It is said that a person who has been a hammer for a long time sees the world with the face of a nail. It’s the feeling that the leadership I observed in Morena leaves me. After many years of being an oppositionist at a perpetual disadvantage in the face of authority and suffering from bad arts and abuses of the regime, the defensive and militant positions are understandable. However, once in power, such behavior can backfire, presenting an obstacle to the enormous task of becoming a government for all.
It seems to me that the Fourth Transformation has reached a turning point. The situation put her in a dilemma: she chose an ideological and politicized version of herself, focused on political power and the reproduction of gestures and speeches aimed at strengthening identification with her social base; Or try to expand the transformation project to include other social and productive forces, even if that means political and ideological coexistence. In essence, stay on the first floor or move to the second.
Sometimes it seems that the president herself is vulnerable to this dilemma. On the one hand, the efforts to modernize and rationalize public administration have been enormous, and Sheinbaum’s commitment to the Mexico Plan is beyond doubt. The real transformation of government is underway, a legacy that will allow many things to change. But there are moments when a polarizing or defensive tendency emerges that fuels a harsh trend that is unwilling to build bridges. The exclusion of others, the speed with which Morena and its members shield themselves from all criticism, the temptation to describe disagreements as the result of the bad mood of the opposition, the argument that the real feeling of the population is that of the people who support them on their tours, as if any other feeling of discontent is false.
Morena is wrong when he treats disputes in binary terms: for or against 4T. If you assume that actions and expressions of discontent are instigated by the opposition, you will end up handing into the arms of the opposition enormous assets representing the sentiments of various neighbors, communities and citizens with grievances, many of which already exist in 4T. They may be right or wrong, but the authorities are obligated to manage them, not accuse them of being puppets in the hands of their opponents. In addition to insulting, they end up giving the opposition power it does not have. Of course, there are people who join the marches seeking to protect their advantages or privileges, or attempts by the opposition to stand up to the complainants. But this does not mean that the expression of the many demands that exist in the country is aimed at weakening Morena or Claudia Sheinbaum; The majority simply seek to address their problem. Wouldn’t it be easier to realize that there are many legitimate reasons for concern and that the government is trying to solve them the best it can?
Both positions exist 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 practiced by the private sector. The public sphere generates 27% of the country’s GDP and determines the general contours that influence the rest of the economic actors; But these are what ultimately determine investment and employment. Neither of them grows. Of course, Donald Trump’s influence doesn’t help anything. Raining in wet.
Claudia Sheinbaum’s government realizes that the Mexican economy will not be revitalized until it can break this deadlock. This is largely Mexico’s plan, a roadmap for finding a formula capable of encouraging investment, while improving the quality of life for the poor majority. Growth with distribution.
But creating industrial zones is one thing, and attracting hundreds or thousands of companies to invest and hundreds of thousands or millions of workers to come there is another thing. The first is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Mexico’s plan is trying to spread it throughout the territory, but the political battle that seeks to concentrate power in Morena and polarize the community into two country projects as if they were incompatible, tends to turn them into a wasteland. The danger lies in staying halfway. One part of the locker appears to be on one front, the second floor of the 4T, and the other part, perhaps inadvertently, torpedoes, leading by effort and inertia to become anchored to the first floor.
The story is more complex than a heroes and villains scenario. For 35 years, a model has been established that has allowed prosperity for a third of the population, but reduced opportunities for half or more of Mexicans. The country needed change, and it was understandable that the third that prospered looked at it with suspicion. Those of us who see it as necessary to do something fundamental to reduce inequality have two options for communicating with those who fear these changes: impose our project by demonizing what does not fit in and ensuring absolute control over political power, or, on the other hand, find ways to negotiate to make the project acceptable to others who do not see it as their own.
It is the 4T dilemma, although deep down it seems to me a false dilemma, because the first path is the path of defeat. Political control is not enough, as the Venezuelan experience has shown, or the defeated popular governments in Bolivia, Argentina, Ecuador and Peru, and the coma in which Chile and Colombia have found themselves. The state has the necessary resources for the down payment of social improvements, but by not achieving the participation of economic forces, the possibility of lifting the population out of poverty is stagnant.
It is understood that the President is obligated to seek unity within Morena; It is true that he cannot allow his movement to overtake him or for the Labor Party to see the second floor of the fourth floor as a betrayal of its principles. I assume that his “hard-line” statements mitigate this danger. But it has a problem, because conservatives and “tough” Cabinet officials repeat this vertically and on numerous occasions with complete arrogance and stubbornness. Articulating political differences in flexing muscle through mobilization in the Zocalo literally ignites the arena and generates tension. An escalation in incitement does not suit anyone. They are signals that hinder the efforts of the second floor of the fourth floor to convince other powers of the premise “for the good of all, the poor first.”
In short, we never need the calm, mature mind of Claudia Sheinbaum more than now.