Critical observation of Cardenas | Article

Alberto Vizcarra Ozuna

ANDDuring one of Cuauhtemoc Cardenas’ visits to the municipality of Cajeme in the Yaqui Valley in southern Sonora, on the occasion of the presentation of his latest book, For Progressive Democracy, he held a press conference. The reporter asks him: what do you think of the Fourth Transformation? And Cardenas replies: “First, explain to me what the Fourth Transformation is.” There is impatience in the response, not against the reporter, but against the attempt to hide by force of symbolism and representation the fact that the government, despite its rhetoric against neoliberal economic policies, remains committed to a solid core of the same.

Symbols can refer to substance, but not replace it, because meaningless historical representations and evocations serve to leave in discourse what is not available in practice. This was the path of a government that began with the official announcement of the disappearance of neoliberalism from the Mexican sky, and in the twilight of the government, it can be concluded that it will contribute another six years of compliance with macroeconomic policies. For the past four decades, they have prevented the country from achieving worthy goals in areas of economic growth, poverty reduction and unemployment.

That’s what Cardenas is talking about in one of his latest interviews, noting that official figures acknowledge that under the current administration, the number of poor people has increased and more than half of the population lives in poverty. Critical observation points out precisely that macroeconomic management “follows the same neo-liberal programs, since it is the same economic model that has been shared by PRI and PAN since the eighties and which today (in this respect and in this government) changes are not yet visible.” And then he concludes: “if you do the same thing, the result cannot be different.”

For this reason, it would not be risky to warn that the six-year period will end with economic growth that will not exceed the mediocre nominal 2 percent annual rate recorded over the long neoliberal period, despite the enthusiasm of those who bestow magical virtues. to the commercial conflict between the United States and China, whereby Mexico became the beneficiary of these geopolitical imbalances. Invest in the randomness of markets for the “luck or bad” of the national economy.

Cárdenas never ceased to insist that the best way to counter the risks that a marked process of political polarization poses to the country is to advance discussion of the program. And it shows the concern that shock positions are being passed on by the opposition and the government “because if the situation worsens, it could be risky.” “What we don’t have to do is seek confrontation for the sake of confrontation.” This makes him repeat what he has been holding for years. He insists that, first of all, it was not about people or personalities, but about proposals and government programs to solve national problems.

Around this, he proposes to develop a large dialogue, discussion throughout the country. Cárdenas’ critical observations cannot be refuted by sending them to the salvaged place of conservatism or by finding an opportunistic political motivation for them. They have an undeniable moral weight, a historical confirmation of the conformity and that restraint that the years of long life usually give, leading and accompanying the best battles for the well-being of the country.

Mexico is driven by this policy dialogue proposed by Cuauhtemoc Cárdenas. The postponement decided by the current government of changes in economic policy, guided by the Washington Consensus, has led to the deepening of the country’s fundamental problems, while the president is limited to demonstrating the success of his government, seeking to win his party in next year’s presidential election.

There is no future for the country if it continues to remain unconditionally tied to the geopolitical momentum of Anglo-American interests, owners of a financial and banking system in crisis, which is supported by liquidity flows pumped by central banks, which they arbitrarily raise interest rates and force the poor countries to sacrifice their economy and their economic and social development with ever-increasing payments on external debt. This should be one of the main points of the national debate in Mexico.

The world has entered a rhythm of increasing tension as the West’s unipolar claims offer a regulated verticalism tailored to the needs of an international financial system that can only be kept afloat by the collapse of the basic and elementary principles of coexistence among nations. . This includes the possibility of a third world war.

Mexico cannot remain a wagon on a railroad whose destination is unclear; it is necessary to broaden the perspective and understand that a multipolar world is emerging, in which an increasing number of countries are pursuing a foreign policy that gives priority to their national interests. This is the reason for groups of countries that seek to avoid the stifling economic policy dynamics of the Western financial system. This is the case of the BRICS, which brings together Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (and other countries about to join) to advance not only trade agreements, but funding joint basic economic infrastructure projects that increase the physical capabilities of their economies.

The dispute over the presidency in Mexico will become a trivial matter if these issues are not discussed.