Lopez-Obrador deserves full recount
by Letters to the Editor
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
I was troubled by Andrew Wagner’s article in the Sept. 14 paper entitled “Obrador threatens stability.” It is preposterous to expect Mexican voters to put their outrage on hold over suspected widespread fraud, because it might threaten trade relations with the U.S. It is also dangerous to look at the election with a U.S.-centric perspective because it leads to arrogant assumptions, but more importantly, it undermines an accurate understanding of what’s at stake.
The mentality of the author (and “mainstream” journalists as well) completely ignores the question of fraud. Instead of further investigating the charges made by Andrés Manuel López Obrador (or “AMLO”), all news reports have side-stepped the issue and have minimized it to secondary importance.
Often, as seen in this paper, AMLO is compared to Gore. However, it is not a matter of dimpled chads, but systematic and widespread fraud, involving actions throughout the political hierarchy. They simply are not comparable. Further, it is hard to claim that AMLO and his “yellow revolution” are destroying Mexico; fraud and lapdog politicians beat him to it.
There is a prevalent political history of the Mexican people. From 1929 until 2000, the Institutional Revolution Party (PRI) held power through force, fraud, and corruption. In 1988, the first Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) candidate, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, lost to the PRI after a computer “crashed.” And this year, Felipe Calderón of the ruling National Action Party (PAN) won the presidency amidst allegations of PRI-esque irregularities. Based upon this past, the Mexican people are rightly justified in raising hell and attempting to create a parallel government, this one of the people.
Let’s look for a moment at this “alleged” fraud, particularly the numbers following the partial recount. Out of slightly over 40 million votes, AMLO lost to Calderón by 240,000, or less than 0.6 percent — a difference of less than two votes per polling precinct. The court-ordered recount covered 11,839 out of 130,000 precincts, or nine percent. In this limited scope, a number of extra ballots were discovered — 45,890 beyond the number legally issued. An additional 80,392 ballots disappeared. Initially, 2.5 million ballots went missing in action, and a number of ballot boxes were found, still sealed, in garbage dumps. Extrapolating the remaining 91 percent of precincts, 1.5 million votes were manipulated through taqueo (stuffed with forged ballots) and saqueo (looting). While it is unclear that the result would really swing by that many votes, the irregularities suggest that a reversal would be all but certain.
The July 2 election and the following protests were about more than just the election. Unlike in the U.S., a clear majority of the population is either indigenous or poor, and have historically been disenfranchised and oppressed. In AMLO’s words, “we have the fourth-highest number of millionaires in the world, in Mexico. That would be OK, if there wasn’t so much poverty. But there are 50 million Mexicans that live in extreme poverty. So our project is in favor of humble people, poor people.”
The election has created a political space and a voice for these people, and has nourished the ongoing Zapatista uprising in Chiapas and the more recent attempt by the people of Oaxaca to overthrow their PRI governor and replace him with a popular assembly. Thus, AMLO’s large support base isn’t seeking to merely put him in power, they’re going to the Presidency along with him.
Unfortunately, the media has taken to assuming that he holds them in some sort of hypnosis, that he is a conniving chessmaster, and they are his brainless pawns. This line of thinking decides that the indigenous, the poor, and the women who support him are incapable of making their own political decisions. Instead, the Mexican people have liberated democracy from the ballot box and set it free in the streets.
Most appalling of the editorial in question is the idea that AMLO should be concerned primarily with the effect on the U.S. The tide of left-ism rolling through Central and South America, Mexico included, is mainly fueled by opposition to painful trade and social regulations forced upon them by the U.S. So instead of feeling obligated to give up and kneel before hegemony, AMLO has a clear mandate from his supporters to thumb his nose at the U.S. instead. He and his supporters have no reason to stop their movement; they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
If the U.S. truly is to support the idea of global democracy, we should support this movement for democracy, as well as a full recount. This is the only way faith in the “fledgling democracy” can be restored. Otherwise, we are in action supporting fraud over democracy.
