Jorge Alcocer
The important point in President Claudia Sheinbaum’s inaugural speech at the Legislative Palace was not its content, but its addressee.
In the past, immediate or distant, every president in his inaugural address has found a form and tone to distance himself from his predecessor, whether he was his boss and benefactor or whether the former president was the obligatory initiator of the change, as in the cases of Zedillo and Calderon .
From Ruiz Cortines to Lopez Obrador, the new president has chosen one or more topics to point out shortcomings, omissions or problems that, even when they were not pointed out as the direct responsibility of the person being replaced, were all interpreted as a mandatory line drawn to mark the beginning of a new government every six years.
This time it was the complete opposite.
From the very beginning of her message, contrary to Republican protocol, the President had only one addressee for her words: Andrés Manuel López Obrador, whom she mentioned before the H. Congress of the Union, before which the Constitution obliges the elected – in this case, the elected – to protest. It reminded me of Vicente Fox’s levity on December 1, 2000, when he first mentioned his children. Another impoliteness of the President of the Republic was the absence in her initial mention of the President of the Supreme Court of the country, Minister Norma Piña.
Offering to rule for everyone and speaking in such a way that the spoken words please only one is in itself a contradiction. Moreover, due to the delay in the arrival of the President at the legislative site, we saw the shameful spectacle of a noisy, chaotic reception of the former President, who, shocked by a kind of crowd of fanatics, made the last parade and, having reached the highest podium of the Nation, became the object of dozens selfie with Morena legislators and their allies.
If the president wanted to make it clear that she had a guardian and mentor, then she did it, leaving no room for doubt. His speeches and moments of raised voice were – almost all – in praise of the boss and owner of 4T, erected by his heir as a kind of guardian of this temple. There was nothing republican about turning a constitutional protest’s surrender ceremony into an official party rally and turning the silenced and humiliated opposition into a pillar of salt. Perhaps the only two moments of republican character were the President’s salutes to the flag in the vestibule of San Lazaro, first as a civilian and then on his exit with a military salute as Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. The rest will soon be forgotten.
What’s new and different from the outgoing government, analysts agree, is the president’s mention of renewable energy and a proposed cap on the crude oil platform. The second constraint is not a constraint arising from environmental obligations, but rather a reality imposed by hydrocarbon depletion. The transition to renewable energy sources is becoming more the result of decisions by consumers and private investors, rather than government policies oriented in this direction. If this is a difference from the previous government, it is how little news there is.
The worst thing about former President Lopez Obrador was his penchant for disqualification and insults. Let us hope that these negative traits of personal poor understanding and exercise of power are not the hallmarks of the new president. It is inappropriate to call as liars or ignorant those of us who express legitimate concerns about the acts of authoritarianism and militarization that have intensified since the end of the six-year term that ended last Monday.
Denying militarization is a childish argument since the President, who is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, is a civilian. The superficiality of the argument is almost disconcerting. Taken to its extreme, President Sheinbaum could use this argument to try to convince us that the Armed Forces are in fact a civilian force. Let us understand that López Obrador has militarized the government in a way that has harmed not only the government, but above all the civility of public life and the relationship between society and state. This is what we criticize.
In February of this year, López Obrador presented a false initiative to demolish the judiciary, more as an act of propaganda for the election campaign than as the result of an analysis of its problems. The violation of the Constitution by INE and TEPJF has given the sorcerer’s apprentice the right to launch brooms and buckets with which they say they intend to purify all the power of the Republic, when in fact the only purpose is to bring it under its control. and 4T designs. There is nothing democratic about using the popular vote as a sledgehammer to destroy the independence of the judiciary and turn the administration of justice into a means of political control.
It is impossible to swallow the treadmill – pseudo-democratic – which is called upon to justify the authoritarian dismissal of judges, magistrates and ministers, federal and local. History teaches that democracy can also be destroyed by the vote of the people. My criticism, like that of many others, is the result of an analysis of what was approved at random by the official steamroller in Congress.
Follow me on www.vozyvoto.com.mx
Source: Aristegui Noticias
John Cameron is a journalist at The Nation View specializing in world news and current events, particularly in international politics and diplomacy. With expertise in international relations, he covers a range of topics including conflicts, politics and economic trends.