Mexico

On August 7th, Mexican President Felipe Calderón announced that he will propose a new bill to Congress that includes the implementation of life imprisonment for kidnappers. The proposal is a result of a new wave of kidnappings that has shocked Mexican society in the last few weeks. In the most recent case, a 14 year old boy was kidnapped and murdered by a group of highly organized and violent criminals. It is believed that some of these criminals may have connections to police forces in Mexico City.

Although the potential bill has been well received in several circles in Mexico, it has also faced criticism across the country. In the first place, it breaks with legal tradition in Mexico, as the country has always been opposed to life imprisonment. Just a few days ago, the Mexican government officially protested the execution of a Mexican national that participated in the murder of two teenage girls. The Mexican government seems to believe that life imprisonment would be appropriate in Mexico, but the death sentence would be inappropriate in the state of Texas.

This brings us to the issue of effective law enforcement. The Mexican legal system is known for its corruption and lack of effectiveness. If members of the police forces are somehow participating in the kidnappings, there is no guarantee that other police members will not interfere with an investigation that might lead to a life sentence. In other words, it would probably be inappropriate to implement life imprisonment if the law enforcement agencies are not prepared to objectively and professionally investigate crimes.

Proposing and passing a bill in Congress does not take much time. Reforming the law enforcement agencies is a project that has been underway for decades and the Mexican society has not witnessed any encouraging results. The evidence indicates that the Mexican government cannot really handle the “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” state of nature that seems to be present—or at least reported—in the country.  This is unfortunate for citizens that pay their taxes in order to receive the basic service of security.

Today, the Mayor of Mexico City and the Local Assembly have organized an unofficial referendum on oil reform. The referendum opens a new chapter on the impact of democracy on strategic public policy. Indeed, the referendum—a democratic institution—has the potential to stop or dramatically alter the progress made during the open debate—another democratic institution—over oil reform that took place during the last two months.

The debate over oil reform is the central part of an agreement between Mexico’s main political forces that took place in early May 2008. According to the agreement, the Senate would organize a series of debates over different aspects of the oil industry in Mexico. More than a hundred and fifty intellectuals, high-ranking officials, members of congress, and scientists, among other leaders of Mexican society, discussed potential solutions to the many problems of the aging Mexican oil industry. The series of debates ended in July 22nd.

The debate has proven to be a fantastic exercise on democratic principles. Indeed, the debate brought together opposing political forces, ideas, and positions in a forum of tranquility and democratic discussion. In spite of this, another democratic device, that is, a referendum, could threaten the progress made in the debate.

The government of Mexico City has organized a referendum on the involvement of private companies in the oil industry and the approval of the initiatives produced during the debates. Depending on the votes, this could seriously halt the initiatives that the oil industry requires to survive in the following decades (high oil prices are not a sufficient condition for the long-term success of the industry). Although the results of the vote are not binding, the political tide generated by them might put pressure on the implementation and structure of the initiatives presented by the debaters.

However, the referendum might have the opposite effect. If voters decide that they support foreign involvement in the Mexican oil industry, and that they approve the initiatives produced during the debate; then the industry might experience changes in a short period of time. This is unlikely to happen (although voters can sometimes give some surprises). Indeed, the perceived role of the industry on national sovereignty, the rhetoric of the opposition forces, the conservatism of the ruling coalition, and the particular phrasing of the questions in the referendum, are not likely to produce support towards progressive oil reform.

Members of the Senate have declared that the Mexican Center for Research and National Security (CISEN) has been spying on them. According to some Senators, the executive branch, through the CISEN, has been gathering information about them without authorization. The Senators’ outrage comes from three sources. First, information about them was collected without permission. Second, it was discovered that the Center did not collect the information itself, but hired a private company to do so. Third, the director of the company in charge of collecting the information happens to be closely linked to the ruling National Action Party. With this evidence in hand, it is not surprising or completely unreasonable that the Senate has asked for the dismissal of Guillermo Valdés Castellanos, director of the CISEN.

