To this day, one of the most serious challenges to Mexico’s public service is the prevalence of corruption among officials. At all levels of government — federal, state and municipal — this barrier has proved to be enduring and difficult to overcome effectively.

According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, Mexico has made nearly no progress in ending corruption in its public sector. Over the last five years, it has steadily maintained its in the 135th��place (out of 180) when it comes to government transparency. Moreover, surveys conducted by Transparency International reveal that, in 2017, 61% of respondents in Mexico perceived an increase in the levels of corruption in government in comparison with the previous year.

There have been continued attempts at making the public service more transparent— for instance, through the use of and the of government procedures. Unfortunately, the day-to-day dealings by both companies and private individuals with all levels of government in Mexico remain cumbersome, and this burden of bureaucracy often leads to corruption.

A Change in Thinking

The new federal administration of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, which took office in December 2018, has vowed to tackle these issues. There are significant differences, however, in its approach to fighting corruption when compared to those of previous administrations. For instance, in 2014, then-President Enrique Peña Nieto that in Mexico “corruption is a cultural issue,” implying that it is rooted in the country’s imagination. Political analysts in the country interpreted, and quickly and , Peña Nieto’s statement (and his ensuing refusal to backtrack on it) as a condemnation to permanent failure in the country’s fight against corruption.

In contrast, López Obrador, then a presidential candidate, this comment promptly, later that “corruption is not part of Mexican culture. That belief has to be sidelined, because Mexicans have a great reserve of moral, cultural, and spiritual values.” This change in thinking among governmental elites is in line with the one dominating the global debate on corruption. It sees this political, economic and social phenomenon as being latent in human beings, individually or collectively, but only when political institutions are not backed by a strong civil service.

The new administration’s first step in setting the government’s position in the fight against corruption across Mexico was, therefore, to set a positive and constructive tone for creating and implementing public policies and legal reforms to provide a framework for curbing corrupt practices.

The institutional inertia that it will face, however, might make it difficult to implement broad and quick changes to the public service structure. One of the factors here is the belief that López Obrador’s party affiliation constitutes a default obstacle to securing cooperation by the opposition. Another one is within its own ranks. There is resistance from part of the civil service to the new administration’s explicit approach to the use of public money, which has done away with the fiscal conservatism of previous administrations in favor of the broader implementation of social welfare programs.

Effects of Austerity

While a large sector of Mexican society supports the implementation of these measures, the upper levels of the federal bureaucracy have already opposed, and will likely continue opposing, these changes that imply making to salaries and benefits of public servants in the higher positions within the bureaucracy, cuts to the at the various levels of the Mexican government, as well as cuts to the .

There is, therefore, an unquantifiable effect of the austerity policy that López Obrador is suggesting for Mexico’s public administration structure. While it is common practice that during the first year of the new federal administration the secretaries of state, their subordinates and the incoming higher-level bureaucratic staff are positive-minded and ready to implement significant changes in the way in which the federal government is run, it is also common that such momentum is gradually lost, as a result of the day-to-day operation of government.

Resistance to the implementation of laws and other regulations, which might impact the salaries of bureaucrats, however, could prevent the government from implementing radical changes. For instance, when Vicente Fox Quesada, Mexico’s first democratically elected president of the 21st century, took office after more than 70 years of by the Institutional Revolutionary Party��(PRI), his National Action Party (PAN) held no majority in Congress. Thus, most of the constitutional reforms Fox Quesada proposed could not be carried out. This was mainly due to the ideological differences and administrative hurdles that the PRI-affiliated legislators created for the newly elected government.

As a result, not even in its first year in office, which is usually the most productive in Mexican federal government in terms of implementation of reforms, was the administration able to pass any of the major proposals it had promised to its voters.

In comparison, President Peña Nieto, who managed to get the PRI back in power after 12 years of PAN governments, succeeded in securing the passing of various reforms, including constitutional ones, which the previous governments were unable to do. The and the (Pact for Mexico) set a triumphalist tone for the��PRI-dominated federal government. The reforms, however, were originally meant to be realized over a period of time and have long-term positive effects resulting from their implementation. This implied that many of the measures did not have immediately visible effects. In the end, a number of corruption scandals sabotaged the reform efforts.

Different Obstacles

It can be expected, however, that López Obrador’s first years in government will be very different to those of either Fox Quesada or Peña Nieto, facing a new set of obstacles. While López Obrador will benefit from his party’s (the Movement of National Regeneration, MORENA) hold of a majority in both chambers in Congress and significant support from the population, he will have to face a civil service that might oppose a swift implementation of the constitutional and institutional changes he proposes while having their salaries and benefits cut.