Without a full recount, voto por voto, we will not have a Greek tragedy on our hands, but a second Mexican Revolution.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
I was troubled by Andrew Wagner’s article in the Sept. 14 paper entitled “Obrador threatens stability.” It is preposterous to expect Mexican voters to put their outrage on hold over suspected widespread fraud, because it might threaten trade relations with the U.S. It is also dangerous to look at the election with a U.S.-centric perspective because it leads to arrogant assumptions, but more importantly, it undermines an accurate understanding of what’s at stake.
The mentality of the author (and “mainstream” journalists as well) completely ignores the question of fraud. Instead of further investigating the charges made by Andrés Manuel López Obrador (or “AMLO”), all news reports have side-stepped the issue and have minimized it to secondary importance.
Often, as seen in this paper, AMLO is compared to Gore. However, it is not a matter of dimpled chads, but systematic and widespread fraud, involving actions throughout the political hierarchy. They simply are not comparable. Further, it is hard to claim that AMLO and his “yellow revolution” are destroying Mexico; fraud and lapdog politicians beat him to it.
There is a prevalent political history of the Mexican people. From 1929 until 2000, the Institutional Revolution Party (PRI) held power through force, fraud, and corruption. In 1988, the first Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) candidate, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, lost to the PRI after a computer “crashed.” And this year, Felipe Calderón of the ruling National Action Party (PAN) won the presidency amidst allegations of PRI-esque irregularities. Based upon this past, the Mexican people are rightly justified in raising hell and attempting to create a parallel government, this one of the people.
Let’s look for a moment at this “alleged” fraud, particularly the numbers following the partial recount. Out of slightly over 40 million votes, AMLO lost to Calderón by 240,000, or less than 0.6 percent — a difference of less than two votes per polling precinct. The court-ordered recount covered 11,839 out of 130,000 precincts, or nine percent. In this limited scope, a number of extra ballots were discovered — 45,890 beyond the number legally issued. An additional 80,392 ballots disappeared. Initially, 2.5 million ballots went missing in action, and a number of ballot boxes were found, still sealed, in garbage dumps. Extrapolating the remaining 91 percent of precincts, 1.5 million votes were manipulated through taqueo (stuffed with forged ballots) and saqueo (looting). While it is unclear that the result would really swing by that many votes, the irregularities suggest that a reversal would be all but certain.
The July 2 election and the following protests were about more than just the election. Unlike in the U.S., a clear majority of the population is either indigenous or poor, and have historically been disenfranchised and oppressed. In AMLO’s words, “we have the fourth-highest number of millionaires in the world, in Mexico. That would be OK, if there wasn’t so much poverty. But there are 50 million Mexicans that live in extreme poverty. So our project is in favor of humble people, poor people.”
The election has created a political space and a voice for these people, and has nourished the ongoing Zapatista uprising in Chiapas and the more recent attempt by the people of Oaxaca to overthrow their PRI governor and replace him with a popular assembly. Thus, AMLO’s large support base isn’t seeking to merely put him in power, they’re going to the Presidency along with him.
Unfortunately, the media has taken to assuming that he holds them in some sort of hypnosis, that he is a conniving chessmaster, and they are his brainless pawns. This line of thinking decides that the indigenous, the poor, and the women who support him are incapable of making their own political decisions. Instead, the Mexican people have liberated democracy from the ballot box and set it free in the streets.
Most appalling of the editorial in question is the idea that AMLO should be concerned primarily with the effect on the U.S. The tide of left-ism rolling through Central and South America, Mexico included, is mainly fueled by opposition to painful trade and social regulations forced upon them by the U.S. So instead of feeling obligated to give up and kneel before hegemony, AMLO has a clear mandate from his supporters to thumb his nose at the U.S. instead. He and his supporters have no reason to stop their movement; they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
If the U.S. truly is to support the idea of global democracy, we should support this movement for democracy, as well as a full recount. This is the only way faith in the “fledgling democracy” can be restored. Otherwise, we are in action supporting fraud over democracy.
