Federico Reyes Heroles
What is the knot that prevents the weaving of a solid opposition from recovering the democratic path? Let’s return to the thesis: authoritarianism is always alive. And the democratic spirit is always under construction. But the incipient political culture of Mexicans is going through somber days. The megaphone and a provocative narrative worked.
In the previous three decades, polls conducted by the IFE/INE/Jurídicas de la UNAM—as well as the Banamex series—showed slow but systematic progress in essential democratic values: interpersonal respect and respect for the law through the internalization of norms. These changes, coupled with clean and convincing elections that reflected growing plurality, led to a democratic blossoming. Freedoms increased with greater demands, transparency, and condemnation of corruption, for example. There was a democratic spirit, always under construction.
Today, the opposite reigns. In the last third of 2024, several polls appeared—most of them international—that make one’s hair stand on end—one fact: 52% of Mexicans would approve a self-coup by the president (LAPOP).
When I arrived in Chile in October 1988 to observe the plebiscite, I noticed the valuable efforts among the opposition to tie up their ideological differences and put the return to democracy first. That fabric took months to weave. The Concertación por el NO (Coalition for No), with 17 parties, was born in January. It took time to overcome the impulses. In a famous live television interview, De cara al país (Facing the Nation) on April 25, 1988, representatives of the PPD (Party for Democracy, founded in December 1987) explained their role: to be an “instrumental” party. Ricardo Lagos was the leader of the PPD. Another guest on the program was Armando Jaramillo, a well-known conservative leader. The journalists tried to corner them, especially Lagos, inquiring about his socialist past with Allende and the presence of communists and a majority of socialists in the PPD. Was the PPD perhaps a masquerade? Lagos, very firm, proudly revisited his past and explained that the PPD was not a coalition, but an organization of Chileans seeking to end the dictatorship. Ideological differences would be aired in a democracy. It was a fundamental redefinition of the left: democracy first.
Participating in the plebiscite was mandatory, knowing the traps set by the dictatorship. By abstaining, Pinochet would have decided for them. “I don’t see the general defeated getting on the plane.” To win, despite all the obstacles. Regarding the predominance of socialists in the PPD leadership, Lagos responded with aplomb: there was a conservative majority in the Supreme Court—Pinochet was unable to destroy an independent judiciary, here they had gone further—and yet they respected its decisions.
Armando Jaramillo was questioned about betraying his principles. His response was impeccable: Churchill, negotiating with Stalin, Chiang Kai-shek, De Gaulle, and Roosevelt, all to stop Nazism. Or Reagan negotiating with Gorbachev to avoid a conflagration: “…dictators must be told, suggested to with kind words, that their time is running out… that they must understand that Batista, if he had left in time, would not have had Castro…” The exact recipe for the Shah that brought the Ayatollah to power, or for Tacho Somoza and Sandinismo. “We are doing something similar,” he said calmly.
At minute 50, Lagos, looking at the camera, addresses Pinochet: “You have not been clear… in the 1980 plebiscite you stated that you would not be a candidate… and now you are promising the country another eight years of torture, murder, and human rights violations…” The index finger of his right hand pointed at the dictator: “…You are going to have to answer.” The host tried to stop him, “Excuse me,” he continued, “I am speaking for 15 years of silence.”
Therein lies the crux of the matter. To weave, you need leaders with vision. Will those here be able to grow?
Further Reading: