The Fourth Transformation Government may make use of genuine opposition parties. It is essential for society that those in power have interlocutors who can provide feedback, alternatives, and even resistance to possible excesses and mistakes. In politics as in economics, monopolies resist the possibility of improvement or correction.
Unfortunately, the Mexican opposition is far from such an interlocutor. Of course, the blame lies with both parties. It takes two people to have a conversation. Andrés Manuel López Obrador turned discursive polarization into a political asset in order to maintain the support of his popular base. He considered it necessary to overcome the system’s resistance to change and secure a second period of 4T. But as the president continued to act like a candidate on the campaign trail, his political opponents, commentators, and critical media did the same. Engaged in mutual disqualification, the two poles dynamite the potential for meetings and spaces to manage disagreements. Both sides based their strategies on delegitimizing the other by making their graves public.
In a sense, Chapter 1 is already history. Because, beyond finding a hero or a villain, the fact is that 4T received a majority of the votes and, as all indications, are likely to maintain that vote for the next 11 years. For this reason, as has been said since the second month of López Obrador’s government, it is counterproductive to continue betting on Morena’s imminent collapse, since “now” the current scandal is the beginning of a collapse. Elites and opposition alike will need to assume that this situation will continue for some time and act accordingly. An opposition party that is dedicated to dynamite the administration in all it does, and repeatedly fails to make arguments about the perversion of the government, is of little use. He could spend forever preaching to less than a third of the population, losing election after election to more than half of the people who support Mr. Morena.
But this deaf dialogue is not good for either of them. It renders opposition meaningless and transforms power into a partially invalid monopoly.
However, this impasse may change in the fourth quarter as priorities have changed. Unlike López Obrador, the president no longer has an urgency to strengthen his political power, but is instead focused on strengthening his economic viability. Sheinbaum needs to build bridges to create jobs that are essential to getting the economy moving and lifting people out of poverty. However, to build a bridge, you need stakes at both ends. Until now, finding another beachhead has been difficult. And this can only be obtained from the business world.
Of course, the attitude of private initiatives regarding the fourth quarter is not unambiguous or uniform. In general, the most important businessmen have found a way to maintain their power relations over the past six years. Bankers, big contractors and exporters will have little reason to complain, other than ideological differences. However, the same could not be said for other business circles, and they took a more cautious attitude. The uncertainty brought about by the change of scenery and López Obrador’s sharp style, combined with the pandemic, did not help create a favorable environment for private investment.
Normally, this distrust should be alleviated based on her intention to establish a dialogue with Claudia Sheinbaum. Unfortunately, that first year coincided with the dual effects of a constant tidal wave caused by Donald Trump’s mercurial and bellicose style and the tensions left by López Obrador’s Plan C, especially regarding judicial reform. The truth is that the country’s private investment has been disappointing at the start of this six-year term.
However, there seem to be signs that something is about to change. It is becoming increasingly clear to economic elites that this political force will remain in place for several years, and that there are currently no viable political channels or parties to build an alternative. They may not agree with their flag, but they note the Sheinbaum government’s efforts to conduct a responsible and orderly administration and are inviting them to the negotiating table.
Some see José Medina Mora’s impending appointment to the Business Coordination Council as a sign of a hardening of the business sector’s attitude toward the government. As it is known, this organization is the one that most clearly expresses the voice of private initiatives in relation to other parts of the country, especially the public sector. In recent years, it has been chaired by Carlos Salazar and Francisco Cervantes, both of whom have conciliatory personalities and are seen as moderates on the 4Ts. The appointment of Medina Mora, whose leadership at Coparmex has been characterized by a tougher stance, is being seen as a change in attitude in the business world.
Paradoxically, this seems to me to be a change that facilitates the possibility of constructive dialogue and substantive negotiation between two actors who recognize that they need each other. Cervantes served as a kind of ambassador, a buffer to navigate frictions and relations between IP and the public sector, but there was little room for an ambitious agenda. What’s new with Medina Mora’s appointment is that his appointment has much to do with calls for involvement by the Mexican Business Council, a club of 53 of the country’s most powerful businessmen (responsible for about 25% of GDP). The intention to “get wet”, as the Spaniards say, is data that should be rescued. While Cervantes was a mediator who managed distance, Medina Mora was a mediator who mediated the terms of dialogue. As if private initiatives responded to Sheinbaum’s call: “If you’re invited to join in building a country that promotes the 4Ts, let’s sit down and figure out what that country is like and under what conditions you can travel there.”
It remains to be seen whether this business community will ultimately provide the constructive opposition that the 4T government needs. Of course, there are many differences, but there is considerable agreement about today’s need to address the premise of “for the benefit of Mexico, putting the poor first.” It will not be easy, but political and economic elites will need to understand that they have an obligation to coexist and must stand together against the demands of the long-marginalized majority for change. The time has come.
About The Author