Without a full recount, voto por voto, we will not have a Greek tragedy on our hands, but a second Mexican Revolution.
posted by Alice at
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
2 Comments:
UNA AGUILA QUE CAE.
En cierta ocasión tuve la oportunidad de conocer a un paisano que, entre plática y plática me comentó que tiempo atrás, antes de dedicarse al negocio de la soldadura —ahora carena barcos en los diques de la región—, había sido zardo en su juventud.
Me dijo que por cosas del destino y siendo su padre amigo personal de un prominente político, éste lo sacó de repente de la milicia para insertarlo —así sin más— en el grupo que servía entonces como guardia presidencial en los tiempos de la transición del poder entre De la Madrid y Carlos Salinas.
Por supuesto que no me sorprendió en absoluto cuando le escuché decir que ahora, el tan sólo pronunciar el nombre de Salinas le producía —así sin más— un cierto escozor en el pescuezo, pero reconoció que en su tiempo, “el chaparrito mondo” tuvo un poder super encabronado en nuestro país. Y he aquí que de repente, entre parrafada y cháchara, se le salió decirme algo que en verdad me cimbró.
Me dijo en voz baja —así sin más—, que en determinada fecha del año 1988, justo en los aciagos tiempos electorales y en cierto lugar (no mencionó el sitio naturalmente) de la ciudad de México, él fue testigo de un encuentro discretísimo entre las íntimas huestes de Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas y las de Carlos Salinas. Ellos, como cohorte personal de un Salinas ya “electo”, recibieron ordenes de acordonar la cuadra donde éstos dos individuos se entrevistaron, y desde luego, nada pudieron saber de lo que acordaron en secreto. Pero lo que sí pudo mirar —así sin más—, fue cuando Cárdenas salió del edificio cargado con maletas de dinero —él dixit—, las que metió rápidamente a uno de los vehículos para perderse después entre el tráfico.
Esto que digo no tendría nada que ver con inocencia o sospecha, con candor o suspicacia, con ingenuidad o recelo a no ser por la noticia que se publicó apenas ayer en “todos los periódicos México” sobre la personal postura de Cárdenas respecto de los sucesos políticos que están ocurriendo en el país. Sabido es que Cuauhtémoc, “el águila que cae”, por años ha tenido un cierto prestigio político —a últimas fechas ya algo desgastado— que, bien manejado por los cabecillas de la imposición puede surtir algún efecto en las ¿cándidas? mentes del defraudado elector.
Por ello cuando leí la nota recordé —así sin más—, la confidencia que me hiciera aquel paisano, el que fuera militar en su juventud y a la postre guardia presidencial, pero que hoy prefiere ser carenador de barcos en los diques de la región. Este humilde paisano, dolido por lo que vió, renunció poco después al cargo y prefirió salirse del estiércol que siempre ha sido la política mexicana.
Francamente y por más que uno le busque, no se puede entender la postura de Cuauhtémoc cuando todos sabemos que es el partido que él mismo fundó el que está luchando por un cambio de cosas en el México del siglo veintiuno. ¿De qué se trata, Cuauhtémoc? Como están las cosas casi todos sabemos —y una gran mayoría, cándidamente, lo sospecha— que en 1988 hubo fraude electoral. ¿Y qué hizo el buen Cuauhtémoc? ¿Volar como el águila aunque le quemasen los pies o entrevistarse a ultranza con Salinas para pactar la elección, para recibir esas maletas que mi paisano dice que miró? Y aquí la pregunta es: ¿se vendió Cuauhtémoc en el 88? No lo sabemos.
Pero si él en su momento no actuó con patriotismo, no fue capaz de defender un triunfo que a todas luces le favoreció, ¿por qué se opone ahora a que López Obrador defienda su causa envuelto en la bandera de su propio partido?
