Thursday, July 27, 2006
Recount the Votes -- and Be Patient
Interesante articulo en el Washington Post, donde ya abiertamente se habla de las irregularidades del proceso electoral. La comparacion de las eleccciones entre Bush y Gore tienen una muy particular diferencia en Mexico: la resistencia civil que cada uno de nosotros estamos protagonizando el dia de hoy.
By Jorge de los Santos
The Washington Post
Thursday, July 27, 2006; A25
The 2000 U.S. presidential election was a bitter episode in American
history. It was one of the closest elections ever, with 537 votes in the
state of Florida separating the candidates. It took a month of court
challenges and recounts before the election was finally certified.
After Election Day, several weeks of legal maneuvering by the Bush and Gore
teams followed. Neither side was satisfied with the vote counts, and both
crafted plans of action and created their own "recount commissions." At the
end, after hearing all the arguments, the courts ultimately ruled, clearing
the way for a Bush presidency.
Independent studies by universities and news organizations concluded that
the different methods of counting the votes yielded different results. For
example, a lenient standard of counting the hanging chads gave the victory
to George W. Bush, while a strict standard gave it to Al Gore. But the
courts played the final part in the episode. They brought certainty and
finality to the dispute.
Now Mexico has its own soap opera version of an election. After a
nerve-racking election night, contradictory exit polls and preliminary
recounts that went up and down like a roller coaster, the conservative
candidate, Felipe Calderón, is holding a razor-thin lead over the
left-leaning candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador. With a margin of
200,000 votes separating the candidates, and allegations of serious
irregularities, Mexico is still waiting for its new president.
This was a highly polarized campaign. Below-the-belt attacks and challenges
were widespread. Companies, nonprofits and even local governments interfered
and swayed public opinion. It was a take-no-prisoners battle for the
presidency. In some cases, flat-out lies and off-color comparisons were so
far from reality that the Mexican Electoral Institute resorted to outlawing
some TV ads.
The problems in the election are ubiquitous. Charges of ballot stuffing,
vote buying, misreported vote tallies and blatant support from elected
officials raise serious concerns about the quality and, most important, the
equality in this election. The good news for Mexico is that, as in the
United States, there are courts that will bring closure to the election.
The Federal Electoral Tribunal in Mexico will decide on the validity of any
allegations or irregularities. This court is the single institution with the
authority to announce the winner of the election. It has experience with
high-profile elections and difficult decisions and has even overturned the
elections in two Mexican states. It will be up to the court to officially
declare the winner.
A truly democratic electoral process is still a challenge in Mexico. López
Obrador is leading peaceful civil resistance to appease the frustrations of
the millions of people dissatisfied with the electoral process. These
frustrations can also be alleviated by the court, through a new recount.
A full recount of the votes, and transparent legal proceedings, would be
good for Mexico for several reasons. First, it would strengthen Mexico's
young democracy. Mexico has a long history of electoral fraud, and there are
still sour memories of the 1988 election, in which left-leaning Cuauhtémoc
Cárdenas was allegedly robbed of victory. A vote-by-vote count would ease
these worries and bring credibility.
Second, it would make government more effective. Either Calderón or López
Obrador will need to negotiate with Mexico's deeply divided Congress to
approve critical reforms. A genuine and lawfully recognized winner will be
able to negotiate across party lines. Since none of the parties will be
holding a majority in Congress, it will be impossible to govern without full
authority.
Third, it will bring legitimacy to the winner of the election. Each one of
the front-runners received only about one-third of the votes, and regardless
of who wins the election, the victor will win with less than one percentage
point difference. Approximately 65 percent of Mexicans will not have voted
for the new president, whether it is Calderón or López Obrador. That is why
the president will need as much clout as possible.
López Obrador has said that if he loses the recount, he will accept the
results, though under protest, and will call off any demonstrations. He has
also said that he will work over the next few years to create a civil
organization that will promote a national democracy project.
But Mexicans still have a month and a half before they know the outcome of
their election. In 2000 the United States also waited to find out who the
winner was. Thankfully, Mexico has an advantage over the United States in
its electoral process: enough time for legal challenges.
On Sept. 6, the Federal Electoral Tribunal will declare the winner. The
winner takes office on Dec. 1, which means that he will have ample time to
create a transition team, come up with a cabinet and get ready to tackle the
business of running a nation. Mexico just needs a little bit of patience.
