2006 MEXICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT OR DEMOCRATIC DEBACLE?, THE

Journal of Third World Studies, Spring 2008 by Sabia, Debra, Kohler, Vincent

INTRODUCTION

Five days after Mexico's July 2nd presidential election, in the midst of growing public anxiety over an election in which preliminary results had been much too narrow to call, the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) declared Felipe Calder�n of the National Action Party (PAN) the "winner" over Andres Manuel L�pez Obrador of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD). The final vote count, issued by the IFE, showed that Calder�n had obtained 35.89% while L�pez Obrador had received 35.31 %, giving the PAN candidate a victory by a slim half of a percentage point. Despite the declaration, L�pez Obrador refused to concede defeat. It was not just that Felipe Calder�n had won by such a narrow margin. L�pez Obrador called for an official recount of the vote because he suspected that the election had been fraudulently stolen from him.

In Mexico a presidential election must be certified by the country's Federal Electoral Tribunal. During the two months ofthat certification process Mexicans waited with great public uncertainty to learn who their next president would be. That public uncertainty was punctuated with increasing unrest characterized by rallies, hunger strikes, and demonstrations aimed at pressing the seven judges of the Tribunal to agree to L�pez Obrador's demands for a total vote-by-vote recount.

Clearly, the post-election debacle was a great disappointment for Mexico. Indeed, prior to the presidential campaign there had been much speculation that in July 2006, "Mexico would have an opportunity to consolidate its democratic process for the first time in modern history."1 Such expectations were clearly premature, raising serious questions about Mexico's progress toward creating a stable democratic system. As Mexico's newly established electoral infrastructure was receiving international recognition and being heralded a s "a model for other emerging democracies," it appears that political optimists were misreading events, believing Mexico to be further along in its transition toward democratic consolidation.2 Such optimism was tempting based on Mexico's 2000 presidential election experience. The victory of PAN candidate Vicente Fox in that undisputed election against the long ruling PRI marked the country's first truly democratic national contest in modern times. Despite expectations for democratic consolidation in the years that followed, Mexico failed to establish the institutional conditions necessary for deepening its democracy. It appears that Mexico is "stuck" between transitions and may even be vulnerable to reversal. Indeed, what are the consequences of this election for the future of Mexico's emerging democracy? Have democratic reforms hurt Mexico more than they have helped it? Is society prepared to accept the election's results? If not, has Mexico's newfound "democracy" risked the stability of the nation? What can the Mexican case tell us about the conditions necessary for a country's democratic consolidation?

DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Much has been written about Latin America's democratic openings in the wake of tremendous political changes in the region during the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s. Regional transitions from authoritarian regimes to newly elected governments were regarded as part of a "third wave" of global democratization. But what defines democratization? Samuel Huntington, who coined the term "third wave," was among those who suggested the importance of free and contested elections as a critical component of democratization.3 The peaceful transfer of power through free and fair elections, however, is by no means the only sufficient criteria for suddenly characterizing a country as democratic. A careful review of the literature on democratization suggests a general lack of consensus on what democracy is. For example, Collier and Levitsky (1995) have inventoried more than one hundred qualifiers that have been attached to the term democracy.4 Critics of Huntington's minimalist definition of democracy, such as Robert Dahl (1971), have argued that democratization is a transitional process that occurs incrementally as economic, social and political developments mutually reinforce one another.3 Dahl broadened Huntington's definition by arguing that democratic governmentswhat he terms polyarchies-must have eight institutional requirements. Beyond elections that are inclusive, fair and competitive, political and social freedoms must be guaranteed in non-election years. Democratic consolidation appears more likely when the political system will defend human rights, adhere to the rule of law, respect citizen's civil liberties, make public officials accountable, and provide conditions for fair access to economic opportunities.6

Despite Dahl's broader theoretical understanding of democratic politics, what exists in practice in many parts of the democratizing world are systems with great variations in institutional structures, actors, political activity, and organization. Thus, while Dahl's criteria is useful in supplementing Huntington's conception of democracy, such an approach also falls short in capturing the many nuances of democratizing nations, particularly in Latin America. Such a perspective has been recognized by Diamond, Linz, and Lipset (1995) who have argued that, "the boundary between democratic and undemocratic (or less than democratic) is often blurred and imperfect."7 Such a reality "underscores the importance of recognizing grades of distinction" among and between countries. Using terms like "low-quality democracies" in describing countries in Latin America, their work suggests the existence of transitional democratic regimes that lack accountability, responsiveness, institutional balance, and effectiveness between elections.8