“The Debate” Could Lead To Mexican Presidency

By Carlos Luken

Given Mexico’s politically charged atmosphere, it is astonishing that one event could gain such a major amount of national attention – and that most people would choose to call it simply “The Debate.” After the fact however, others are referring to it as “the turning point.”

The Debate, during prime time on April 25 and between disputants for the presidency of Mexico, was the culmination of a campaign stage during which all participating parties have exercised little decorum and civility. Yet representatives of all contenders met with officials of the Federal Electoral Institute, in order to talk and define guidelines and rules that led to a summit of presidential candidates, and to a public discussion of their ideals and proposals.

Considering the proximity of the July 2 election, The Debate’s terms and formalities were quickly agreed upon by four of the five contenders, with the only exception being Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) candidate. Apparently the longtime frontrunner felt his lead was too robust to jeopardize on a trivial publicity whim and he declined to participate.

At the time the thinking of Lopez Obrador (known as AMLO) may have been correct insofar as when the campaign officially began, in January 2006, he had amassed a seemingly insurmountable lead over Felipe Calderon of the National Action Party (PAN), and Roberto Madrazo of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). As well, during the talks the PRD strategy was to seemingly go along with the debate negotiations, while asserting that their candidate could not be compelled to take part.

Whatever, the other four parties agreed on two debates, one on April 25 and the other to be held June 6.

The initial debate participants were Calderon of the PAN and Madrazo of the PRI, along with Patricia Mercado of the Alternative Social Democrat Party, and Roberto Campa of the New Alliance Party. As for AMLO, his bravado went so far as to ridicule a negotiated decision to add an empty podium to symbolize his absence and refusal to take part.

(As the April 25 date drew closer, and with his poll numbers falling, AMLO consented to be part of June event.)

However AMLO’s estimates fell further short. His decision not to debate was perceived publicly as a sign of weakness, and his opponents seized upon this blunder quickly. AMLO’s overly aggressive style of campaigning and other judgment errors added to the loss of momentum, and by April 25 his candidacy was somewhat in disarray. That morning two national newspaper polls, confirming an earlier poll, established that his lead had evaporated. He was trailing Calderon in two surveys, and technically tied in a third.

And then The Debate was televised nationally and seen by millions.

Roberto Campa was a surprise, and while being more eloquent than substantive he showed himself to be a viable independent candidate. Campa began by distancing himself from his past PRI militancy, and he questioned Madrazo’s honesty.

Madrazo became flustered, and retaliated by charging that Campa was conspiring with Calderon. He also blamed Calderon and the Vicente Fox administration for all of Mexico’s problems and woes. Calderon countered Madrazo’s charges by pointing a finger at 70 years of corrupt PRI rule.

Without Lopez Obrador the left was poorly represented. Patricia Mercado tried, but her ineffective attempts to include all activist causes – from socialist doctrine to woman’s rights to abortion to gay marriage – only presented a confused picture of her candidacy.

Within 30 minutes following the start of the two-hour debate the candidates had painted an ominous picture of Mexico today, and the difficult tasks that lie ahead. Poverty, unemployment, corruption, lawlessness, lack of education and infrastructure needs were mentioned, along with urgently needed labor, environmental and energy reforms.

Madrazo inadvertently made Calderon the debate’s standout, as he centered his attention and criticism on Calderon. Madrazo’s comments were basically a continuation of 70-year-old PRI rhetoric, and his efforts to indict corruption within the PAN backfired due to his past and lack of credibility.

Calderon was clearly the winner of The Debate, as he showed himself to be the best-prepared contender with real, solid and well articulated proposals. A post-debate poll by Reforma newspaper had Calderon winning by 43 percent, more than his three opponents combined (18 percent of those contacted were non-responsive).

Yet rather than Madrazo, the biggest loss may go to Lopez Obrador. Those involved and watching mostly forgot about AMLO during The Debate, and his absence – accentuated by the vacant podium – certainly hurt his image.