Pensar México
By Alejandro Reyes-Arias

The 2000 election of Vicente Fox as Mexico ’s president signaled the dawn of a new era and the possibility for true consolidation of democracy after 71 years of uninterrupted rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party. Today the enthusiasm inspired by that triumph has been tempered — some say gutted — by Mexico ’s continuing social and economic problems and political gridlock.

UC Berkeley’s Center for Latin American Studies, the Boalt Hall School of Law and Fundación Azteca collaborated on Pensar México, a week-long forum for discussion and analysis of where Mexico is and where it might be headed. The forum, which took place at UC Berkeley from April 4 to 8, 2005 , centered on four major topics: Identity, Security, Power, and Future — segments of which have been broadcast nationally in Mexico and the U.S.

Identity

Mexico ’s complex relations with its northern neighbor and the changing dynamics of increasingly integrated world markets have made the question of identity a pressing issue. Globalization poses dilemmas involving issues of migration, market penetration into isolated communities, growing tensions between modernization and tradition and the enormous plurality that comprises “Mexico.”

The issue of migration was discussed by Zacatecas governor Amalia García. The state provides one of the clearest examples of the complexities and magnitude of the social transformations created by migration. Half of the state’s population is currently in the United States . This effectively results in a binational population with complex economic, cultural and social linkages. Fully recognizing this hybrid, bicultural reality is a challenge on both sides of the border.

Among the transformations experienced in Zacatecas due to migration, García cited the changing role of women, who have assumed a new position as heads of households and have developed new leadership roles. Economically, migrant workers contribute to Zacatecas, but they also contribute significantly to the U.S. García criticized the U.S. position, which views the issue of immigration as merely one of policing and security, without recognizing the economic contribution of migrants or their role as a bridge between the two societies. She also pointed to the necessity of thinking of North America as a region that includes Mexico , the United States and Canada and of building a community that is not only integrated at the economic level but also constructed on the basis of true partnership and plurality, along the lines of the European Union.

But do Mexican immigrants in the United States truly develop a binational identity? According to María Echaveste, co-founder of the Nueva Vista Group and former Deputy Chief of Staff to President Clinton, making that statement would feed the fears of Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington, who recently targeted Mexican immigrants as part of his relentless crusade against otherness. According to Prof. Huntington, Mexican immigrants constitute a threat to American culture.

While recognizing that many immigrants have close links to their country of origin, Echaveste argues that many U.S. citizens of Mexican origin, although proud of their heritage, consider themselves culturally American and actively contribute to the growth of a nation that was founded on the premise of diversity. For many Hispanics, however, the American dream is not a reality: their access to university education is limited and the discrimination they suffer hampers their participation in society. Contrary to Amalia García, María Echaveste argued that allowing Mexican expatriates to vote in Mexican elections would strengthen the arguments of people like Prof. Huntington.

As one of Mexico ’s most prolific contemporary cinema directors and producers, Fernando Sariñana Márquez spoke of the importance of film as a fundamental aspect of Mexican identity. Mexican film, according to Sariñana, serves as a mirror that reflects society. “ Mexico ,” he said, “is the country of intolerance.” Given cinema’s role as a medium for discussing diversity and constructing a sense of national identity, he stressed the importance of government support for the industry as a part of the nation’s cultural policy.

Dr. Jorge Cherbosque, director of the UCLA Staff and Faculty Consultation and Counseling Center , framed the issue of tolerance and diversity in terms of an “emotional intelligence” model which stressed the role of the individual in building a more inclusive society. According to Dr. Cherbosque, having “emotional intelligence” in a diverse world requires recognizing the cultural values underlying one’s own behavior, understanding the benefits and limitations of cultural norms and empathizing with others.

Security

“Today’s security policies,” said Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, former Mexican Ambassador to the United Nations, “have themselves become a serious risk.” The UN definition of security is “being able to live without fear.” However, Zinser argued that security today has become a commodity; fear is taken away from some and passed on to others. At the local level, security is motivated by the fear of certain social sectors without a vision of society as a whole. In the larger international context, security seems to respond today to the post-9/11 exigencies of the United States .

This concern with U.S. security policies and their imposition on the rest of the world was shared by all panelists and was a recurring theme throughout the event. Mark Danner, a professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley who has written extensively about U.S. national security issues, noted that after 9/11, the multilateral approach to the issue of security inherent in organizations such as the OAS, the UN and NATO was stripped away. The complexities of the issue disappeared, and topics such as traditional border concerns became confused with the fear of terrorism.

José Alberto Aguilar, Undersecretary for International Affairs of the PRI, noted that the issue is not new, but that, with the resurgence of the concept of homeland security, regional security is no longer seen as a bilateral issue. Even Mario Di Constanzo, Economic Advisor to the PRD in the Chamber of Deputies, whose thoughts seemed entirely preoccupied with the impending prosecution of Mayor López Obrador, appeared to agree.

Antonio Navalón, Director of Alfaguara Editors, argued that insecurity is often related to ignorance. The paradox of the century, according to Navalón, is that never did humanity have access to so much knowledge, and never did it use it so poorly. Security between the U.S. and Mexico , argues Navalón, has to do with a mutual concern with violence and is not a unilateral issue. Migration cannot be understood simply in terms of policing and control without considering the wide range of factors that add complexity to the current context: the end of the military conflicts in Central America , the transition in Mexico and sociological processes along the border among them.

According to Aguilar Zinser, however, the greatest security problem is posed not by terrorism, but by the destruction of the environment. Sixty percent of the world’s ecosystems are currently suffering a process of degradation, and 30 percent of Mexican territory is undergoing desertification. Despite this alarming reality, the environment is last on the list of government priorities.

