regions in Puebla), the ballots for López Obrador were consistently more (or the ballots for Calderón were consistently less) than the tallies recorded. And how consistent are the results above when one of them gives Calderón twice the advantage (in percent terms) than the other?

    Second, at the micro level, you observed voting and counting in three precincts and saw nothing irregular. Three! And on the basis of that sample, you’re ready to jump to your conclusion? Well, forgive me, but Mexico has a recent history of electoral fraud and I’m not ready to jump to that conclusion so quickly. Neither is the New York Times, which just called to a full recount in an editorial. As they say in Mexico, with such a history — and an official razor thin difference — the point is not only “vencer” but above all “convencer.”

    Let me now say one quick thing about one comment posted on your blog. There’s this tendency to blame López Obrador — or his ego — for this mess. But that’s shooting the messenger. (See Rolando Cordera’s article in yesterday’s La Jornada.) The problem of people distrusting the outcome in an election, their — if you wish — “skepticism” or even “cynicism” about politics is widespread and not unwarranted, given Mexico’s past.

    The good thing about López Obrador is that he is conducting his opposition to these results within the bounds of law. His right to appeal is within the law. And his right and the right of his supporters to protest and demonstrate is also protected by the Mexican constitution. He’s not calling people to raise up in arms and overthrow the established political system.

    Finally, who, who doesn’t have an ego, gets into politics? And don’t the politicians from the PAN and other parties have egos too? If having a big ego disqualified people from getting into politics, then politics would have no takers. (Tongue in cheek.)

    Good luck with your blog!

  3. brian Says:

    ‘he good thing about López Obrador is that he is conducting his opposition to these results within the bounds of law. His right to appeal is within the law’

    Unfortunately, Calderon and IFE are not so observant of the law, as shown in http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article1967.html

  4. Al Grimstad Says:

    Thanks for this post. It seems the jury is still out with respect to the IFE. The PAN, of course, is manifestly dirty. I have to agree that it’s a bit naive to believe with no doubt whatsoever that a governmental institution is perfectly fair and independent unless it is so proved and that continuously. Such proofs at the moment appear to be exhortations to have faith. I haven’t yet seen anything that convinces me of centralized manipulation but I’m with you in retaining my doubts.

    I think AMLO’s demand for a recount is well justified by the various anomalies that have been mentioned in the press. The charge that he is somehow “damaging Mexico’s democracy” must be insulting to the Mexican intelligence. Rather AMLO seems to have a different idea of democracy than folks like Sergio Sarmiento. I find it superior to that of say the US Democratic party which just turned belly up in vaguely similar circumstances. Mobilizing the people–to support the legal challenge to the vote count–seems to me to be a lot closer to real democracy than the more passive vote-and-watch-TV approach. Assuming AMLO loses the recount, why not stick with the mobilization strategy? The PAN will be a minority government. They don’t deserve a carte blanche.

  5. Charles Says:

    Um. John Ross says that the exit polls showed Lopez Obrador two points ahead.

    It doesn’t take a great deal of research to determine that T. L. Brink is a member of the faculty of Crafton Hills College and the University of Redlands

    Not familiar with them?

    Why, Crafton Hills College, with 5200 pupils in Yucaipa California “promotes learning through self-discovery and the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills.” Basically, a glorified high school.

    And T. L. Brink teaches philosophy, psychology, and religion

    It’s almost the same as being a professional electoral statistician.

    The University of Redlands is 4200 students, and “emphasizes academic rigor, personal development and interdisciplinary studies.” Basically, a very glorified high school. And someone should tell the university T. L. Brink is on the faculty I would guess he’s stretching his resume a bit to make an instructorship or adjunct position sound better than it is. But maybe they’re just behind on their directory.

    I’m sorry to be a bit condescending, but when people fly into a blog and start using pejoratives like “conspiracy theory,” they need to be reminded of who they are.

    Namely, pardon my French, an ass.

  6. brian Says:

    ALLO has PAN on the back foot….he should keep pressing until there is a full and monitored by all parties recount.

    AMLO is doing what Gore and Kerry should have done.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: