Mexico's Two Presidents and Two Governments Dual Power, Revolution, or Populist Theater?
by Dan La Botz
Oct 4
The Mexican Electoral Tribunal recognized Felipe Calderon as
president-elect, while a massive National Democratic Convention has
proclaimed Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to be the "legitimate
president of Mexico." AMLO is now creating an alternative government,
and says he will call a constituent assembly that will write a new
constitution. What is happening here? Is this a radical fight for
reforms? A potentially revolutionary movement? Or a spectacular piece
of populist theater?
More than a million people gathered on September 16, Independence
Day, on Mexico City's national Plaza of the Constitution and the
surrounding streets for blocks around and-after enduring a drenching
cloud burst-proclaimed that Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was the
legitimate president of Mexico. The massive National Democratic
Convention (CND) repudiated the "usurper" Felipe Calderon and called
for the end of the existing Mexican government, for the "abolition of
the regime of privileges." The CND also called for the organization
of a campaign of national civil disobedience with one of its
objectives being to prevent Calderon from taking the oath of office.
Lopez Obrador has once again demonstrated that he is a brilliant
populist politician with a remarkable ability to mobilize the masses
and to maintain a posture of defiance toward the government, while
avoiding the danger of direct confrontation.
In calling the Convention, Lopez Obrador stated that he was operating
in the great Mexican revolutionary tradition beginning with Miguel
Hidalgo y Castillo and Jose Maria Morelos in the Independence
struggle of 1810-1825; Benito Juarez, leader of the Liberals in the
Reform Movement and the war against France in the 1850s and 60s; and
Francisco Madero and Emiliano Zapata in the Mexican Revolution of
1910-1940. Yet, while claiming the revolutionary inheritance, and
adopting a revolutionary rhetoric, Lopez Obrador and his Party of the
Democratic Revolution, are hard at work attempting to make the most
of the foothold they have in the old order.
While proclaiming a position tantamount to revolution, Lopez Obrador
and the PRD have continued to work within the existing power
structure. The National Democratic Convention authorized the parties
which made up Lopez Obrador's For the Good of All Coalition, the
Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), the Workers Party (PT), and
Convergence, to reorganize to create the Broad Progressive Front
(FAP) which will work as a bloc in the newly elected Mexican
parliament ^ that is, in the parliament of the actually existing
Mexican government. The PRD's legislative coordinator, Javier
Gonzalez Garza, met with coordinators of the conservative National
Action Party (PAN) and the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI),
to create a more efficient and dynamic congress, one that would,
according to the PRD's Gonzalez end log-jams in the lower house. The
PRD has also agreed to serve with the PAN and the PRI in the
collective leadership of the legislature, with Ruth Zavaleta Salgado
as vice-president. PRD governors in Baja California Sur, Guerrero,
Michoacan, and Zacatecas will also take power within the existing
governmental structure. PRD governors have just participated in the
National Governors Congress (Conago) with PAN and PRI governors. So,
apparently, while repudiating the old regime, the PRD will also
continue to work and to serve in leadership positions within it.
Just what is happening here? Are we witnessing the emergence of a
revolutionary alternative? Or is this an extraordinary and
spectacular populist theater intended to project Lopez Obrador into
power in the next election?
>From the Election to the CND
The current situation results from the irregularities, challenges,
and disappointments with the Mexican election of July. The Mexican
Electoral Tribunal had earlier rejected Lopez Obrador's call for a
vote-by-vote, polling-place-by-polling-place recount of the election.
And, while the court recognized that Mexico's President Vicente Fox
had violated the election laws by intervening in the election
campaign and that Mexican corporations had violated the law by paying
for last-minute advertising attacking Lopez Obrador, they would not
on that basis overturn the election results, as they could have done.
The National Association of Democratic Attorneys (ANAD) issued a
statement asserting that the courts could have and should have
overturned the election for those reasons. The court instead
proclaimed Felipe Calderon the president-elect of Mexico, although
Lopez Obrador and his supporters have refused to accept the decision.
Believing that the national election in July had been stolen from
them, hundreds of thousands of supporters of Lopez Obrador and the
Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) rallied in the national
plaza and then camped there for 48 days and at the same time blocked
the length of the city's principal boulevard, Avenida Reforma, and
its major intersections, paralyzing the heart of the city. The night
of September 15 they struck camp, clearing away their lean-tos and
tents, to permit the Mexican Army's annual Independence Day march,
but then they returned the next day for the CND joined by over a
million other Mexicans from Baja California in the North to Chiapas
in the South.
The organizers claimed that 1,025,724 delegates had actually
registered to be present at the convention, coming from all of the 32
states of Mexico. Many of those present on the plaza were los de
abajo, Mexico's underdogs: factory workers, peasants, the self-
employed, street vendors, school teachers, and college and high
school students. Entire families and neighborhoods, from babes-in-
arms to the elderly, filled the streets, many carrying hand made
banners and signs.
The CND Conducts Business by Voice Vote in the Open Air
The CND assembly, in a series of voice votes, proclaimed Lopez Obador
the legitimate president, instructed him to create a cabinet, and to
establish the seat of government in Mexico City, the national
capital. At the same time, the government was instructed to be
itinerant, moving about throughout the country to hear from and to
lead the Mexican people. The new government was instructed to take
power on November 20, the anniversary of the outbreak of the Mexican
Revolution of 1910. Getting the jump on his rival, Lopez Obrador will
then "take office" as "legitimate president" more than a week before
Felipe Calderon, who will not be sworn in until December 1.
The CND also created a national commission to lead the movement of
civil disobedience and to prevent Calderon from taking office, the
commission is to meet on September 27 and continue between October 2
and 13, concentrating all of its efforts toward the official
presidential swearing-in ceremony at the beginning of December. The
next full CND assembly was scheduled for Sunday, March 21 of 2007. At
that next assembly the CND is expected to organize the convocation of
a Constituent Assembly to write a new constitution and re-found the
Mexican government.
A Constitutional and Peaceful Revolution
Lopez Obrador claims that Felipe Calderon, "the usurper," has
violated the institutional order of Mexico. Lopez Obrador argues that
he is the defender of Mexico's democratic traditions, and bases the
calling of the National Democratic Convention and the projected
Constituent Assembly on Article 39 of the Mexican Constitution which
reads, "The national sovereignty resides essentially and originally
in the people All public power originates in the people and is
instituted for their benefit. The people at all times have the
inalienable right to alter or modify their form of government." This
article, he argues, give the people the right to meet and to re-found
their government. The Constituent Assembly which is to take place, he
argues, will establish a more democratic government, protect the
national patrimony and stop the privatization of the oil and electric
power industries, will provide for the good of all Mexicans, but will
put the poor first on the list of national priorities.
Throughout the weeks of protests, sit-ins, and marches, Lopez Obrador
has constantly cautioned his followers to remain non-violent, to
refuse to be provoked into confrontation, and remarkably not a window
has been broken nor a slogan painted on a single wall in the city.
Many among the hundreds of thousands participating in the events
commented that the city was actually safer during the huge
mobilizations. All of this has been made possible by the fact that
the PRD controls the government of Mexico City which has been the
host of these massive protests. The PRD government has insured that
the police have functioned to facilitate the protests and protect the
protestors, rather than to suppress them. Unable to control the
capital, President Vicente Fox decided not to give the
traditional "grito" or Independence Day shout from the balcony of the
National Palace which overlooks the Plaza of the Constitution, and
instead he flew to Dolores, Hidalgo, the site of the first grito
given by Miguel Castillo y Hidalgo on September 16, 1810. Security
officials said that there had been plans for a violent attack,
perhaps an assault on his life, if he attempted to give the grito in
Mexico City. No evidence was produced.
Plebiscitary Democracy
The National Democratic Convention was not a national democratic
convention as most people understand those words. This was not a
delegated convention, but a mass assembly. The CND was not organized
through the structures of the Party of the Democratic Revolution, nor
through coalitions of existing organizations, nor was any other
structure very transparent. Lopez Obrador and the leaders of his
campaign created a committee to convene and to preside over the
Convention, but the movements, rank and file had no opportunity to
choose it leadership or to shape its agenda. Lopez Obrador did not
attempt to prepare the convention by convening the many mass
organizations of peasants, workers, and the urban poor. Lopez Obrador
did not involve in the planning or given an active role in the
Convention to groups such as the Mexican Mine and Metal Workers Union
or Teachers Union Local 22 or the leaders of the town of Atenco, or
to any other of the existing social movements. Those who led the
convention and those who stood in the rain did so as individual
supporters of Lopez Obrador.
While there was enormous popular participation and popular approval
of the positions presented, a convention en masse does not permit the
presentation of resolutions, debate over alternatives. This was a
plebiscitary democracy where the masses shout yeah or nay to the
positions and alternatives offered by the person on the platform.
While less rhapsodic than Fidel Castro and less charismatic than Hugo
Chavez, this was a Convention based in large part on the direct
communication between the leader and the people in the style of Latin
American caudillos since Juan Peron and long before. Which is not to
say that the CND did not have a clear political content, for it
clearly did: an end to the ruling elite, defense of the national
patrimony and social welfare for the people.
Critics to the Right and Left
As one would expect, all of the conservative forces have given their
full support to Calderon while damning Lopez Obrador. Throughout this
process of post-election protest and the proclamation of an
alternative president and government, President Fox and the National
Action Party have upheld the legitimacy of the election and hailed
the victory of Felipe Calderon. Like Lopez Obrador, Fox and Calderon
put themselves forward as the defenders of Mexico's democratic
institutions and they argue that Lopez Obrador threatens those
institutons and raises the possibility of conflict and violence.
Predictably, the Mexican business class, represented through
COPARMEX, the Mexican employers, association which stands at the
heart of the PAN, has also welcomed Calderon's victory and scorns
Lopez Obrador. Mexico's leading Bishops have also called upon Lopez
Obrador to concede defeat and recognize the victory of Calderon. U.S.
President George W. Bush called to congratulate Calderon on his
victory early on.
Lopez Obrador also has critics on the left. Cuauhtemoc Cardenas,
founder of the Party of the Democratic Revolution and twice its
candidate for president in the past, severely criticized Lopez
Obrador for surrounding himself and filling the party with
opportunists, for the lack of a serious political program, and for
intolerance of political differences. Cardenas has argued that it is
a great mistake for Lopez Obrador to proclaims himself president and
predicts that it will do permanent damage to Mexico's left. Adolfo
Gilly, Mexico's leading left intellectual theorist, concurs with many
of Cardenas's criticisms, but attacks the PRD for its two-faced
position of supporting Lopez Obrador's campaign while making deals
with the PAN. He also criticizes the failure of Lopez Obrador and the
PRD to support the struggle of the Zapatista Army of National
Liberation and other popular movements. Marcos Rascon, former Mexican
leftist guerrilla, former PRD congressman, and irascible radical
critic argues that Lopez Obrador is a populist with "a Bonapartist
attitude," that is, that he is a would-be dictator. Rascon also
claims that the National Democratic Convention represents a
fundamental break with the great Mexican revolutionary traditions
from Ricardo Flores Magon and Emiliano Zapata to the Cardenismo of
the 1930s and the 1980s.
The EZLN, of course, has never liked Lopez Obrador. Subcomandante
Marcos, leader of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation which
mounted its own rather marginal non-electoral campaign for a
socialism from below, has from the beginning attacked Lopez Obrador
as fundamentally conservative and opportunist. The EZLN's Marcos did,
however, speak out against the fraud in what he calls a stolen
election. Whatever his critics on the left may say, Lopez Obrador has
not only captured the imagination of the people but has also in
effect become the dominant force on the left.
The Balance of Forces
Do Lopez Obrador, PRD, the Broad Progressive Front, and the National
Democratic Convention represent the emerging institutions of a new
class power? Do we see in the movement which Lopez Obrador leads
institutions that give expressions to movements and organizations of
working people and the poor which begin to represent an alternative
to the existing Mexican state?
Fox, the PAN and its current ally the PRI, of course, control the
Mexican government, its bureaucracy, the Army and the police and
could use them to put down any serious opposition. Since 1994 the
Mexican government has used the Army against the Zapatista Army of
National Liberation (EZLN) and the broader social movement in Chiapas
in the South, and throughout the 1990s against drug dealers in the
North. During the last year the Federal government has deployed the
new Federal Prevent Police (PFP) against striking workers and
community activists in central Mexico. While Lopez Obrador has called
upon the Army to refuse to obey orders to repress Mexican citizens,
there is no reason to doubt the loyalty of the Army and the PFP and
other police forces to the government. Mexico has used the military
to put down popular movements in 1959, 1968, 1976 and called out the
army in 1994 against the Zapatistas, and there seems no reason that
it would not be able to do so again.
Do the Numbers Exist?
Lopez Obrador does not appear to have the sheer numbers of supporters
throughout Mexico to challenge the state. Each of the leading
candidates won 16 states: Lopez Obrador and the PRD won in the poorer
center and South of Mexico while Felipe Calderon of the PAN won
almost all of the more prosperous North. However, according to the
disputed official count, Lopez Obrador captured only 35.3% of the
vote, while Calderon won 35.9 and Roberto Madrazo of the PRI won
22.3% That is, almost 2/3 of all voters voted for the two more
conservative candidates, while only about 1/3 supported a program of
reform based on increased social welfare. Even if Lopez Obrador was
cheated out of a million votes as many believe, he would still have
had only a somewhat large plurality but nothing near a majority of
support. While some people who voted for Lopez Obrador as a reformer
might be moved to adopt a position of revolutionary opposition to the
state if they felt their votes were stolen, one would suspect that
not all PRD supporters would take that position, while very few from
other parties would join them.
Perhaps some on the far left would support Lopez Obrador in a battle
over democracy, but their numbers are few. No far left revolutionary
party even qualified to appear on the ballot. Moreover, the
explicitly anti-capitalist and anti-electoral "Other Campaign" of the
Zapatista Army of National Liberation vehemently opposed Lopez
Obrador during the campaign, and is unlikely to support him now.
Mexico's revolutionary left appears to be smaller and less
significant than it was in the 1960s-1980s.
Does the Organization Exist?
Nor does the opposition appear to have the organization, structure
and leadership to put together a force powerful enough to challenge
the Mexican government at this time. Except for Mexico City and a few
states such as Michoacan, the PRD has been a minority party and a
deeply divided and factional party. Founded in 1989, the PRD has
throughout its brief history been an electoral party, not a party
neither founded upon nor leading a social movement. While during the
campaign the PRD appeared at times to be badly divided, at the moment
it seems to be showing remarkable cohesion, with the marked exception
of Cuauhtemoc Cardenas.
During the current struggle, there have been enormous demonstrations,
marches, and sit-ins in Mexico City, but so far such demonstrations
have been limited to Mexico City.
While the PRD at times came to a working relationship with the
National Union of Workers (UNT), it has never been able to give
leadership to the working class or even much support to the UNT or
any other union, and Lopez Obrador has not had a labor program. The
PRD does have a significant following among working people and the
poor of the central and southern states, as its electoral results
indicate, but beyond elections this has not been much of an organized
following.
True, there are large and significant social struggles taking place
today in Mexico, particularly the series of strikes by members of the
Miners and Metal Workers Union (SNTMMRM) and the teachers strike by
Local 22 of the Mexican Teachers Union (SNTE). However the PRD has
not given leadership to those struggles, nor do those involved in
those struggles necessarily support the PRD. The leadership of Local
22 has said that it would not participate in the National Democratic
Convention called by Lopez Obrador (though some of its members did),
and it continues to negotiate with Secretary of the Interior Carlos
Abascal, suggesting that it looks to this Mexican government to
resolve its problems, not to some possible future republic.
Finally, Vicente Fox, Felipe Calderon and the PAN have the support of
the U.S. government which would much prefer to have a conservative
government in power, and which certainly does not want social
upheaval taking place in its neighbor nation. Without a doubt Fox has
been conferring with the Bush government about the situation, and one
would suppose that the Mexican military has been in touch with its
American counterpart. Although it would prefer that Mexico's elite
take the necessary political action to resolve problems, the U.S.
would certainly be prepared to use whatever means are necessary to
support the Mexican government.
The Balance Might be Changed
Some have talked about what's happening in Mexico in terms of "dual
power." Leon Trotsky used that term in his History of the Russian
Revolution to describe what happens when a rising social class
creates new and alternative institutions of social power. So far we
have not seen that happen in Mexico where a real power, the Mexican
state, confronts Lopez Obrador and the CND, an important political
and social movement, but not a movement that has been built upon or
yet given rise to alternative institutions of governance that
represent a second power. Nor is it clear that Lopez Obrador has the
will or the capacity to create them. What he has created is a mass
movement on the left with a radical rhetoric, a movement made up of
people who yearn for a new society of democracy and social justice.
While his rhetoric promises revolution, his actions suggest a
militant struggle for reform, which is not therefore to be
discounted. Within that struggle for reform, genuine revolutionary
voices and forces may develop.
All of that having been said, social movements, especially if they
begin to have some success can grow rapidly, and unfolding events can
force them to change their character. The balance of forces can shift
rapidly and radically under the right circumstances. The power of
mass movements has played a significant role in the change of
governments in Latin America in the last decade. So, while Lopez
Obrador and the PRD may not yet have sufficient strength, a mistake
by the government could suddenly give a lift to the opposition
movement.
Oct 4
The Mexican Electoral Tribunal recognized Felipe Calderon as
president-elect, while a massive National Democratic Convention has
proclaimed Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to be the "legitimate
president of Mexico." AMLO is now creating an alternative government,
and says he will call a constituent assembly that will write a new
constitution. What is happening here? Is this a radical fight for
reforms? A potentially revolutionary movement? Or a spectacular piece
of populist theater?
More than a million people gathered on September 16, Independence
Day, on Mexico City's national Plaza of the Constitution and the
surrounding streets for blocks around and-after enduring a drenching
cloud burst-proclaimed that Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was the
legitimate president of Mexico. The massive National Democratic
Convention (CND) repudiated the "usurper" Felipe Calderon and called
for the end of the existing Mexican government, for the "abolition of
the regime of privileges." The CND also called for the organization
of a campaign of national civil disobedience with one of its
objectives being to prevent Calderon from taking the oath of office.
Lopez Obrador has once again demonstrated that he is a brilliant
populist politician with a remarkable ability to mobilize the masses
and to maintain a posture of defiance toward the government, while
avoiding the danger of direct confrontation.
In calling the Convention, Lopez Obrador stated that he was operating
in the great Mexican revolutionary tradition beginning with Miguel
Hidalgo y Castillo and Jose Maria Morelos in the Independence
struggle of 1810-1825; Benito Juarez, leader of the Liberals in the
Reform Movement and the war against France in the 1850s and 60s; and
Francisco Madero and Emiliano Zapata in the Mexican Revolution of
1910-1940. Yet, while claiming the revolutionary inheritance, and
adopting a revolutionary rhetoric, Lopez Obrador and his Party of the
Democratic Revolution, are hard at work attempting to make the most
of the foothold they have in the old order.
While proclaiming a position tantamount to revolution, Lopez Obrador
and the PRD have continued to work within the existing power
structure. The National Democratic Convention authorized the parties
which made up Lopez Obrador's For the Good of All Coalition, the
Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), the Workers Party (PT), and
Convergence, to reorganize to create the Broad Progressive Front
(FAP) which will work as a bloc in the newly elected Mexican
parliament ^ that is, in the parliament of the actually existing
Mexican government. The PRD's legislative coordinator, Javier
Gonzalez Garza, met with coordinators of the conservative National
Action Party (PAN) and the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI),
to create a more efficient and dynamic congress, one that would,
according to the PRD's Gonzalez end log-jams in the lower house. The
PRD has also agreed to serve with the PAN and the PRI in the
collective leadership of the legislature, with Ruth Zavaleta Salgado
as vice-president. PRD governors in Baja California Sur, Guerrero,
Michoacan, and Zacatecas will also take power within the existing
governmental structure. PRD governors have just participated in the
National Governors Congress (Conago) with PAN and PRI governors. So,
apparently, while repudiating the old regime, the PRD will also
continue to work and to serve in leadership positions within it.
Just what is happening here? Are we witnessing the emergence of a
revolutionary alternative? Or is this an extraordinary and
spectacular populist theater intended to project Lopez Obrador into
power in the next election?
>From the Election to the CND
The current situation results from the irregularities, challenges,
and disappointments with the Mexican election of July. The Mexican
Electoral Tribunal had earlier rejected Lopez Obrador's call for a
vote-by-vote, polling-place-by-polling-place recount of the election.
And, while the court recognized that Mexico's President Vicente Fox
had violated the election laws by intervening in the election
campaign and that Mexican corporations had violated the law by paying
for last-minute advertising attacking Lopez Obrador, they would not
on that basis overturn the election results, as they could have done.
The National Association of Democratic Attorneys (ANAD) issued a
statement asserting that the courts could have and should have
overturned the election for those reasons. The court instead
proclaimed Felipe Calderon the president-elect of Mexico, although
Lopez Obrador and his supporters have refused to accept the decision.
Believing that the national election in July had been stolen from
them, hundreds of thousands of supporters of Lopez Obrador and the
Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) rallied in the national
plaza and then camped there for 48 days and at the same time blocked
the length of the city's principal boulevard, Avenida Reforma, and
its major intersections, paralyzing the heart of the city. The night
of September 15 they struck camp, clearing away their lean-tos and
tents, to permit the Mexican Army's annual Independence Day march,
but then they returned the next day for the CND joined by over a
million other Mexicans from Baja California in the North to Chiapas
in the South.
The organizers claimed that 1,025,724 delegates had actually
registered to be present at the convention, coming from all of the 32
states of Mexico. Many of those present on the plaza were los de
abajo, Mexico's underdogs: factory workers, peasants, the self-
employed, street vendors, school teachers, and college and high
school students. Entire families and neighborhoods, from babes-in-
arms to the elderly, filled the streets, many carrying hand made
banners and signs.
The CND Conducts Business by Voice Vote in the Open Air
The CND assembly, in a series of voice votes, proclaimed Lopez Obador
the legitimate president, instructed him to create a cabinet, and to
establish the seat of government in Mexico City, the national
capital. At the same time, the government was instructed to be
itinerant, moving about throughout the country to hear from and to
lead the Mexican people. The new government was instructed to take
power on November 20, the anniversary of the outbreak of the Mexican
Revolution of 1910. Getting the jump on his rival, Lopez Obrador will
then "take office" as "legitimate president" more than a week before
Felipe Calderon, who will not be sworn in until December 1.
The CND also created a national commission to lead the movement of
civil disobedience and to prevent Calderon from taking office, the
commission is to meet on September 27 and continue between October 2
and 13, concentrating all of its efforts toward the official
presidential swearing-in ceremony at the beginning of December. The
next full CND assembly was scheduled for Sunday, March 21 of 2007. At
that next assembly the CND is expected to organize the convocation of
a Constituent Assembly to write a new constitution and re-found the
Mexican government.
A Constitutional and Peaceful Revolution
Lopez Obrador claims that Felipe Calderon, "the usurper," has
violated the institutional order of Mexico. Lopez Obrador argues that
he is the defender of Mexico's democratic traditions, and bases the
calling of the National Democratic Convention and the projected
Constituent Assembly on Article 39 of the Mexican Constitution which
reads, "The national sovereignty resides essentially and originally
in the people All public power originates in the people and is
instituted for their benefit. The people at all times have the
inalienable right to alter or modify their form of government." This
article, he argues, give the people the right to meet and to re-found
their government. The Constituent Assembly which is to take place, he
argues, will establish a more democratic government, protect the
national patrimony and stop the privatization of the oil and electric
power industries, will provide for the good of all Mexicans, but will
put the poor first on the list of national priorities.
Throughout the weeks of protests, sit-ins, and marches, Lopez Obrador
has constantly cautioned his followers to remain non-violent, to
refuse to be provoked into confrontation, and remarkably not a window
has been broken nor a slogan painted on a single wall in the city.
Many among the hundreds of thousands participating in the events
commented that the city was actually safer during the huge
mobilizations. All of this has been made possible by the fact that
the PRD controls the government of Mexico City which has been the
host of these massive protests. The PRD government has insured that
the police have functioned to facilitate the protests and protect the
protestors, rather than to suppress them. Unable to control the
capital, President Vicente Fox decided not to give the
traditional "grito" or Independence Day shout from the balcony of the
National Palace which overlooks the Plaza of the Constitution, and
instead he flew to Dolores, Hidalgo, the site of the first grito
given by Miguel Castillo y Hidalgo on September 16, 1810. Security
officials said that there had been plans for a violent attack,
perhaps an assault on his life, if he attempted to give the grito in
Mexico City. No evidence was produced.
Plebiscitary Democracy
The National Democratic Convention was not a national democratic
convention as most people understand those words. This was not a
delegated convention, but a mass assembly. The CND was not organized
through the structures of the Party of the Democratic Revolution, nor
through coalitions of existing organizations, nor was any other
structure very transparent. Lopez Obrador and the leaders of his
campaign created a committee to convene and to preside over the
Convention, but the movements, rank and file had no opportunity to
choose it leadership or to shape its agenda. Lopez Obrador did not
attempt to prepare the convention by convening the many mass
organizations of peasants, workers, and the urban poor. Lopez Obrador
did not involve in the planning or given an active role in the
Convention to groups such as the Mexican Mine and Metal Workers Union
or Teachers Union Local 22 or the leaders of the town of Atenco, or
to any other of the existing social movements. Those who led the
convention and those who stood in the rain did so as individual
supporters of Lopez Obrador.
While there was enormous popular participation and popular approval
of the positions presented, a convention en masse does not permit the
presentation of resolutions, debate over alternatives. This was a
plebiscitary democracy where the masses shout yeah or nay to the
positions and alternatives offered by the person on the platform.
While less rhapsodic than Fidel Castro and less charismatic than Hugo
Chavez, this was a Convention based in large part on the direct
communication between the leader and the people in the style of Latin
American caudillos since Juan Peron and long before. Which is not to
say that the CND did not have a clear political content, for it
clearly did: an end to the ruling elite, defense of the national
patrimony and social welfare for the people.
Critics to the Right and Left
As one would expect, all of the conservative forces have given their
full support to Calderon while damning Lopez Obrador. Throughout this
process of post-election protest and the proclamation of an
alternative president and government, President Fox and the National
Action Party have upheld the legitimacy of the election and hailed
the victory of Felipe Calderon. Like Lopez Obrador, Fox and Calderon
put themselves forward as the defenders of Mexico's democratic
institutions and they argue that Lopez Obrador threatens those
institutons and raises the possibility of conflict and violence.
Predictably, the Mexican business class, represented through
COPARMEX, the Mexican employers, association which stands at the
heart of the PAN, has also welcomed Calderon's victory and scorns
Lopez Obrador. Mexico's leading Bishops have also called upon Lopez
Obrador to concede defeat and recognize the victory of Calderon. U.S.
President George W. Bush called to congratulate Calderon on his
victory early on.
Lopez Obrador also has critics on the left. Cuauhtemoc Cardenas,
founder of the Party of the Democratic Revolution and twice its
candidate for president in the past, severely criticized Lopez
Obrador for surrounding himself and filling the party with
opportunists, for the lack of a serious political program, and for
intolerance of political differences. Cardenas has argued that it is
a great mistake for Lopez Obrador to proclaims himself president and
predicts that it will do permanent damage to Mexico's left. Adolfo
Gilly, Mexico's leading left intellectual theorist, concurs with many
of Cardenas's criticisms, but attacks the PRD for its two-faced
position of supporting Lopez Obrador's campaign while making deals
with the PAN. He also criticizes the failure of Lopez Obrador and the
PRD to support the struggle of the Zapatista Army of National
Liberation and other popular movements. Marcos Rascon, former Mexican
leftist guerrilla, former PRD congressman, and irascible radical
critic argues that Lopez Obrador is a populist with "a Bonapartist
attitude," that is, that he is a would-be dictator. Rascon also
claims that the National Democratic Convention represents a
fundamental break with the great Mexican revolutionary traditions
from Ricardo Flores Magon and Emiliano Zapata to the Cardenismo of
the 1930s and the 1980s.
The EZLN, of course, has never liked Lopez Obrador. Subcomandante
Marcos, leader of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation which
mounted its own rather marginal non-electoral campaign for a
socialism from below, has from the beginning attacked Lopez Obrador
as fundamentally conservative and opportunist. The EZLN's Marcos did,
however, speak out against the fraud in what he calls a stolen
election. Whatever his critics on the left may say, Lopez Obrador has
not only captured the imagination of the people but has also in
effect become the dominant force on the left.
The Balance of Forces
Do Lopez Obrador, PRD, the Broad Progressive Front, and the National
Democratic Convention represent the emerging institutions of a new
class power? Do we see in the movement which Lopez Obrador leads
institutions that give expressions to movements and organizations of
working people and the poor which begin to represent an alternative
to the existing Mexican state?
Fox, the PAN and its current ally the PRI, of course, control the
Mexican government, its bureaucracy, the Army and the police and
could use them to put down any serious opposition. Since 1994 the
Mexican government has used the Army against the Zapatista Army of
National Liberation (EZLN) and the broader social movement in Chiapas
in the South, and throughout the 1990s against drug dealers in the
North. During the last year the Federal government has deployed the
new Federal Prevent Police (PFP) against striking workers and
community activists in central Mexico. While Lopez Obrador has called
upon the Army to refuse to obey orders to repress Mexican citizens,
there is no reason to doubt the loyalty of the Army and the PFP and
other police forces to the government. Mexico has used the military
to put down popular movements in 1959, 1968, 1976 and called out the
army in 1994 against the Zapatistas, and there seems no reason that
it would not be able to do so again.
Do the Numbers Exist?
Lopez Obrador does not appear to have the sheer numbers of supporters
throughout Mexico to challenge the state. Each of the leading
candidates won 16 states: Lopez Obrador and the PRD won in the poorer
center and South of Mexico while Felipe Calderon of the PAN won
almost all of the more prosperous North. However, according to the
disputed official count, Lopez Obrador captured only 35.3% of the
vote, while Calderon won 35.9 and Roberto Madrazo of the PRI won
22.3% That is, almost 2/3 of all voters voted for the two more
conservative candidates, while only about 1/3 supported a program of
reform based on increased social welfare. Even if Lopez Obrador was
cheated out of a million votes as many believe, he would still have
had only a somewhat large plurality but nothing near a majority of
support. While some people who voted for Lopez Obrador as a reformer
might be moved to adopt a position of revolutionary opposition to the
state if they felt their votes were stolen, one would suspect that
not all PRD supporters would take that position, while very few from
other parties would join them.
Perhaps some on the far left would support Lopez Obrador in a battle
over democracy, but their numbers are few. No far left revolutionary
party even qualified to appear on the ballot. Moreover, the
explicitly anti-capitalist and anti-electoral "Other Campaign" of the
Zapatista Army of National Liberation vehemently opposed Lopez
Obrador during the campaign, and is unlikely to support him now.
Mexico's revolutionary left appears to be smaller and less
significant than it was in the 1960s-1980s.
Does the Organization Exist?
Nor does the opposition appear to have the organization, structure
and leadership to put together a force powerful enough to challenge
the Mexican government at this time. Except for Mexico City and a few
states such as Michoacan, the PRD has been a minority party and a
deeply divided and factional party. Founded in 1989, the PRD has
throughout its brief history been an electoral party, not a party
neither founded upon nor leading a social movement. While during the
campaign the PRD appeared at times to be badly divided, at the moment
it seems to be showing remarkable cohesion, with the marked exception
of Cuauhtemoc Cardenas.
During the current struggle, there have been enormous demonstrations,
marches, and sit-ins in Mexico City, but so far such demonstrations
have been limited to Mexico City.
While the PRD at times came to a working relationship with the
National Union of Workers (UNT), it has never been able to give
leadership to the working class or even much support to the UNT or
any other union, and Lopez Obrador has not had a labor program. The
PRD does have a significant following among working people and the
poor of the central and southern states, as its electoral results
indicate, but beyond elections this has not been much of an organized
following.
True, there are large and significant social struggles taking place
today in Mexico, particularly the series of strikes by members of the
Miners and Metal Workers Union (SNTMMRM) and the teachers strike by
Local 22 of the Mexican Teachers Union (SNTE). However the PRD has
not given leadership to those struggles, nor do those involved in
those struggles necessarily support the PRD. The leadership of Local
22 has said that it would not participate in the National Democratic
Convention called by Lopez Obrador (though some of its members did),
and it continues to negotiate with Secretary of the Interior Carlos
Abascal, suggesting that it looks to this Mexican government to
resolve its problems, not to some possible future republic.
Finally, Vicente Fox, Felipe Calderon and the PAN have the support of
the U.S. government which would much prefer to have a conservative
government in power, and which certainly does not want social
upheaval taking place in its neighbor nation. Without a doubt Fox has
been conferring with the Bush government about the situation, and one
would suppose that the Mexican military has been in touch with its
American counterpart. Although it would prefer that Mexico's elite
take the necessary political action to resolve problems, the U.S.
would certainly be prepared to use whatever means are necessary to
support the Mexican government.
The Balance Might be Changed
Some have talked about what's happening in Mexico in terms of "dual
power." Leon Trotsky used that term in his History of the Russian
Revolution to describe what happens when a rising social class
creates new and alternative institutions of social power. So far we
have not seen that happen in Mexico where a real power, the Mexican
state, confronts Lopez Obrador and the CND, an important political
and social movement, but not a movement that has been built upon or
yet given rise to alternative institutions of governance that
represent a second power. Nor is it clear that Lopez Obrador has the
will or the capacity to create them. What he has created is a mass
movement on the left with a radical rhetoric, a movement made up of
people who yearn for a new society of democracy and social justice.
While his rhetoric promises revolution, his actions suggest a
militant struggle for reform, which is not therefore to be
discounted. Within that struggle for reform, genuine revolutionary
voices and forces may develop.
All of that having been said, social movements, especially if they
begin to have some success can grow rapidly, and unfolding events can
force them to change their character. The balance of forces can shift
rapidly and radically under the right circumstances. The power of
mass movements has played a significant role in the change of
governments in Latin America in the last decade. So, while Lopez
Obrador and the PRD may not yet have sufficient strength, a mistake
by the government could suddenly give a lift to the opposition
movement.
posted by Alice at
Saturday, October 07, 2006
1 Comments:
¿QUIEN ES REALMENTE "LA DIVA" EL HOMOSEXUAL DE CUAUHTÉMOC CÁRDENAS SOLORZANO?
El Cuauhtémoc del Mañana
El Cuauhtémoc del mañana no puede ser sino el Cuauhtémoc de ayer. En eso por lo menos parece ser congruente y será, desde luego, absolutamente congruente y será candidato del PRD a ocupar nada menos que la presidencia de México, “El Cuauhtémoc de ayer” es el representante del nepotismo que practicó en cuanto puesto público llegó a través de elección popular o sin ella.
“EL Cuauhtémoc de ayer” no tuvo empacho en ocupar simultáneamente dos puestos públicos, dos nombramientos incompatibles entre sí “El Cuauhtémoc de ayer” incurrió en graves deficiencias administrativas y contables durante sus diferentes cargos oficiales. “El Cuauhtémoc de ayer” abandona en La Insolvencia a varias dependencias que le había sido encomendadas. “El Cuauhtémoc de ayer” otorgó canonjías a parientes, tíos, primos y amigos como sí el patrimonio del Estado fuera de su propiedad. “El Cuauhtémoc de ayer” atrasó marcadamente el desarrollo educativo de Michoacán cuando prohibió la Instalación de unidades profesionales de la Universidad La Salle y el Instituto Tecnológico I de Monterrey. “El Cuauhtémoc de ayer” emitió decretos de congelación de rentas que se tradujeron en una elevación sustancial de los precios de arrendamiento de vivienda, frenó la construcción de casas habitación y estimuló la aparición de invasiones y asentamientos humanos irregulares en los principales centros urbanos de Michoacán. “El Cuauhtémoc de ayer” decretó una ley que desapareció el Consejo Universitario, provocó una prolongada huelga estudiantil y laboral, así como la designación de rectores paralelos, es decir, le dio cabida indiscutiblemente al caos académico al final de su mandato “El Cuauhtémoc de ayer” congeló las tarifas de transporte urbano de pasajeros que, al privar debido mantenimiento a los autobuses en razón de la descapitalización natural, hizo de la ciudad de Morelia una urbe con las mismas dificultades de transportación que una del África septentrional. “El Cuauhtémoc de ayer” dio de baja a catorce de dieciséis magistrados designando a los nuevos funcionarios Judiciales con arreglo al nepotismo y a la cercanía política. “El Cuauhtémoc de ayer” aumentó sustancialmente el gasto corriente mediante la expansión del aparato burocrático, I la creación de un mayor numero de puestos de nivel superior y el incremento del sueldo y prestaciones de los funcionarios. “El Cuauhtémoc de ayer” recaudo Todo fondos para adquirir instalaciones de la petroquímica secundaria depositando los recursos aportados de buena fe por el público en cuentas partícula rea, cuyo destino se desconoce. ¿Qué tal “El Cuauhtémoc de ayer“? ¿Por qué ha de ser distinto del de mañana? Si “El Cuauhtémoc de ayer” disfrutó practicó el nepotismo, no tuvo empacho en ocupar dos puestos públicos incompatibles simultáneamente incurrió en malos manejos administrativos y contables, abandonó quebrados organismos paraestatales, atraso educativamente a Michoacán desquicio la estructura de precios de arrendamiento de vivienda, provoco invasiones y asentamientos humanos Irregulares, ocasiono huelgas estudiantiles y caos académico. Inutilizo el sistema de transportas de Morelia, designo arbitrariamente funcionarios
Judiciales para asegurar su incondicionalidad desequilibro las finanzas publicas del estado al expandir el aparato burocrático incrementando desproporcionada mente los sueldos y recaudo fondos de particulares, cuyo destino bien valdría la pena conocer, no es difícil en este caso suponer cuál será la suerte de la ciudad
De México si un candidato con semejantes debilidades morales, administrativas e incapacidad política. Llega a ser nada Menos que Jefe del Departamento del Distrito Federal nadie que vaya a emitir su voto a favor de Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas puede ni debe ignorar sus antecedentes públicos para estar en condiciones de elegir responsable a la persona que habrá de conducir el destino de esta gran urbe, la cabeza del país, que de venirse abajo por Incapacidad, ausencia de previsión, intolerancia, apatía, negligencia o terquedad o todos sus elementos juntos? Podría ocasionar un severo daño al resto de la nación que contempla atónica la suene política dé la capital de la República.
EL CUAUHTEMOC MAYOR DE EDAD
La biografía política de Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas Solórzano tiene tres etapas claramente definidas a partir de su mayoría de edad. En la primera etapa de 1959 a 1969, ocupó cargos públicos en organismos federales. En la segunda a solicitud de su mama fue favorecido por el presidente López Portillo quien en un lapso de menos de tres años lo propuso como candidato a senador lo nombró subsecretario Forestal y de la Fauna e Inclinó el fiel de la balanza a su favor para que fuera gobernador de Michoacán. La tercera etapa de 1987 a 1997 es la lucha desesperada y viólenla para que se le sean reconocidos sus derechos de heredero de la Presidencia de México. Como detalles personales de su personalidad valdría la pena no perder de vista que el Cuauhtémoc de hoy se hizo retratar con Marcos en la selva chiapaneca. Más aún. Durante la visita del Papa Juan Pablo II a México. Cárdenas pidió que aquél fuera expulsado del territorio nacional por considerarlo un extranjero indeseable. ¿Qué tal? ¿Ya se le olvidó lo anterior a este hermoso pueblo sin memoria?.
CUAUHTEMOC Y EL NEPOTISMO
Cuauhtémoc, como beneficiario directo del nepotismo, fue secretario del Comité Técnico del Rió Balsas de 1959 al 62. Más tarde, fue director de Estudios de la misma comisión. Simultáneamente fue nombrado en 1964 residente de la construcción de la presa “La Villita”. Obra que fuera a cargo de la CFE. Este doble nombramiento de director y residente, es decir, el ejercicio de dos empleos al mismo tiempo le reportaron evidentes ventajas lucrativas al joven Cárdenas. También se desempeño como subdirector de la Siderurgica Las Truchas,
CUAUHTEMOC ADMINISTRADOR
Cuando Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas fue director del Fideicomiso Lázaro Cárdenas se registraron graves deficiencias administrativas y contables, al extremo de que no fue posible conocer el monto y distribución de las inversiones que se realizaron, en virtud de no existir la documentación suficiente para apoyar las operaciones realizadas, según consta en diversas auditorias practicadas por diversos despachos de profesionales. El ingeniero Cárdenas debería explicar ante la opinión pública si es que es cierto que se cobraron obras de almacenamiento de agua sin haberse éstas aparentemente ejecutadas. El fideicomiso quedó instalado en el caos a su salida ya que tampoco se ha podido precisar el número, tipo y localización de las obras, pues los contratos no establecen lugar donde se efectuarían ni se proporcionó información sobre la terminación de las mismas. ¿Qué pasó con el dinero y las obras? El electorado se merece una explicación.
Como un detalle adicional de su gestión como administrador, el fideicomiso a su cargo no pudo cumplir sus adeudos ni con Nafinsa ni con Banobras. El estado de insolvencia fue total. ¿Qué tal su papel como administrador?
CUAUHTEMOC Y EL NEPOTISMO
Siendo director del fideicomiso antes citado otorgó un contrato de maquila al señor Francisco Batel, suegro de Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, por un total de casi dos millones ochocientos mil pesos, de los cuales el propio señor Batel presentó recibos sin requisitos fiscales, es decir, documentación hecha sobre la rodilla, inútil para efectos tributarios y particularmente útil para efectos defraúdantes. Además de lo anterior renovó una concesión a su abuela Albertina Bravo viuda de Solórzano para disfrutar 6,000 metros cúbicos de madera de oyamel. Extendió permisos de aprovechamiento forestal a tíos y primos como el caso de la compañía maderera La Guadiana por un plazo de 20 años cuando la ley solamente autorizaba diez… Otorgó facilidades administrativas a Clotilde Solórzano Bravo, a Lázaro y Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas Bravo y a Virginia, Victoria y Susana Solórzano Bravo para explotar los predios “El Ciprés” y “Huirimangatío”, así como beneficio a su propia madre y a Alejandro Solórzano mediante la entrega del predio Los Ajolotes en el Municipio de Hidalgo. ¿Cómo olvidar además la venta de dos hectáreas de terreno en el lugar denominado playa Eréndira, en el Municipio de Lázaro Cárdenas, Michoacán, nada menos que a su mamá doña Amalia Solórzano viuda de Cárdenas? ¿Más? ¿Toda vía más? Cárdenas no sólo vendió a su mamá importantes cantidades de terreno a través de maniobras poco claras sino también a su suegro el señor Francisco Martins Batel, quien es poseedor de casi siete mil metros en la misma playa, al igual que Celeste Batel de Cárdenas, su esposa, posee un predio de doce hectáreas denominado Las Lagunas en el municipio de Lázaro Cárdenas. Por si fuera poco lo anterior cuando Cárdenas fue gobernador nombró a Jorge Solórzano, su primo, como director de la Casa de la Artesanías; a Sergio Bátiz Solórzano, también su primo, como secretario de Programación y Presupuesto de la entidad y amigos incondicionales como Jesús Oregel, como jefe de compras del Gobierno del Estado.
