The Fox Legacy

By Alan Stoga*

Mexico’s Vicente Fox won his country’s presidency four years ago in a stunning upset of the political status quo. His defeat of the PRI after 71 years of uninterrupted single party rule seemed to position Mexico for a new chapter of democratic development, economic growth, and national renewal. The conventional wisdom was that Fox’s election would be remembered, not only for ending one chapter of Mexico’s history, but for starting another.

After three and a half years in office, however, many Mexicans seem to be looking back with nostalgia to the days when presidents like Adolfo Lopez Mateos and Carlos Salinas ruled Mexico with a firm hand, even if with little democracy. They criticize the Fox government for having failed to persuade Congress to pass much needed economic and political reforms, for weak economic growth, for the lack of a new immigration deal with the United States, and for the endless struggles among politicians and parties that seem to block progress on almost every issue. These critics paint a picture of a government that has effectively ended long before its time, and of a vacuum of presidential leadership that has already triggered the start of campaigning, even though the next presidential election will not be held until July, 2006.

Indeed, it is hard to talk to a Mexican intellectual, journalist, or politician without hearing almost endless complaints about the "failure" of the Fox presidency. Nevertheless, despite all this noise, public opinion polls continue to record the President’s popularity to be well in excess of 50%. How can 100% of the elite and more than half of the country reach such opposite conclusions?

There are at least two parts to the answer. The first involves expectations: the majority of Mexicans do not trust politicians or government, so they are not surprised when government fails to deliver. The second involves legacy: the majority of Mexicans see the miracle of Fox’s defeat of the PRI in 2000 as his historical legacy. In other words, they are not particularly surprised that Fox has not achieved much in office, but they admire him anyhow since few Mexicans believed the PRI would ever be evicted–even temporarily–from Los Pinos.

It is in the nature of presidents, in all countries, to worry about their legacies. However, few have the luxury to have made history simply by getting elected. But Mexico deserves more and President Fox will have another unique opportunity which, if well handled, could impart an even more important legacy: real, functioning democracy.

In many ways, the 2006 Mexican elections will be unique in that country’s modern history. It will be the first time the voters know that their votes will be counted; the first time that the country knows the PRI is not pre-destined to win; and the first time that personalities are likely to count more than parties in swaying voters. Fox could also make it the first time an incumbent President removes himself from party politics and, instead, actively manages the process to give the fullest possible voice to the greatest number of voters, and to assure that the country is governable after the votes are counted.

This would require Fox to launch himself into a campaign that reaches out to ordinary Mexicans to inspire them to do what they probably think is impossible. In 2000 that meant electing the outsider who challenged the PRI’s death grip on the presidency. Now it would mean joining with Fox to demand that the politicians change the rules of the game–everything from who finances campaigns to allowing for a presidential run-off to enfranchising Mexicans living abroad–so that the next president comes to office with the opportunity to deliver real political and economic change.

At a time when democratic institutions are under assault in many countries in Latin America, how Fox manages his departure from office could be almost as important as how he handled his arrival. The measure of success would be whether the whole electoral cycle is conducted in ways that make ordinary Mexicans believe that, if they participate actively in choosing their leaders, they will be rewarded with accountability and performance once those leaders take office. This is rare in the hemisphere, which is why democracy itself is becoming unpopular.

But Fox has the chance to change that, at least in Mexico–and maybe teach the rest of Latin America a few lessons about what democracy really means.

*Alan Stoga is president of Zemi Communications.