Of course, the appointment and dismissal of high ranking public officials is a prerogative of the President and not of the Senate. This was clearly stated by the Ministry of the Interior in a response to the agreement reached at the Senate. In the press release, the Ministry of the Interior denies any accusations of espionage and makes a reference to the outstanding record of Valdés Castellanos as head of the CISEN. In spite of this clear demonstration of support, it seems that members of the Senate will continue to keep this event as an issue in Mexican politics.

Manlio Fabio Beltrones, Senator from Sonora, has formally placed an accusation of espionage at the Attorney General’s Office. This is quite a turn of events for Beltrones, a former high ranking official linked to the political police that was part of the PRI-led administration that ruled Mexico for more than 70 years. Beltrones, a fomer governor of Sonora, was accused by American intelligence of having ties to drug traffickers in the late 1990s. Today, Beltrones is the PRI leader at the Senate.

So for this month’s scandal, the intelligence services hired a consulting company to collect information about members of Congress. The consulting company came up with a fictitious form that Senators had to fill out for the purposes of publishing an academic book. Naïve and not-so-naïve members of Congress fell for the trick. Once they found out they were subject to an unauthorized collection of information—espionage for short, according to them—they have asked for the resignation of the head of intelligence services.

If Valdés Castellanos becomes a political liability, Calderón is likely to remove him regardless of his past record as head of intelligence. Unlike Valdés Castellanos, who can be removed quickly, Beltrones and other Senators can only be removed—or in fact prevented from reaching office—by their electorates. This usually takes up to 6 years. For better or worse, that is how fixed terms work.

On June 30th, President Bush signed into law the Merida Initiative. The initiative is part of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, and provides $465 million dollars for the war against drugs in Mexico and Central America. Mexico will receive $400 million dollars.

The Senate passed the controversial bill on June 27th. The original bill had produced strong reactions in Mexico because it required the fulfillment of conditions that were considered unilateral and against Mexico’s sovereignty. In addition, the administration of President Bush criticized Congress for jeopardizing a necessary initiative that would certainly contribute in the War against Drugs in both Mexico and the United States.

Having reached a deadlock, it seems that the inter-parliamentary session between members of the US and Mexican Congresses in early June contributed to the progress of the bill. After the usual exchange of comments between the US Congress and the Mexican and the American governments, the bill was modified and finally approved by everyone. The Bush administration finally got it passed in both chambers, which represents a victory for the administration; and the Mexican authorities stated that the new initiative does not infringe Mexico’s sovereignty and even represents a new bilateral relationship.

This is not the first time that the US government has contributed with large amount of resources to the fight against drugs in Latin America. Although Plan Colombia—conceived in the late 1990s—did contribute to the war on drugs in that country, it was also correlated with instability in the region and human rights abuses. The situation in Mexico is not as volatile as it was in Colombia, but it is beginning to get there. Hopefully, the initiative will stop this process.

While oil prices continue to rise, Mexico is debating how to maximize oil profits and modernize its aging oil industry. The oil industry, nationalized in 1938, is one of the pillars of the Mexican economy and an icon in Mexican history. In spite of this, the industry has experienced operative, technological, and financial problems that have placed Mexico, an oil-rich country, in a position of energy dependence. The state-run company, Mexican Petroleum (PEMEX), requires significant restructuring. The debate resides on how to do so.

The prelude to the debate started in early April, when President Felipe Calderón presented a bill that was considered a major reform to the Mexican oil industry. Two days after the bill was presented, opposition legislators closed the podiums in both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. Indeed, the initiative presented by the executive branch generated much controversy and the closure of Congress caused strong reactions that resulted in a political crisis. Nevertheless, major political actors—the presidents of the parties, leaders of opposition groups, key legislators, and high-ranking public officials—agreed to a process of deliberation through a democratic and inclusive debate.

The Senate is now hosting a series of debates that started on May 13th and that will last 71 days. During these debates, the most influential political actors in the country will present their positions to Congress—the institution in charge of actually making the necessary changes, including Constitutional reforms. They will be joined by experts, academics, and other leaders of Mexican society.

The results of the debate must be closely followed. Indeed, Mexico is one of the world’s major suppliers of oil and several countries, including the United States, might have something to gain— or lose—from any reform to the Mexican oil industry.