Daljit Dhaliwal:
How do you think Americans see Mexico and Mexicans?
Enrique Krauze:
Well, first of all Americans don't see much Mexico, and when they see Mexico they have a kind of touristic stereotype in their heads: that Mexico begins and ends in Tijuana, or Acapulco or Cancun. Mexico's a very complex country. Mexico is a country not unlike China or India, a very ancient country, and a country that had a blend of Spanish and Indian civilization . There are many Mexicos. There are at least three Mexicos. The Mexico of the South, which is poor and has a huge Indian population; Mexico of the center that is in a way in tension between the more developed first world North and the backward South. Mexico is a place of a tension between the will of becoming a modern country, and the weight of Mexico's past, which is a very rich past, but also a very conflicted past.
Daljit Dhaliwal:
What about the issue of drugs?
Enrique Krauze:
We have the problem of drugs. Mexican perception is that Americans have a liberal free market attitude towards everything -- except to drugs. The invisible hand of Adam Smith works in everything, but not when it comes to drugs.
Daljit Dhaliwal:
Why do you think that is?
Enrique Krauze:
Americans tend to only focus on the supply side, and not on the demand side of the problem. That is the perception in Mexico. And I think there's some truth in it. Yes, there's a network in Mexico and the production of drugs in Latin America, but there is also the need here and the immense demand ... so that suggests a social, moral disease. Let me tell you that in Mexican communities and families, and I'm not idealizing my country, the problem of individual isolation and angst and even the use of drugs is not as acute as in Northern countries.
Daljit Dhaliwal:
I want to move on to the changes that are taking place in Mexico with the election of President Fox. He promised el cambio - change - and transparency. Has he succeeded?
Enrique Krauze:
Well, he has succeeded partially. But many things remain to be done. el cambio meant first of all to finish 71 years of the reign of one party system, a very peculiar system - the PRI... el cambio meant also to get rid of that system, but to build new things like the end of corruption, growing the economy, the rule of the law. Many things that Mexicans believe are central to becoming a more decent society.
First of all let's talk about the positive aspects of el cambio. Mexico in its 180 years of history, independent history since 1821, has been a democracy, a true democracy, probably less than 15 years. Some of them in the mid-19th century, a few months in the beginning of the 20th century, and now at the end of the 20th, and beginning of the 21st.
Daljit Dhaliwal:
So really this is the first real opportunity to put down democratic roots and to build those structures.
Enrique Krauze:
You could say that. We have had Caudillos, dictators, revolutions, and we had, so to speak, a benign dictatorship ... the corporate, Statist dictatorship of the PRI. There have been 11 Presidents of the PRI. Every six years we have one. But there weren't really clean elections. There were elections, but they were rigged elections. There wasn't really freedom of the press. We were not really a democracy. We simulated democracy.
Daljit Dhaliwal:
Do you think that President Fox bit off too much with el cambio?
Enrique Krauze:
Yes, but it was inevitable. You see, after 71 years of the rigid structure of that political system that lasted so long, you needed a strong civic caudillo, as we say in Spanish, a charismatic leader. People like him and believe in him, and he had to promise. But he probably promised a little bit too much.
Daljit Dhaliwal:
I just want to relate it back to the film, on the question of reining in the military and fighting corruption, has that happened?
Enrique Krauze:
Well, the reality that is portrayed in the film is painfully true. Real. The main problem in Mexico as perceived by Mexicans clearly is insecurity, crime, and the lack of rule of law. Far more important than economic progress. Far more important than anything that the state could enable or provide. That if the state does not provide security for its citizens and rule of law, then what is the state for?
Daljit Dhaliwal:
Are you referring to the role of the police, who in some respects are said to be as corrupt as the drug cartels?
Enrique Krauze:
Actually what is somehow misleading in this wonderful film is that it overstates the problem of the Army, and it does not pay sufficient attention to the problem of the police. The Army in Mexico, unlike many armies in Latin America, has more or less been an honest and loyal institution since the 40's.
Daljit Dhaliwal:
Really?
Enrique Krauze:
They step out of power willingly on their own. The last military President in Mexico was Manuel Avilla Camacho in 1946. And he chose a civilian successor. And from then on, all the presidents of the PRI, and now, President Fox, have been civilians. You don't have the same thing happening in Latin America where you have the terrible cycle of anarchy and dictatorships. Where the Army has the temptation -- not only the temptation --the will to step into politics and take over. We did not have that. We had stability. We did not have democracy, but we had stability for many decades.
And the Army played a role. I'm not saying that now with the problem of drugs we do not have some problems with the military. Some generals have been discovered that were involved in drug deals. But all in all I would say is that the problem is not the Mexican Army. The problem now overwhelmingly recognized by Mexican people is the police. Mexican police at all levels. National, state level, municipal level, is to an important degree corrupt. But it's something that the police are the most corrupt force in Mexico. You approach a policeman and you don't know if you're going to be robbed or what. The PRI was like a Sicilian Mafia. Now you have the breakup of that Mafia, and the Capos of the Mafia are now dispersed.
Daljit Dhaliwal:
How has Fox tackled the problem?
Enrique Krauze:
He has been doing very poorly in that sense. And this is one of the things that Mexicans, Mexican people who still like Fox and believe in him, resent most.
To be a good and honest guy is something important for voters. No? They think that he means well and he still has the credit - diminishing - and the trust of the people. Because they also do not forget the positive aspects of el cambio that we have achieved in Mexico. It is not only Fox, but the work of Mexicans and many people.
But there have been some important, I would say very, very important aspects of el cambio that Americans should acknowledge and understand.
Daljit Dhaliwal:
For example?
Enrique Krauze:
We talked about the problems. The problem of corruption, lack of rule of law, and the police. But let's talk about two important changes. Elections. Even the word elections didn't mean much for Mexicans during the years. No one really believed in election. No. It was a kind of folkloric thing. We even had a word "alchemy" for elections -- that is people went to vote and then something happened -- an alchemy -- with computers, or specialized technicians -- changed the results, and of course we had the PRI winning in every state, and in every one of the 2500 municipalities.
Daljit Dhaliwal:
So where did the impetus for change come from?
Enrique Krauze:
It's a very interesting question. You see it started in the early 80's, during the big economic crash in Mexico. Mexicans began to understand that to put all the power and resources in the hands of one man -- like a Monarch, an absolute monarch, disguised in Republican and Democratic clothes -- was very dangerous. We began to think that democracy might be a solution. We had never thought that.
Daljit Dhaliwal:
It had never been discussed even among the intelligentsia?
Enrique Krauze:
Actually no. We have had just 10 years in the 19th century and a few months in the 20th century. But democracy was not an issue. Not even a word that we talked about. Because Mexicans and the intelligentsia was much more in love with the word revolution than the word democracy.
|
