Fraud in the Land of Telenovelas, Part III

It appears that news and analysis of the Mexican election over the past week or so has been centered around...why there’s not more news and analysis. Beyond Chron compared the Mexican election and subsequent protests to last year’s Ukranian election and subsequent protests. In one sentence: the media focused for quite a while on the fraud and protests in the country that has almost no strategic significance to the United States but has said little to nothing about the country with which we share a border.

What is astonishing about the media silence about Mexico is that America has recently had millions take to the streets over immigrants’ rights, and both the left and right are focused on the issue. People on all sides agree that there is a connection between Mexico’s internal politics and increased immigration.Shouldn’t this make a challenged Mexican presidential election an important ongoing news story? If America views increased immigration from Mexico as a national crisis demanding action, shouldn’t the media examine how the perception of election fraud---in the wake of the 1988 presidential election that even conservatives agreed was stolen from the progressive candidate-- might heighten the future exodus of Mexicans to the United States?

...

When it comes to an alleged kidnapping in Aruba or an alleged rape at Duke University, the American media hits every conceivable angle of the story. But massive protests occurring in our neighbor to the south is covered like a crime or accident story, with reporters not covering more than the who, what and where of major events.

While coverage definitely hasn’t rivaled that of the Ukranian election (for whatever reason), that’s not to say that nobody in the mainstream media has covered it. The TV media seems to have forgotten about it (as have major news websites like cnn.com), but the print media has not. Here’s an article from Sunday’s Baltimore Sun. It centers around a family arguing about the election instead of just giving straight facts, but it’s something.

At the Morales family home, there is one point of agreement: No one wants to see the recount controversy spin out of control.

"I want them to recount the votes," her grandmother says. "But I want it to be done peacefully. There shouldn't be a war with the other side."

Probably the most mainstream report recently came in the most recent TIME Magazine.

The standoff leaves three scenarios for resolving Mexico's political deadlock:

* The electoral tribunal could simply ratify the provisional results it released earlier, and name Calderón as winner. That would be legal, but might lack legitimacy in the eyes of much of the population, whose skepticism is fueled by a longstanding tradition of electoral fraud. Calderón would therefore take office under the shadow of suspicion, and might struggle to find the support necessary to govern effectively from a congress in which he lacks a majority. Also, Obrador's supporters have taken to the street in the hundreds of thousands, and appear in no mood to accept a defeat they insist was fraudulent.

* The TEPJ could accept Obrador's challenge to the process and order a recount. Obrador has said his alliance will accept any outcome as long as the process is transparent. But if the recount makes Obrador the winner, there is a danger that PAN would resort to "civil disobedience," as it has done in the past, like closing federal highways or organizing sit-ins in public offices, and make it difficult for Obrador to govern. The center-left candidate won't find it any easier to win a congressional majority for his policies than would Calderón.

* The tribunal could nullify the election, which would require Congress to appoint an interim president and schedule new elections within 18 months. That, too, would restrict governance, and simply usher in another long season of campaigning.

What does seem to be happening is that people are succeeding in labeling Lopez Obrador as “unhinged” (That he apparently ended up very wrong in claiming voter fraud with the infamous “guy in the blue shirt” video definitely helped that image set), which shouldn’t play a role in whether or not there ends up being a recount, but public opinion is still obviously very important. If nothing else, it could affect the voting if the unlikely Scenario #3 above actually happens. This New York Times profile does help somewhat in painting him more as dedicated and defiant than obsessed and crazy, but it definitely paints him as intense (and the part where he refused to condemn the vandalizing of Calderon’s car definitely wasn’t a positive).

There’s one quote from him, though, that gets to the bottom line:

"If he is sure of having won, he doesn’t have any reason to refuse a recount," Mr. López Obrador said. "Because if he should win, it would strengthen him, he would obtain legitimacy that he doesn’t have because of the unfair way the election was carried out."

So what are blogs saying now? Well, not much. Here’s a blurb from the most on-top-of-it-regarding-Mexico blog, Mercury Rising, but the biggest write-up recently comes from a BooMan diary (recently promoted to the front page of the BooMan Tribune). I can’t really take a blurb from it...the whole thing (graphics and all) are worth reading.

Stay tuned. Nothing is going on at the moment, but the story can't be allowed to fade.