At the most basic level, the benefits of reducing the salaries of public employees will lead to savings for the government, which might enable the new administration to fund and implement the programs and policies it proposed and is now pursuing. The possible self-sabotage by the upper and upper-middle managers in the federal government as a show of discontent for the austerity could constitute a significant disruption to public administration services. This is despite that fact that the number of public servants by the proposed measures is minimal — at 5,000, a mere 0.3% of the total number of federal government employees.

While other countries have created stable and professional civil service bodies through the promotion of academic research in the field of public administration and the specialized education of personnel, in Mexico these programs are not yet widespread. For example, while the number of Mexican social researchers dedicated to the study of public administration has increased considerably, it is still rare to come across a public official in the Mexican government who also happens to be a public administration professional.

The reduction of positions available in government, as well as the decrease in wages in the upper ranks of the bureaucracy — while simultaneously increasing those of the employees in the lower ranks, who had earned less than $600 a month — gives the government the opportunity to set aside those employees whose jobs have become redundant and fight corruption through the creation of a smaller and more professionalized public service. It should also enable the distribution of economic and human resources inside the government itself. As the saying in Mexico goes: “El buen juez por su casa empieza” —“The good judge shall, first and foremost, put his own house in order.”

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Can Mexico Change Its Approach to Corruption? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On July 1, Andrés Manuel López Obrador was elected as Mexico’s new president. His victory marked a historic day for the country: López Obrador is the first left-wing presidential candidate to become successful in recent history. After two failed attempts at the presidency, he became the most popular winner in election, taking�� of the nearly 60 million votes cast on election day.

Although the most anticipated announcement was the name of the winner in the presidential race, there were more than 8,000 public offices open for competition to tens of thousands of candidates from nine national parties and many independent contestants across the country. Of these candidates, 132 would never see the end of the elections. They were during the campaign — two of them right on election day — in what was the deadliest contest in Mexico’s political history.

Local politicians, including candidates, public servants and campaign staff often face threats to their lives, families and properties from organized crime. “If politicians, from whatever party, seek to tackle corruption or criminal activities, they quickly become targets of organised crime. Drug cartels, in particular, are using the elections to ensure that politicians seeking election do not threaten their power base. They are using homicide as a strategy to maintain political control over local communities,”����from the University of Portsmouth.��In a country where , it is unlikely that the culprits will ever be found, let alone face justice.

Volatile Security

Despite this volatile security situation, López Obrador confidently toured the country in an effort to win support for his candidacy, party and platform. He visited almost all the municipalities across Mexico, including some which the incumbent president, Enrique Peña Nieto, and other presidential candidates have never been to due to security risks. As president-elect, López Obrador has vowed to tour the country again to raise support for his incoming administration. Worryingly, he has stated that even as president-elect he will not to use a security detail for his personal protection.

Historically, the security of Mexican presidents has been handled by the Estado Mayor Presidencial (EMP), the elite arm of the Mexican army dedicated to protecting the head of state. Traditionally, this security is also afforded to newly elected presidents from election day until taking office, which in Mexico takes place on December 1. López Obrador, however, has vowed to not take the EMP protection. Even when threats have been made against his life, he has : “I have nothing to be afraid of. I have nothing to hide. My conscience is clear. I have a view of life … where one walks straight ahead toward an ideal. Does not stray [from it]. And, if in that walk toward an ideal, one falls, that is it.”

To justify his decision, López Obrador has pointed to the assassination of Luis Donaldo Colosio, the candidate from then-ruling Partido Revolucionario Institucional (Institutional Revolutionary Party), who was assassinated at a campaign rally in in Baja California during the 1994 presidential campaign. López Obrador argues that even the life of sitting presidents is at risk, and that not even the protection of the highly praised US Secret Service prevented the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy.

By foregoing the use of a personal security detail, López Obrador hopes to convey a message that he will deal with insecurity in a way that is closer to the daily experiences of ordinary Mexicans. López Obrador insists that he aims at making radical changes to the way in which political power has been historically exercised in Mexico. This is a signal that the incoming president aims to eliminate — not just limit — the privileges that he considers were abused by those who governed the country before him.

Symbols of Power

In his line of reasoning, the existence of a security detail is meant not to just provide protection to the head of state but serves as a show of strength and opulence, its staff and protocols all part of the theatrical features that have characterized political power in Mexico. They are signs and symbols of status that elites use to shape the act of governing and how they want ordinary people to look at the authority they hold.

This interpretation of the uses of the presidential security apparatus is close to reality. For instance, from January to August 2017, ��staff spent about $1.5 million on his protection while on official business around the country. From January 2013 to January 2016, his staff spent ��on 41 official trips abroad.

While these expenditures might appear to be small, the amount of money spent on providing security to Los Pinos, Mexico’s presidential residence, is often off the charts. To secure the residence, just between January and May 2017, the president’s office spent . This amount includes the money spent on securing the 56,000 square metres that make up Los Pinos —��a complex than the White House, which consists��of several buildings whose commercial value is estimated to exceed $92 million. The budget used to secure the residence could be substantially reduced should the activities of the president and his staff be moved permanently to the National Palace — the official seat of the Mexican government’s executive branch — as López Obrador has proposed.

However, Mexico cannot be described as a ��by a long stretch, and the threats that have been made against López Obrador’s life are very real — to the point that has stated that “beyond any political differences, these threats, in this case, against López Obrador, are inadmissible, and that the State’s response should be firm.” By foregoing the use of a security detail, López Obrador is putting public interest at risk.

To his supporters and those who voted for him, seeing López Obrador reach the country’s highest office is the vindication of a popular struggle, the culmination of a long fight for true democracy in Mexico. Even to his critics and those who did not vote for him, an attack on his life��would put Mexico’s political and social stability at risk. To both groups, López Obrador is now the president-elect. In the words of one , “This is the institution of the presidency of the republic, this isn’t just one person.”

There are a number of alternatives to López Obrador’s promise to run a government that is closer to the people. One of them would be using a smaller security detail. Another would be to make a more cautious use of the Mexican federal government’s transport fleet, which includes the a Boeing Dreamliner 787 that cost over $350 million, making it the most expensive of its class in the world. Another option would be to limit the number of out-of-office official activities, which commonly involve the participation of more than 2,000 personnel.

Should López Obrador and his team discuss and consider these and other alternatives, there are many that would both fulfil the need to provide security to the head of state while keeping him “close to the people.”

Many Mexicans want to see justice being delivered for the families of the 132 candidates who were killed during the campaign. But many of them also want to see López Obrador assume office. As of July 1, López Obrador has ceased being a social leader and candidate and, as president-elect, must act with full responsibility because his safety is now synonymous with the safety of the head of state and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Accepting the protection of his life and integrity is protecting Mexico’s interests and stability. These are matters of national security that he simply cannot disregard.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/

The post López Obrador’s Personal Safety Is Mexico’s Stability appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The election of US President Donald Trump in November 2016 brought political and economic uncertainty to the world. Upon being elected, Trump announced radical changes to US domestic and foreign policies, aimed at delivering a government that puts “.”

This populist and isolationist approach led political commentators on both sides of the Atlantic to argue that the United States had abandoned its position at the forefront of global politics. Those same commentators quickly turned their heads to Germany as the country that can — and seems willing to — lead the industrialized, liberal democracies into the 21st century, and pronounced German Chancellor Angela Merkel as the new “leader of the free world.”

Germany and Merkel have taken upon their new roles enthusiastically. On May 28, at an election rally in Munich, : “The times in which we could completely depend on others are, to a certain extent, over.” Amid Trump’s election in the US and Brexit in Britain, she said: “We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands.” In her view, Europe and the rest of the world can no longer count on the US or the UK as they used to in the pre-Trump and pre-Brexit era. For Merkel, the transatlantic alliances are no longer reliable relationships upon which to build common prosperity and security.

This assessment, however, does not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following the events unfolding in the US and Britain. What is worth noting instead is that Merkel’s vision for Germany and the European Union is not constrained to the continent.

TRIPS TO ARGENTINA AND MEXICO

Having regained its position as the political and economic power of Europe following the devastation of two world wars, Germany is no stranger to economic and political uncertainty. To address it, ever since the end of World War II, the German government has been busy advocating for the creation of free-trade zones, pushing for the opening of domestic and global markets, and promoting trust among countries both inside and outside Europe. Hence, in the face of uncertainty caused by a US retreat from global affairs, Germany has been using its experience and stronger global leadership to fill the empty seat that Washington left behind in Latin America, where it had traditionally held its strongest influence.

