The Mexico Plan is the key pillar to successfully build the second plan of the Fourth Transformation. This is an ambitious strategy to achieve what the country has not been able to achieve until now: sustained growth with distributional and social benefits. In essence, the big challenge of the 4T is to demonstrate that it is feasible not only in political but also economic terms. If he doesn’t succeed, it seems to me, sooner or later what South America is experiencing will happen in Mexico: the return of the right after a few years of popular governments.
If anyone can pull it off, it’s a painting like Claudia Sheinbaum. Nobody is perfect, of course, but having a government with such a level of popularity and led by a public administration professional is perhaps a unique opportunity to try to achieve that balance between growth and distribution. Left with Excel, scientist with social conscience, industriousness with method and common sense. But nothing guarantees this success, also because the challenge is enormous.
Part of the problem is polarization. Popular governments are forced to resort to it, because it is the most profitable and direct way to preserve a broad social base. Popular support is essential for a changing government that faces resistance from vested interests. Nothing generates a greater sense of identity than the contrast with others, with adversaries, with those “responsible for the grievances that unite us”.
The problem is that polarization, so beneficial in political terms, is toxic in economic terms. Without substantial private investment there is no chance that the Mexico Plan, industrial parks or job creation can come to fruition. And the problem is that many of those who would be able to generate such private investments are, directly or indirectly, those “others” who are challenged by polarization. This is not a mechanical relationship, of course, but there is no doubt that excessive politicization is kryptonite for the purpose of generating a favorable economic climate. The perception of a militant president, institutions to which a doctrinal or politicized bias is attributed, legal uncertainty or imponderability in the face of the imponderable, are factors that prevent economic actors from taking risks or taking on credits and obligations.
Only the president can know how essential it is for her to repeatedly denigrate the opposition, respond to morning YouTubers looking for a reaction on the “perversity” of 4T opponents, or denounce the evils of the present to Felipe Calderón’s government. It can be understood that the president, like any ruler, tends to contextualize criticism and offer a positive vision of the country and the efforts of her government. It is understandable that there are important nuances between the speech used in a banking convention and the lyrical expressions of a public square. But it would be schizophrenic to believe that they are exclusive. Sometimes what is gained, or believed to be gained politically, with a statement is lost economically. The image he tries to build as head of state is weakened by the harangues, more typical of the leader of a political current, aimed at disqualifying the opposition’s marches.
It will be argued that both tasks are necessary to move the project forward. To maintain the political support of your social base you need to “preach to the converted” and encourage the public with provocative expressions. But one must assume that they come at a cost. As well as maintaining the unity of all currents of the movement, even when this means supporting executives and governors who are increasingly questioned publicly. Like it or not, this weakens his ability to present himself as president for all or to maintain the image of a ruler determined to modernize and clean up public life. The message being sent is that the interests of the political group in power come before reason of state.
We should put ourselves in Claudia Sheinbaum’s shoes to understand the multiple balances between which she is forced to move. It must be careful not to be overtaken by the left, so to speak, and in this sense, in fact, maintain coherence with the flags and ideals of the movement. Inevitably, in the absence of results, many of which take time, declarations and slogans allow unity to be fueled.
There is also a stability issue that should be considered. López Obrador and Sheinbaum felt obliged to respond to the request for change in favor of the majorities that elected them. Whether we like it or not, polarization is a resource that helps against impatience. But, paradoxically, the more we use it, the more we delay the possibility of making that change. A bit like a sleeping pill, it helps you sleep, but its continuous use delays the ability to build sleep habits. Political arguments and polarization help keep alive the hope of those who aspire to have decent work, but damage the conditions that would allow such employment to be generated.
López Obrador needed this polarization because he understood that popular support was the only guarantee to defend himself from the de facto powers. Sheinbaum’s situation is different now that the 4Ts easily dominate the political space. At this moment the priority is economic and the success or failure of your management will depend on it. Popular governments in Latin America are defeated by their inability to generate lasting prosperity. Everyone had immediate success with the first wave of subsidies, pensions and pay rises; millions of people have risen out of poverty. But after that first moment it was impossible for them to expand social benefits or increase wages. After a while, the arguments proved insufficient as citizens, including the poor, realized that their living conditions had worsened due to inflation and/or stagnation.
Claudia Sheinbaum has the ability and more information than those of us who think about what she is doing. She is an intelligent and responsible woman. But the ruler is not always able to evaluate the true impact of his actions in areas that will ultimately be decisive. It’s not even about approval levels; What will be decisive, in the end, will largely depend on whether the 300,000 medium and large entrepreneurs (who generate two-thirds of the country’s wealth) have the confidence to take more risks and start investing. So far this is not happening. It’s not about serving them or giving up the flags, but about demonstrating that in a country where “for the good of Mexico, the poor come first”, they too have a place. Polarization and excessive politicization generate the opposite.
@jorgezepedap
