Editorial en Español

Enrique Peña Nieto finds himself smack dab in the middle of “two Mexicos”: between the old Mexico that resists change, a Mexico that reeks of putrefaction and damp cemeteries and the other Mexico that seeks to be part of the modern world.

The newly-drafted law that the President Elect sent to congress, which provides complete autonomy to the IFAI (the Federal Institute for the Access of Information) and to make it more efficient, so that any government authority, entity or organization can issue transparent declarations about decision making and the use of resources, could set off, if this were to be the case, a political revolution.

This matter goes well beyond pesos and cents and what funds state secretaries or state and municipal governments might have at their disposal.  It is about bringing about moral change and a re-think, about changing civil servants’ attitudes and conduct; and the attitude and conduct of the everyday citizen, as well.

Since its creation in 2012, the IFAI has suffered a series of tough defeats, having to face a political class that is used to spending big money, stealing funds, setting up smoke screens, buying people off, making decisions on their own whim, using up the country’s resources and getting away with it all, too.  To sum it up, information is covered up so that the public doesn’t see the shadiness that abounds among those who hold public office.

Just last April, the Private Sector Studies Center published a report which revealed the expensive toll that corruption is taking on Mexico.  According to the calculations that were made, the culture of illegality which exists in the country comes at a cost of 1.5 billion pesos, which makes up 10% of the Gross Domestic Product.

The new transparency and accountability law that Peña Nieto has presented to legislators is popular with the general public, but not with those in power.  Who was the General Secretary of the OECD, Jose Angel Gurria, referring to when he said that the time has come to “fully dedicate ourselves to going head-to-head with those who oppose change and benefit from the status quo”?  Of course, by mentioning the status quo, he was talking about corruption.  But, was the message meant for labor unions, Congress, political parties, governors, or were they destined for the powers that be, which he certainly mentioned?

Mexico’s next president knows that political change is now do or die.  It is a question of survival and political stability.  Either his government will push reforms through or the new forces of change at work will devour him whole.  However, on the other hand – and here lies the paradox -he will have to achieve some level of collaboration with this status quo to ensure that parasitic, corrupt and nepotistic forces aren’t an impediment to the country’s modernization process.

Peña finds himself in a situation that is similar to that of America’s President, Barack Obama.  The American Head of State has not been able to follow through on the political reforms that he promised during his campaign, because of the system.  The consequence of this is that the world has changed and his country now has had to adapt itself to the new realities brought about by this change.  Washington can no longer consider invading other countries or carrying out a coup d’état like they did before, even though The Pentagon and the most conservative groups which make up the Republican Tea Party still insist that they do.

However, as someone said: “The system devoured Obama”.  Does that mean that here in Mexico that the system will also eat Peña up?  Or, how far could his revolution go?