From the moment in which the President of the Republic confused haste with speed, opened multiple fronts of government action without a plan and launched programs indiscriminately without dominating their administration, and later began to hasten decisions or radicalize positions –dictated, perhaps, by out of desperation–, he got trapped and put the viability of his management at risk, turning its outcome into a gamble.
The desire to carry out a historic transformation without recognizing or preserving what did work – it is one thing to dismantle a regime; another, change it–, the president made two mistakes. One, identify adversaries, instead of allies where he wanted to influence, to the point of reducing support for his cause. Two, doing very good things in a very bad way, until stamping the hallmark of his performance, that of uncertainty.
In a way, the referendum on the revo-ratification of his mandate to be held this Sunday sums up that personal style of governing without ensuring the purpose, wisdom and meaning of the exercise of power.
Examples of good deeds done wrong abound.
It is difficult to disagree with the need to consolidate the purchase of medicines and avoid corruption, as well as the waste of money. However, this does not allow agreeing to disarm the previous model without guaranteeing the operation and effectiveness of the supervening one. And it is unacceptable that, in the face of the failure committed, responsibility is evaded or denied and those who require and claim medicine are branded as coup plotters.
It’s hard to disagree with the idea of reconfiguring the six existing refineries and producing more gasoline. But this does not lead to agreeing on the need to build a new one without being certain of its relevance.
It is difficult to diverge from the intention to avoid rising fuel prices. However, it is impossible to converge on the vain artifice of sustaining it, opening a hole in finances and denying the environment that determines the price.
It is difficult to ignore that the reform carried out during the past six-year term in the field of oil and electricity sacrificed the productive state companies in those branches until they went bankrupt. This, however, does not lead to recognizing as a success to give a bell in these industries that, in the end, can aggravate the existing problem…
In short, there are many examples of good deeds done wrong. Those mentioned are for illustration only. There is more, of course.
Such a way of leading and leading the government is giving rise to an absurd paradox.
If the core of the López Obrador project is synthesized in the intention, as the president himself says, of separating the economy from politics, now, politics is joining the economy. If during the last decades the market has subjected the State in some fields to the point of erasing it, the solution does not lie in trying to reverse the situation. It is not a matter of carrying out this operation as if the prevalence of economics over politics or vice versa worked like a switch.
Economic globalization has impacted and limited politics in such a way that national decisions are no longer left to the simple discretion of the will of those who hold the reins of a country. That is part of the governance crisis here as in many many other countries. The economic model and the political regime have not found balance or harmony with each other.
From this perspective, pretending to subject the economy to politics without a careful calculation of the effects that this may entail, is an adventure likely to end in a problem greater than the prevailing one. For this reason, in the framework of polarization, it is surprising how some sectors adore the recent past and others the remote one and none of them looks forward.
Good deeds done wrong are also being generated in the field of political politics.
One of them is the revo-ratification exercise of the presidential mandate that will reach its culmination point next Sunday. In the rush to incorporate instruments of direct citizen participation into representative democracy, popular consultation was guaranteed and, in this case, the revocation of the presidential mandate. But, like other good deeds, it was done wrong.
The mechanism was incorporated into the Constitution without framing it or meshing it well with it. Then, it was regulated late and in a bad way. So bad, that its creators imposed a gag on the main stakeholders in promoting the exercise in one way or another and, now, they endorse the error to the referee who whistles according to the regulations. And so bad, that having called it the Federal Law for the Revocation of the Mandate, they tortured its language and twisted its spirit, to raise the possibility of ratification in the question that establishes the norm.
As if that were not enough, in the folly without the need to implement it from today and supposedly forever, it was decided to implement it from a political, legal and economic absurdity. Those who want the Executive to continue in power, requested to revoke the mandate to ratify it. Faced with the legal problem of not being able to advertise, they violated the law, mocking the electoral authority. All for only one thousand 700 million pesos that could well be allocated to one of the many unsatisfied needs that exist.
If the next good deed done wrong is the reform of the electoral regime, let’s see if the absurdity of dismantling one regime without arming another is not repeated.
Beyond the presidential desire, the six-year calendar and the hasty decisions that the Executive itself took, already mark the twilight of his mandate. Time to fade the uncertainty that, for now, seals his management and raises questions about his outcome.
Good actions badly done mark the presidential administration. If the Executive does not dispel the uncertainty that seals its action, even with the ratified mandate, it will lack answers.