Those of you who know me well may be surprised that I'm writing about politics since I usually avoid discussing politics (US politics, especially) as much as I avoid discussing religion. However, learning about politics in a different context is interesting to me--I think I'm less emotional about most things when taking an anthropological view. As usual, what I'm going to say is a combination of new knowledge and things I have learned from previous experiences in Mexico.
Don't glaze over here during this brief historical overview! I really do have a reason for telling you all of this. (obligatory disclaimer: this is my understanding of history and events; I have not extensively fact-checked my recollections of things I have read and lectures I have heard)
Prior to the arrival of the Spanish in what is now Mexico, the land was populated by various indigenous peoples. Unlike Eurpoean settlement in what is now the US, the Spanish didn't kill off and/or drive out the previous occupants. This is not to say that they didn't kill indigenous people, either through violent means or through disease, but in addition to that, they enslaved the people and put them to work. They also heavily promoted conversion to Catholicism. Mexico as a country was established after a revolution against Spain; independence from Spain was declared in 1810 but not won for several decades. Then in 1910, there was a popular revolution that eventually resulted in a new constitution. The national government of Mexico is structured similarly to that of the US (bi-cameral legislature and a president), but there are some key differences. One difference is that a single political party held the presidency and the balance of power at most levels for more than 70 years, perhaps in part due to proportional representation. Term limits in the constitution prevent re-election after a six-year term of office, so there was consistent turn-over in the person who occupied the presidency, but not the party. That party's influence waned in the past 15 years or so (but may be waxing again) when control of elections was removed to oversight by an independent body. In 2000, a candidate from the far right was elected by voters seeking a change. Then in 2006 the presidential election was highly contested between a candidate of the party of the left and another candidate of the party of the far right. The results were so close (mere percentage points apart) and because irregularities existed in counting of some of the votes (does this sound familiar?) the candidate from the left refused to accept the result and there were months of occupation of the central square of Mexico City by supporters of the left. The representative of the far right took the seat of the presidency (although he entered into the legislative chamber through a side door and was whisked back out it when scuffles broke out). Some time later, there was a mysterious fire in the election bureau and the voting records were destroyed. The war declared by the current president on the narcotrafficking cartels and the resulting level of violence and death among Mexicans in the past several years has resulted in doubt that his party can mount a successful third bid for the presidency.
The party of the left has held the governorship of Mexico City since direct election of the governor and legislature was instituted in 1997. The presidential candidate from the left who almost (or actually, depending on point of view) won in 2006 was governor of Mexico City. Under the leftists, Mexico City laws and policies have become much more progressive than those of any state in Mexico or of the Mexican federal government (or, in many ways, of the large, familiar neighbor to the north). For instance, in Mexico City, abortion is legal as is same-sex marriage and euthanasia. Additionally, there is a small monthly pension for older people and a number of progressive social programs and initiatives. The progressive nature of social policy and social programs is, of course, what attracted me to Mexico City to do my research.
Elections are coming up, next summer I think, and candidates are beginning to announce. THIS IS WHY I'M TELLING YOU THIS. Someone who is a faculty member in the Escuela Nacional de Trabajo Social (that's national school of social work) at UNAM (my university here) publicly announced his candidacy today for the governorship of the Federal District of Mexico (Mexico City). I have been to a couple of events where he was the featured speaker, one of which was a celebration for the national Social Workers Day. He occupies a cabinet-level position in the government of Mexico City (secretary of the department of social development), so is directly involved in development and other types of services. My research collaborator also works in that department. I had gathered from various articles and editorials posted by my research collaborator that a candidacy was planned--and it looks like it has a good chance of success according to a couple of newspapers. Part of his progressive message is a feminist perspective--imagine that!
This is pretty exciting--a social work professor potentially occupying one of the highest elected offices in the country. And I get to be a fairly up-close spectator during the campaign process. I sort of feel like I'm in the right place at the right time.
No comments:
Post a Comment