From June 7, Merkel has visited and to foster Germany’s links with Latin America. Officially, , “Merkel’s stops in Argentina and then Mexico were simply [because they are] the last countries left on the list to visit prior to the G20 summit,” which is set to be held on July 7-8 in Hamburg. Unofficially, Merkel’s visit to Latin America was partly aimed at exploring and establishing new global alliances that are not built around the US.

In Argentina, to discuss trade and climate change issues, including the expected completion of a free-trade agreement between the EU and Mercosur, and the social and cultural links between Germany and the Jewish community in Argentina — the largest of its kind in Latin America. In Mexico, Merkel talked about trade and cultural issues, including the upgrading of the EU-Mexico free-trade agreement, and the closure of the Year of Germany in Mexico and the start of the Year of Mexico in Germany, which is a two-year bilateral initiative aimed at promoting better mutual knowledge and understanding between their peoples and cultures.

As German Ambassador to Mexico Viktor Elbling , however, “the visit is in part meant to demonstrate his nation’s leadership on the world stage.” Argentina and Mexico are not just important trading partners for Germany, but also important political players in Latin America that have been long dissatisfied with US leadership in the region, and who would likely welcome and support power shifts in the global arena — away from the Trump administration’s protectionism and toward a more open global marketplace centered in Germany and the EU. As German Secretary of State for Tourism Iris Gleicke recently stated in her meeting with her Mexican counterpart, Enrique de la Madrid Cordero, Berlin is that “open markets and reliable trade conditions rather than protectionism are the right approach.” Over the past few months, similar statements have been made repeatedly at meetings between high-level German and Mexican government officials, including Merkel herself.

WHY MEXICO?

Germany and Mexico have links that go beyond their common criticism of Trump’s protectionist policies. Both countries have expressed their commitment to strengthening and diversifying their bilateral economic, cultural and social links, and according to Gleicke, German-Mexican relations have developed “very positively [and already] offer companies in both countries enormous potential” and opportunities. Mexico’s appeal to Germany seems then to be momentous, not momentary.

Governments and firms in Germany and the rest of the EU consider that Mexico is on track to become an even more attractive country for foreign investment. In their view, Mexico has a privileged geographical position and a strong development model, which makes it a key player in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the nascent Pacific Alliance — even at a time when the former has been heavily criticized by the Trump administration.

Mexico has also grown steadily as a market and country for investment. Numerous domestic policies and programs, including the liberalization of the Mexican energy sector, have increased both German and European interest in conducting or expanding business in the country. Likewise, sustained growth in Mexico’s manufacturing industry has made it a remarkable base for operations and a destination for producing and buying German products produced by and for Latin America. According to officials at the German Ministry of Economy and Energy, these conditions have made Mexico more attractive to German and European investors — even over other large Latin American countries such as Brazil and Argentina.

German investors have insisted, however, that Mexico must take further steps to continue, expand and enhance its trade initiatives and development programs. These notably include those related to the improvement of infrastructure, the further opening of its domestic market, and the provision of conditions of full transparency for foreign investors. These remarks strengthen previous calls, such as those made in 2016, for a swift and successful conclusion to ongoing negotiations for an updated free-trade agreement between the EU and Mexico.

Currently, around 80% of Mexico’s foreign trade is conducted with other NAFTA countries. Merkel and other German high-level government officials consider that a new EU-Mexico agreement might open up opportunities “,” not just the North American one. The economic opportunities for Mexico from a closer relationship with Germany are clear and evident.

MERKEL IS ON THE ROAD

To Germany, however, the greatest gains to be made are political. Merkel’s visit to Argentina and Mexico has been described as a “,” just weeks before he attends the G20 summit. The timing of the visit — and the expressions of solidarity and understanding with Latin America, especially Mexico — also appears to be aimed at expressing the serious disagreements that exist between Germany and the EU with the Trump administration.

Germany’s offer of a helping hand to Mexico and Argentina signals the emergence of a closer economic relationship between Europe and Latin America that has the potential of replacing the not-so-benign influence of the US over the region. In exchange, it is likely that Latin American states will be expected to offer their support to Germany and the EU to make changes to the formerly US-led international political system.

So, should Latin America applaud or be suspicious of the actions and intentions of the great European power? While only time will tell, it is clear that Angela Merkel is on the road to becoming “the new leader of the free world.” Clearly, Mexico and Argentina are two worthy stops to make.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

The post Merkel’s Journey to Global Leadership Crosses Latin America appeared first on 51�Թ�.