The writer is currently U.S.-Mexico affairs adviser to Andrés Manuel López
Obrador. He is also director of the Pan-American initiative office at
Arizona State University and special adviser to the university president.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
By Jorge de los Santos
The Washington Post
Thursday, July 27, 2006; A25
The 2000 U.S. presidential election was a bitter episode in American
history. It was one of the closest elections ever, with 537 votes in the
state of Florida separating the candidates. It took a month of court
challenges and recounts before the election was finally certified.
After Election Day, several weeks of legal maneuvering by the Bush and Gore
teams followed. Neither side was satisfied with the vote counts, and both
crafted plans of action and created their own "recount commissions." At the
end, after hearing all the arguments, the courts ultimately ruled, clearing
the way for a Bush presidency.
Independent studies by universities and news organizations concluded that
the different methods of counting the votes yielded different results. For
example, a lenient standard of counting the hanging chads gave the victory
to George W. Bush, while a strict standard gave it to Al Gore. But the
courts played the final part in the episode. They brought certainty and
finality to the dispute.
Now Mexico has its own soap opera version of an election. After a
nerve-racking election night, contradictory exit polls and preliminary
recounts that went up and down like a roller coaster, the conservative
candidate, Felipe Calderón, is holding a razor-thin lead over the
left-leaning candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador. With a margin of
200,000 votes separating the candidates, and allegations of serious
irregularities, Mexico is still waiting for its new president.
This was a highly polarized campaign. Below-the-belt attacks and challenges
were widespread. Companies, nonprofits and even local governments interfered
and swayed public opinion. It was a take-no-prisoners battle for the
presidency. In some cases, flat-out lies and off-color comparisons were so
far from reality that the Mexican Electoral Institute resorted to outlawing
some TV ads.
The problems in the election are ubiquitous. Charges of ballot stuffing,
vote buying, misreported vote tallies and blatant support from elected
officials raise serious concerns about the quality and, most important, the
equality in this election. The good news for Mexico is that, as in the
United States, there are courts that will bring closure to the election.
The Federal Electoral Tribunal in Mexico will decide on the validity of any
allegations or irregularities. This court is the single institution with the
authority to announce the winner of the election. It has experience with
high-profile elections and difficult decisions and has even overturned the
elections in two Mexican states. It will be up to the court to officially
declare the winner.
A truly democratic electoral process is still a challenge in Mexico. López
Obrador is leading peaceful civil resistance to appease the frustrations of
the millions of people dissatisfied with the electoral process. These
frustrations can also be alleviated by the court, through a new recount.
A full recount of the votes, and transparent legal proceedings, would be
good for Mexico for several reasons. First, it would strengthen Mexico's
young democracy. Mexico has a long history of electoral fraud, and there are
still sour memories of the 1988 election, in which left-leaning Cuauhtémoc
Cárdenas was allegedly robbed of victory. A vote-by-vote count would ease
these worries and bring credibility.
Second, it would make government more effective. Either Calderón or López
Obrador will need to negotiate with Mexico's deeply divided Congress to
approve critical reforms. A genuine and lawfully recognized winner will be
able to negotiate across party lines. Since none of the parties will be
holding a majority in Congress, it will be impossible to govern without full
authority.
Third, it will bring legitimacy to the winner of the election. Each one of
the front-runners received only about one-third of the votes, and regardless
of who wins the election, the victor will win with less than one percentage
point difference. Approximately 65 percent of Mexicans will not have voted
for the new president, whether it is Calderón or López Obrador. That is why
the president will need as much clout as possible.
López Obrador has said that if he loses the recount, he will accept the
results, though under protest, and will call off any demonstrations. He has
also said that he will work over the next few years to create a civil
organization that will promote a national democracy project.
But Mexicans still have a month and a half before they know the outcome of
their election. In 2000 the United States also waited to find out who the
winner was. Thankfully, Mexico has an advantage over the United States in
its electoral process: enough time for legal challenges.
On Sept. 6, the Federal Electoral Tribunal will declare the winner. The
winner takes office on Dec. 1, which means that he will have ample time to
create a transition team, come up with a cabinet and get ready to tackle the
business of running a nation. Mexico just needs a little bit of patience.
The writer is currently U.S.-Mexico affairs adviser to Andrés Manuel López
Obrador. He is also director of the Pan-American initiative office at
Arizona State University and special adviser to the university president.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
