It is said that he who has been a hammer for a long time sees the world with the face of a nail. It is the feeling that a drive leaves me with that I observe in Morena. After many years spent as an opposition permanently at a disadvantage in the face of power and suffering from the bad arts and abuses of the system, the defensive and militant attitudes are understandable. However, once in power, such behavior can prove counterproductive, hindering the enormous task of becoming a government for all.
The Fourth Transformation, it seems to me, is at a turning point. The situation presented her with a dilemma: to opt for an ideological and politicized version of herself, focused on political power and the reproduction of gestures and speeches aimed at strengthening the identity with her social base; or try to expand the transformation project to include other social and productive forces, even when this implies political and ideological coexistence. Basically stay on the first floor or move to the second.
At times it would seem that the president herself is subject to this dilemma. On the one hand, the effort to modernize and rationalize public administration is enormous and Sheinbaum’s commitment to the Mexico Plan is undoubted. A true transformation of government is underway, a legacy that will allow many things to change. But there are times when he shows a polarizing or defensive streak that fuels a harsh current that is reluctant to build bridges. The disqualification of others, the speed with which it protects Morena and its members from any criticism, the temptation to describe disagreements as the result of the opposition’s bad mood, the argument that the real feeling of the population is that of those who support them on their tours, as if every other feeling of discontent was false.
Morena is wrong when he approaches disagreements in binary terms: for or against the 4Ts. If you assume that actions and expressions of discontent are instigated by the opposition, you will end up consigning into the arms of the opposition the enormous resource representing the feelings of various neighbors, communities and citizens who have grievances, many of which pre-existed the 4T. They may be right or wrong, but the authority has the duty to manage them, not to accuse them of being puppets of its opponents. In addition to insulting, they end up giving the opposition a power it doesn’t have. Of course there are people who join the marches seeking to protect advantages or privileges or attempts by the opposition to oppose the complainants. But this does not mean that the expression of the many existing demands in the country is intended to weaken Morena or Claudia Sheinbaum; the majority simply tries to solve their problem. Wouldn’t it be simpler to recognize that there are many legitimate reasons for concern and that the Government is trying to resolve them to the best of its ability?
Both attitudes are present in 4T. In the long run one weakens the other. For practical purposes, Morena controls political power in Mexico. But, living in a market society, the pace of economic activity is exerted by the private sector. The public sphere generates 27% of the country’s GDP and establishes general lines that influence the rest of the economic actors; but it is these that ultimately define investment and employment. Neither of them grows up. And, of course, the Donald Trump effect doesn’t help anything. It’s raining wet.
Claudia Sheinbaum’s government is aware that the Mexican economy will not reactivate until it manages to break this inertia. This is, to a large extent, the Mexico Plan, a road map to find a formula capable of promoting investments and, at the same time, the quality of life of the poor majorities. Growth with distribution.
But it is one thing to create industrial parks, it is another to convince hundreds or thousands of companies to invest and hundreds of thousands or millions of workers to join them. The first is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. Mexico’s plan attempts to spread them across the territory, but the political battle that aims to concentrate power in Morena and polarize society into two national projects as if they were incompatible, tends to transform them into a wasteland. The risk is staying halfway. One part of the furniture would appear to be on one front, the second floor of the 4T, the other part, perhaps involuntarily, torpedoes which fatigue and inertia lead it to perch on the first floor.
The story is more complex than a heroes and villains script. For 35 years, a model was established that allowed a third of the population to prosper, but reduced opportunities for half or more of Mexicans. The country needed a change and it is understandable that the third that has prospered looks at it with suspicion. Those of us who feel it is urgent to do something fundamental to reduce inequality have two options for dealing with those who are afraid of these changes: impose our project by demonizing what does not fit into it and guarantee absolute control of political power or, on the other hand, find means of negotiation to make the project passable to others who do not consider it theirs.
It is the dilemma of the 4Ts, even if ultimately it seems like a false dilemma to me, because the first path is that of defeat. Political control is not enough, as the Venezuelan experience or the defeated popular governments in Bolivia, Argentina, Ecuador and Peru, and the trance in which Chile and Colombia find themselves have clearly demonstrated. The State has the resources for an initial impulse towards social improvement, but without the involvement of economic forces, the possibility of lifting the population out of poverty stagnates.
It is understood that the president is obliged to seek unity within Morena; It is true that he cannot allow his own movement to overtake him or for the Workers’ Party to perceive the second plan of the 4T as a betrayal of its principles. I suppose his “militant” statements reduce this risk. However, they pose a problem, because governors and “tough” Cabinet officials replicate this vertically and on many occasions with arrogance and intransigence. Clarifying political differences through demonstrations of strength with mobilizations in the Zócalo literally heats up the square and generates nervousness. An escalation of agitation that is of no use to anyone. These are signals that inhibit the efforts that the Second Plan of the 4T makes to convince the other forces of the premise “for the good of all, the poor first and foremost”.
In short, never before have we needed Claudia Sheinbaum’s cold blood and maturity.
