Mexico's emerging democracy

Inside México talks with José Woldenberg
By Inside México | Original Print Publication: November, 2007

José Woldenberg, UNAM professor and director of the influential Mexican magazine, Nexos, is one of the world’s authorities on democratic systems and elections. He’s known as the father of Mexico’s Federal Elections Institute (IFE) and he advises governments around the world on how to establish clean and transparent election processes. Inside México spoke with him about democracy and culture in Mexico, and the imminent constitutional election reforms.

Inside México: What is the goal of Nexos magazine?

José Woldenberg: Nexos was founded 30 years ago. It’s the longest running magazine of its kind in Mexico. It’s meant to be a point of intersection, a place where different disciplines come together. The idea was that society, culture and science all be discussed here. We are doing well with society and culture, politics and social sciences, though we could do better in our coverage of the natural sciences. There’s a high level of political and cultural debate. We are a bit like The Nation in the US. And we try to review the most important books. Literature is one of the magazine’s strengths.

IM: It seems that intellectuals and artists often play a direct, even formal role in Mexican politics. Why is that?

JW: In the 1920s, after the revolution, the government reached out to cultural figures. Look at the Palacio Nacional. Think of [the artists and muralists] Orozco, Siquieros, Rivera. [Writer] Octavio Paz was the Ambassador to India. [Novelist] Carlos Fuentes was the Ambassador to France. The government built a social infrastructure and many intellectuals were involved. Government jobs also provided regular income for artists and writers, and a cara virtuosa - virtuous appearance.

IM: People are wondering about Mexico’s recently proposed Constitutional Election Reform and its implications. Can you explain what’s happening and why it matters?

JW: This reform is very important and it’s basically a done deal; we are only waiting for President Calderon to sign it into law. [Now is a] rare moment, when you have the congressional representatives of [main political parties] the PRI, the PAN and the PRD all in agreement on this issue. What the reform says, in part, is that candidates cannot buy political ads on television or the radio, that negative campaign ads will be banned on TV and radio, and that the major media companies will be required to run political ads free of charge. The biggest part of the campaign resources went to TV and radio in the 2006 election cycle; approximately $180 million dollars were spent on TV and radio during the presidential campaign. The media, of course, are up in arms, saying that this represents a strike against freedom of expression. As for that argument…well, you can’t bring all positive values together at one time. The most important thing here is to achieve more equality between the political parties. In 1988 the governing party received 92% of the airtime on TV. By 1994, taken together, the minority parties had more press time than the [then ruling party] PRI. By 2000, the press offered the three parties much more equal treatment. We’ve gone from asymmetrical coverage to more equitable and impartial information.

IM: How would you describe Mexican democracy today?

JW: Democracy as a formula for competition and self expression has value in itself. But there is no democracy without political parties. We have parties with very disciplined members. When you saw President Clinton pass laws, for example, lawmakers crossed party lines. Not here. Here you have to win the will of the party. Since 1997 there has been no party with a majority in the deputy chamber or in the senate. Making decisions and getting things accomplished is more difficult. What we have in Mexico is an incipient democracy. Thirty years ago, it was unthinkable that a president couldn’t do whatever he wanted. The PRI was a hegemonic party, or as President Salinas called it, "casi unico" – almost the only one. Now the President is just one power among others. I’m sure that there are people who are nostalgic for the past. The current situation is better, though it comes with its own problems. Before we had problems that came with totalitarianism; now we have problems that come from democracy. But what will limit our advances with respect to democracy is the socioeconomic inequality. This is a huge challenge. Poverty and inequality strangle democracy. People don’t feel part of the whole.

IM: Do you think there was fraud in the 2000 US Presidential Elections?

JW: I don’t know. The important thing is that when the Supreme Court stopped the partial election recount, Al Gore and the populace accepted the decision not to count all the votes. The system wasn’t challenged. The big difference between democracy in the United States and democracy in Mexico is the difference between trust and lack of trust. Although the electoral system in Mexico is much more sophisticated, with more controls to prevent fraud and build trust, in the US, citizens expect the system to work. Here they don’t.

José Woldenberg has a degree in sociology and a master’s in Latin American studies from UNAM, where he’s a member of the Political and Social Science Department. From 1989 to 1994 he was the president of the Study Institute for Democratic Transition, and from 1996 to 2003 he was the President of the General Council of the IFE (Institute for Federal Elections). He is the author of several books on Mexican politics and in 2004 he won Mexico’s National Award for Journalism.