¿Daño irreversible a la izquierda o defensa de intereses particulares? ¿De qué se trata?
Ahora mismo he comenzado a sentir —así sin más—, al igual que mi paisano, el viejo zardo retirado sintió, un cierto escozor en el pescuezo.
Y puedo ver pájaros negros que sobrevuelan Palacio, penachos de plumas que se derriten en el fuego, extranjeros que nos queman los pies para encontrar el tesoro… y también —así sin más, como entre brumas—, a un águila que cae.
Por OswaldoLilly
Translation from babelfish: I also asked a teenager at my job who speaks & reads Spanish to check it & she said that is about as good as it could translated, in her opinion:
A AGUILA THAT FALLS. In certain occasion I had the opportunity to know a countryman who, between talk and talk commented me that time back, before dedicating itself to the business of the weld - now careens boats in the docks of the region -, had been zardo in its youth. It said to me that by things of the destiny and being its father personal friend of a prominent politician, this one removed it suddenly from the military service to insert it - thus immediately in the group than it served then like presidential guard in the times of the transition of the power between As Saline Madrid and Carlos. Of course that did not surprise to me absolutely when I listened to him to say that now, to only pronounce the name of Salt mines it produced to him - thus without plus a certain irritation in the neck, but it recognized that in its time, "the clean chaparrito" had a encabronado super power in our country. And I have here suddenly, between parrafada and cháchara, left to say to me something to him that in truth swayed to me. It said to me in low voice - thus immediately -, than in determined date of year 1988, just in the ill-fated electoral times and certain place (he did not mention the site naturally) of the city of Mexico, he was witness of an encounter discretísimo between the intimate Cardinal red followers of Saline Cuauhtémoc and those of Carlos. They, like cohorte personal of Salt mines "already elect", received you order to surround the block where these two individuals entrevistaron themselves, and of course, nothing could know of which decided privily. But what yes he could watch - thus immediately -, she was when Cardinal red left the building loaded with suitcases of money - he dixit -, those that put quickly to one of the vehicles to lose themselves later between the traffic. This that I say would not have anything to do with innocence or suspects, with candor or mistrust, with naivete or distrust but for the news that was published just yesterday in "all the Mexico newspapers" on the personal Cardinal red position of respect to the political events that are happening in the country. Known he is that Cuauhtémoc, "the eagle that falls", per years has had a certain political prestige - to last dates already something worn away that, handled well by the ringleaders of the imposition can have some desired effect in the innocent ones? minds of the electing defrauded one. For that reason when I read the note I remembered - thus immediately -, the secret that to me that countryman did, the one that outside military man in its youth and in the end presidential guard, but whom today it prefers to be carenador of boats in the docks of the region. This humble countryman, hurt reason why vió, resigned shortly after to the position and preferred to leave the dung that always has been the Mexican policy. Frankly and no matter how hard one looks for to him, the position cannot be understood of Cuauhtémoc when all we know that it is the party that he himself founded the one who is fighting by a change of things in the Mexico of the century veintiuno. What one is, Cuauhtémoc? As all are the things almost we know - and a great majority, innocently, it suspects it that in 1988 there was electoral fraud. And what made the good Cuauhtémoc? To fly as the eagle although burned the feet to him or to meet itself at any cost with Salt mines to agree to the election, to receive those suitcases that my countryman says that he watched? And here the question is: was sold Cuauhtémoc in the 88? We do not know it. But if he at his moment did not act with patriotism, he was not able to defend a triumph that to all lights favored to him, by what is against now to that Lopez Obrador defends their cause surrounded in the flag of their own party? Irreversible damage to the left or defense of particular interests? What one is? Right now I have begun to feel - thus immediately -, like my countryman, old zardo retired felt, a certain irritation in the neck. And I can see black birds that they fly over Palace, plumes of pens that melt in the fire, foreigners that the feet burn to also find the treasure... and - thus immediately, as between mists -, to an eagle that falls. By OswaldoLilly
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home