THE PROJECT OF OBSERVATION AND MONITORING OF POLITICAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLES OF CHIAPAS 2006
Federal Elections in Mexico: Democratic Transition and Social Peace Threatened
Twelve days after 60% of Mexican voters casted their ballots, the federal electoral process of July 2nd remains unresolved. The results are dependent on the Electoral Tribunal of Judicial Power of the Federation (TEPJF), the only government agency constitutionally recognized to evaluate and qualify the presidential election, releasing its report and announcing the winner on September 6th.
In the period before election day in Chiapas we observed the continuation of old political and electoral practices that were thought to have been retired: the buying of votes and the coercion of voters, the use of social programs for electoral purposes, and the transportation and manipulation of voters, particularly in the area affected by Hurricane Stan. The results of social monitoring carried out in 22 states by 25 NGOs, led by Alianza Cívica, A.C. and Global Exchange (USA), revealed the same tendencies across the country. (see the reports from this program in May & June 2006: www.frayba.org.mx)
The active participation of the President in favor of the PAN candidate throughout the campaigns led various sectors of society to believe that an election of the state was occurring once again. This was clearly supported by two other internal de facto powers, which the UN has identified as obstacles to the strengthening of democracy in Latin America: the business class and the electronic media(1). The former has been demonstrated through the intense national television campaign sponsored by the Coordinating Business Council, through which Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO, Democratic Revolution Party/Workers’ Party/ Convergence- PRD/PT/Convergencia) was stigmatized and a “vote of fear” in favor of Felipe Calderón (National Action Party- PAN- candidate) was induced.
Broad sectors of civil society began to doubt the impartiality of the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE), in its role as a neutral arbiter and guarantor of clean elections, because of its indifferent response to the aforementioned issues. Various political analysts recalled the rather unclear process in October 2003 in which the PRI (Institutional Revolution Party) and the PAN negotiated the unilateral imposition of individuals tied to the two parties as new “civil” advisors to the IFE.
In other news, journalist investigations revealed that Diego Hildebrando Zavala, the brother-in-law of PAN candidate Felipe Calderón, had used information services which he owns to gain direct and complete access to lists of the beneficiaries of the main federal social assistance programs as well as the Electoral Listing and the Preliminary Electoral Results Program (PREP, designed for the rapid count of votes). This led various political, intellectual and media sectors to denounce the possibility of cybernetic electoral fraud in the Presidential election(2).
It was in this context that the elections were held on July 2nd. While no major incidents were reported in any of the electoral districts, and the “massive enthusiasm of public participation” was celebrated- despite the fact that abstentionism reached 41% vis-a-vis 36% in the 2000 election- at the end of election day reports of confusing situations created by the IFE emerged. This contributed to suspicions and fears in a large part of the national public opinion.
The most notable were the inconsistencies that appeared in the figures shown by the PREP, which presented unusual statistical tendencies, consistently maintaining Felipe Calderón’s lead, by a slim margin which averaged 1%. This drew the attention of statistics specialists that supported AMLO(3).
With 98% of polling places counted, an initial report of the PREP showed 36.37% for Calderón (PAN), 35.37% for AMLO (PRD/PT/Convergencia), and 21.56% for Roberto Madrazo (PRI/PVEM). At that moment, the president of the IFE, Luis Carlos Ugalde appeared on national television to state that because of the slim margin it was impossible to clearly report the results. Strangely, at the end of this live announcement, without anything in between, a recorded message by President Fox was aired.
Supported by the PREP and a number of exit polls, Calderón declared himself the winner. AMLO made a similar announcement, and denounced an inconsistency of nearly three million missing votes, between the official figures and the reported abstention figures.
The next day, the IFE came out with the report, clarifying that there were more than eleven thousand ballot box reports that were not considered in the reported count because they reflected “inconsistencies.” Once the IFE did count them, the margin between Calderón and AMLO decreased.
Legally, the next step was the rapid district counts, which were controlled by the IFE, from Wednesday July 5th to Thursday July 6th. The result was a strange new statistical trend in the figures that the IFE was reporting: initially, AMLO maintained an advantage over Calderón by 2.71%, though this margin became smaller and smaller as the hours passed, and at 4:00AM on Thursday, Calderón surpassed AMLO and held, according to these figures, a final lead of 0.58%.