CUAUHTEMOC GOBERNADOR
Promulgó una ley estatal de educación para frenar el crecimiento de planteles escolares propiedad de particulares vinculados a la Iglesia católica, como si hubiera una sobreoferta de aulas y pupitres en Michoacán y en el resto del país. ¿Qué tal cuando prohibió que la Universidad La Salle y el Tec de Monterrey se asentaran en Michoacán como si no se supiera que donde hay universidades y tecnológicos de esa naturaleza se dan abiertamente las posibilidades de desarrollo económico. ¿Respuesta? Se opuso a La Salle y al Tec. La ley inquilinaria provocó invasiones y asentamientos humanos en los principales centros urbanos del estado. El Cuauhtémoc gobernador desquició a la universidad, a los transportes, a la administración de justicia y a las finanzas públicas, además de patrocinar grupos de choque que produjeron un imponente malestar.
CUAUHTEMOC MECENAS
Valdría la pena preguntarle a nuestro famoso poeta Hornero Aridjis cuál es su opinión después de que fue cesado violentamente por el gobernador Cárdenas después de que éste se negó a realizar el festival internacional de la poesía en Morelia y | le pidió a Aridjis que, a pesar de que los colegas de este último ya estaban en México, volvieran sin más a sus países de origen. Aridjis cesado, pudo, sin embargo, salvar el prestigio nacional de México apoyado por poetas mexicanos e instituciones que coadyuvaron a la realización del evento. El arte y la cultura del Distrito Federal en manos de Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas no sería por lo visto muy aconsejable o mejor dicho, nada aconsejable o totalmente desaconsejable.
CUAUHTEMOC INCENDIARIO
Los asentamientos irregulares que aparecieron en las ciudades michoacanas de Morelia, Uruapan, Zamora y Lázaro Cárdenas como consecuencia de la ley inquilinaria hizo que surgieran organizaciones radicales como “Tierra y Libertad” o la “Unión Popular Solidaria” que acabaron por desquiciar las finanzas municipales. Como si no fuera suficiente lo anterior proliferaron las casas del estudiante originadas por la invasión de inmuebles de particulares tanto en Morelia como en Uruapan, invasiones que fueron promovidas por la administración cardenista que impulsó a organizaciones estudiantiles como la Federación Nacional, de Organizaciones Bolcheviques a reivindicar a los estudiantes universitarios rechazados. ¿Ya no es incendiario? ¿Y Marcos?
CUAUHTEMOC CONTRATISTA
Como fundador y director de la empresa INDE, S.A. y Constructora INDE
Conductores, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas fue contratista de PEMEX en aproximadamente quince importantes contratos en los que destacan la construcción de un gasoducto entre Tabasco y Veracruz; la construcción de una planta de amoniaco en Salamanca, Guanajuato; la instalación de un poliducto de doscientos sesenta y nueve kilómetros entre Zacatecas y Coahuila, otro de trescientos cuarenta kilómetros entre Monterrey y Durango, entre otras plantas hidrodesulfaradoras de diesil y turbosina en Salamanca y Minatitlan, respectivamente. Lo anterior viene al caso porque su padre el general Cárdenas afirmó el 29 de enero de 1967 que “el tiempo aclarará que Cuauhtémoc no es contratista. Ni él ni yo vamos a manchar la ejecutoria de 1934-1940″. Todo permite suponer que don Lázaro desconocía las evidencias documentales que acreditan a Cuauhtémoc como contratista. ¿Qué hubiera dicho de él?
DESTRUCCION DE LAS MINAS DE INGUARAN
La demolición de las minas de Inguarán municipio de la Huacana donde laboraban más de mil trabajadores, siendo Cuauhtémoc Gobernador de Michoacán les negó permisos para continuar trabajando porque eran extranjeros dio manos librea a los obreros quienes se quedaron sin trabajo, dedicándose a destruir toda la unidad habitacional para extraer la varilla y venderla lo mismo hicieron con basculas, albercas y tuberías subterráneas de una a diez pulgadas de diámetro emporio de trabajo lo convirtió Cuauhtémoc en ruinas como a la fecha se puede apreciar. Consideran que se requieren alrededor de Mil Millones de pesos actuales para volver a recuperar esa empresa.
Si Cuauhtémoc es amante del nepotismo, ocupó simultáneamente dos puestos, incurrió en malos manejos administrativos, quebró organismos paraestatales, y atrasó procesos educativos, desquició el arrendamiento de viviendas, provocó invasiones y asentamientos irregulares, ocasionó huelgas estudiantiles y caos académico, inutilizó el sistema de transportes de su estado, patrocinó grupos incendiarios, pasó por encima del poder judicial, desequilibró las finanzas públicas, y mostró hasta la saciedad su incapacidad, su falta de habilidad como gobernante de Michoacán, ¿qué esperan del Cuauhtémoc del mañana quienes piensan votar por él a pesar de sus antecedentes demostrables como funcionario Público?
Quien vote por Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas no debe sorprenderse ni por el nepotismo, ni por los malos manejos, ni por la influencia de su madre en los asuntos públicos, ni por la quiebra de paraestatales propiedad del Departamento del Distrito Federal, ni que la ciudad de México se vaya otros cuarenta años para atrás si se vuelve a legislar en materia de rentas congeladas, ni del caos urbano por una parálisis del sistema de transportes de la capital de la República, ni del desequilibrio de las finanzas públicas del Departamento, ni de la demagogia ni de la destrucción cultural de nuestra ciudad.
Todos tenemos datos para comprobar la gestión de Cárdenas. Todos pueden comprobar sus antecedentes y si a pesar de eso lo favorecen con su voto nadie podrá tener derecho a reclamar nada, absolutamente nada. Lo que nos espera es claro y transparente. Sólo esperaremos que la residencia oficial de Los Pinos no aparezca un día heredada a un Cárdenas ya que Cuauhtémoc siempre alegó que por el hecho de haber nacido en ese lugar, por derecho natural y político le corresponde volver por gravedad a dicha residencia.
¿Quién cree a los Cárdenas? ¿Necesitaremos más pruebas para saber quién son los Cárdenas del mañana?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home