Power

Much of the discussion on power revolved around Mexico ’s democratic transition. According to Juan Ramón de la Fuente, Rector of Mexico’s National Autonomous University (UNAM), there have been advances in the redistribution of power, with a greater division between the federal, state and municipal governments. However, this division has not resulted in greater functionality. And while there have been some positive results in the effort toward decentralization, giving the municipalities and states greater control, federalism is still far from perfect. Although civil society has become better organized, more effective mechanisms are still needed to allow it to participate.

Porfirio Muñoz Ledo, President of the National Association for State Reform, co-founder of the PRD and former ambassador to the European Union, has a bleaker outlook. According to him, power in Mexico has always been pyramidal, and the mechanisms that might allow power to be constructed from the bottom up have not been put in place. While political pluralism was created, it did not become democratic, resulting in what he termed “decentralized authoritarianism.” There is a sort of “metastasis of corruption,” whereby the system’s old vices are now shared by three parties rather than one. A “third path” would consist, for Muñoz Ledo, of constitutional reform, new coalitions, long-term policies and a redistribution of power toward the communities.

The ability of rural communities to share power and participate democratically has been seriously compromised, according to Laura Nader, professor of Anthropology at UC Berkeley, by the neoliberal policies of the last two decades. She argued that local level decision-making has been sabotaged by multinational corporations, NAFTA, WTO laws that preclude local laws and the privatization of ejidos.

In particular, the influx of cheap, subsidized corn from the U.S. has pushed farmers to migrate north, destabilizing local economies and cultures and breaking seven thousand years of continuity in food production. Developing a more democratic country, according to Nader, is incompatible with the increasing pressure of multinational corporations. Mexican elites must represent the interests of the rural areas that are being destroyed and understand the importance of their contribution to the nation.

Enrique Cabrero, General Director of the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), agrees that there is today a greater dependency on international forces. The challenge, he argues, is to build new processes of decision-making that are based on a closer relationship between the government and society. It is important, he said, to be more proactive in networks of international public policy in order to preserve national sovereignty.

On the issue of sovereignty, Diego Valadez, Director of the Institute of Juridical Research at UNAM’s Law School, argued that the concept of sovereignty should not be viewed as something that isolates. He pointed out the distinction between popular sovereignty and national sovereignty. The first has to do with the faculties that allow the governed to elect and control their governors, and it is unalterable. National sovereignty, on the other hand, allows certain flexibility in negotiating with supranational forces.

There was a general consensus among the speakers regarding the need to strengthen the state without returning to the authoritarian ways of the past. Juan Ramón de la Fuente insisted on more market regulation: “Markets are necessary to create wealth,” he said, “and the state is necessary to distribute that wealth.”

Future

Pervasive throughout the discussions of the “Future” panel was a sense of a loss of well-being and happiness in Mexican society, combined with a lack of faith and the absence of a vision for the future. Two main areas were identified as targets for action: the economy and education.

Senator Demetrio Sodi (PRD) noted that Mexicans’ lack of faith in the future is not pessimism, rather it is a realistic response: In the last 20 years, Mexico has seen no development and no true generation of employment. Felipe Calderón Hinojosa (PAN), who is running to be his party’s presidential candidate, said that Mexico ’s challenge is “to be winners,” and that “every man has as his task to be happy in life.” In order to meet this challenge, he said, a government program is needed that enforces legality, promotes a competitive economy that generates employment; provides equal access to health, education and services; achieves true democracy; and promotes environmental sustainability.

Although economic growth and education were identified as the key areas for Mexico ’s future, there was some disagreement regarding their priority. The architect Enrique Norten argued that employment in itself is not the answer. Employment without knowledge, he said, does not generate wealth. Mexico produces no patents; it is behind in science, agriculture and technology. The emphasis, according to Norten, should therefore be on education and the production of knowledge. However, for Jorge Matte, founder and president of Estudios Psico-Industriales, the most urgent issue is economic recovery. Ten to 15 years ago, he argued, people agreed that education was a priority; today, people are much more preoccupied with employment, and the economic situation is such that education does not necessarily guarantee better employment.

Independently of whether education or employment should come first, the panelists offered few solid proposals other than abstract discussions about increasing public and private spending. There seemed to be no disagreement regarding the lack of services and infrastructure experienced by the Mexican population. One out of every 10 Mexicans has no running drinking water, and 24 percent have no sewerage. Mexico , according to Sodi, is among the countries with the lowest per capita public expenditure.

Private investment in the energy sector was a point of convergence for the representatives from both the PRD and the PAN. The ongoing opposition to such private investment was seen by both panelists as a result of a dated “historical nationalism” and “myths and taboos.” Private investment in the energy sector, the panelists agreed, must be viewed in terms of employment and economic growth.

Calderón argued that the current state of the educational system exacerbates inequalities due to the significant difference in the quality of public and private education. He endorsed a voucher program that he maintained would provide equal access to education.

Sodi, however, strongly disagreed, arguing that the program ignores Mexican reality, with its high levels of poverty and dispersed rural population. Pretending that the private sector would provide adequate solutions for these communities is absurd, he said. The difference in quality between public and private education is not a result of an improvement of private education; rather, public education has drastically declined in the last decades. Enrique Norten agreed: Mexico ’s “best” private universities are businesses, providing poor quality education. They are “institutions dedicated to administrating the wealth of a few.” What Mexico needs, he added, is to define a clear educational policy.

Conspicuously absent from the discussions on all panels was the pressing issue of indigenous communities, indigenous rights and self-determination and their role in the construction of a Mexican society in the 21 st century. The secular struggle of indigenous populations for recognition of their existence and their participation in society and the debates initiated by the Zapatistas in 1994 and developed during the last 11 years were, surprisingly, ignored by most panelists.

Alejandro Reyes-Arias is a student in the MA program in Latin American Studies.