It is interesting to note that the activity of the Mexican Stock Exchange was rising and falling, reflecting the electoral results (rising when Calderón was ahead and falling when AMLO was leading).
The Alliance for the Good of All (AMLO’s group) denounced that the vast majority of the district council presidents, especially in the north and the west of Mexico, had refused to open the ballot boxes. This occurred in cases where the PRD/PT/Convergencia identified inconsistencies in the figures that appeared at the specific polling places. Reflective of this situation is the case of Chiapas, where in the district counts the ballot boxes that were unclear or inconsistent were reopened, revealing a difference of seventy thousand votes that were not reported in the PREP. Of these votes, just over 52,000 were for AMLO and 15,000 for Calderón(4).
Nevertheless, on July 7th, IFE president Luis Carlos Ugalde illegally declared Felipe Calderón the winner. Legally, only the Electoral Tribunal of Judicial Power of the Federation (TEPJF) can make this announcement. President Fox publicly congratulated Calderón on his “electoral triumph.” To date, the presidents of Spain, Finland, the United States, and the Prime Minister of Canada have erroneously recognized Calderón’s victory. In fact, George W. Bush recognized, through the White House spokesperson, having prematurely congratulated Calderón, and stated that he would have no problem recognizing AMLO, if the TEPJF ended up declaring him the winner.
All of this provoked AMLO and his Alliance for the Good of All to legally challenge the election, presenting before the TEPJF more than 300 sources which, according to AMLO, show irregularities in about 50,000 of the 130,407 polling places. The central demand, to which the PAN and Calderón are opposed, is the opening of the ballot boxes for a vote by vote count, at least in the aforementioned 50,000. This demand does have legal precedents. Both sides have also called for peaceful social mobilizations.
As such, it is relevant to note three aspects:
1.- Whichever of the two candidates is legally declared the winner will have been elected by only a fifth of voters, the most minimal margin in history to elect a Mexican president. The nation was polarized between the north (mainly PAN supporters) and the south (mainly AMLO supporters). This could maintain a situation of uncertainty and social conflict in the short and long term.
2.- If AMLO does finally emerge as the winner declared by the TEPJF, he will be forced to govern in very adverse conditions, with Congress against him, because of the fact that in the elections for Federal Deputies and Senators, the PAN won with 206 of the 500 Deputies and 52 of the Senators, that up for election. The PRI/PVEM won 121 Deputies and 39 Senators, while the PRD/PT/Convergence won 160 Deputies and 36 Senators. The New Alliance Party (thought to be aligned with the PAN in the future) surprisingly won 9 Deputies and 1 Senator and the Socio-Democratic Alternative Party won only 4 Deputies.
3.- The PRI suffered the greatest defeat in the election, with only 21% of the votes for President. The PRI was defeated in its historic bastions of Oaxaca and Chiapas. Nevertheless, at the Congressional level, this party has become the “balancing factor.”
Finally, as national and international Non-Governmental Organizations, advocating the defense of human rights, we hope that the members of the TEPJF will demonstrate not only a strict and honest respect for the law, but also an open and committed spirit and criteria, defending the will of the popular majority. More than anything we hope for aspirations of truth and democratic transparency, as have been manifested by Mexican society.
In this sense, we also hope that none of the political parties or the presidential candidates object to the necessary meticulous and intensive scrutiny by the TEPJF of all of the ballot boxes that have been legally challenged.
To all of Mexican society, and especially those who consider themselves the victors, it is advantageous that the results be legally and socially transparent and unquestionable. If this does not occur, the democratic transition and the delicate social peace that exist in Mexico will be threatened.
San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, July 12, 2006.
Sincerely,
THE PROJECT OF OBSERVATION AND MONITORING OF POLITICAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLES OF CHIAPAS 2006
Alianza Cívica Chiapas
Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas Human Rights Center (CDHFC)
Peace Watch Switzerland
Propaz Sweden
International Service for Peace (SIPAZ)
NOTES:
1.- 2004 Report of the United Nations Program on Democracy in Latin America (return)
2.-Jaime Avilés’ column in the newspaper La Jornada on June 2nd. (return)
3.- For example, Dr. Josefina Mena-Abraham, President of the Alternative Technology Group SC with a Masters Degree in Mathematic Models for Regional Planning from the University College London. (return)
4.- See La Jornada July 6th (return)
|
