Mexico

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.

The complaints this week from the Mexican Congress about being spied on by the nation’s intelligence agency (CISEN) provide an interesting find.  Although CISEN’s Director, Guillermo Valdes, came under fire from the allegations, his findings allege that drug money is threatening the country’s institutions, along with the strong possibility that drug money was directly involved in some of the national Congress’s campaigns.

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.