Mexican protests in 2006. photocredit: bradblog
When the news declared the conservative from the less than popular incumbent party had won the presidential election, many felt cheated.
Rather than accepting the results and avoiding further confrontation, the opposition candidate decided to flame the fires of protest. Rallies erupted across the country.
In the nation’s capital, the opposition candidate told audiences of hundres of thousands of supporters to keep fighting for justice and to not accept their “illegitimate” new president. This was in 2006. In Mexico.
In Mexico as in Iran, democracy is a struggle. Unlike countries like the United States, Western Europe, Japan and Australia, Mexico and Iran do not have decades of democratic tradition. They have either experienced sham democracy or unrepentant authoritarian regimes.
They’ve made noble steps toward escaping their political past, such as breaking the 70-year rule of a party (the PRI in Mexico) and electing the first-ever non-cleric for president (Ahmedinejad n Iran). But the struggle is still there, and the past is still haunting, as is evidenced by the latest post-election protests in Iran.
photocredit: Daily Intel (getty images)
Mousavi, the opposition candidate in Iran, is very similar to Lopez Obrador, of Mexico. Both are populist, both ran under the banner of reform, both recruited a passionate and youthful following. Also, both are refusing to back down. With Obrador, Mexico saw one of their own rise to president–a folksy fellow who was unsophisticated and straightforward, both double-edged swords in politics. Mousavi is much more of a professional politician, but his earnestness has earned him the favor of many.
Ahmedinejad is slightly less comparable to Calderon. Calderon ran under the PAN party, the party of the very unpopular president at the time, Vicente Fox. Calderon was his Energy Secretary and, in a politically savvy move, resigned two years before the end of his boss’ term. He distanced himself from him, as much of the rest of the party did, and ran under his own credentials. Right of center, he was not inflammatory or flamboyant, unlike Ahmedinejad.
After legal battles with the Independent Election Institute (IFE), Calderon remained the winner. Unlike in Iran, the margin of victory for Calderon was always razor-thing. The flurry of voting irregularities and allegations of fraud were unsuccessful and Calderon quickly (and secretly) was sworn-in. That was that.
In Iran, things will go a different route. As mentioned in an earlier post, threats of violence against the main players is being predicted by some, while street demonstrations see-saw between peaceful protests and violent riots.
Ahmedinejad’s orders to quelch the rioters has already claimed two lives. Bloody and battered, the protesters on both sides are not giving up. This may be something unresolvable by any Iranian court.
The Supreme Leader is not sure where to stand, and every second he spends in between the two camps weakens his authority in the country. Talks of removing him are already making the rounds.
Attacks on government websites are rampant, Ahmedinejad is so afraid of what may become of his country that he has taken a questionable trip abroad, and the international community is questioning his draconian approach to the massive demonstrations against him.
The democracy in both countries is a work in progress. Mexico passed its first major test on the transfer of legitimacy after Calderon’s swearing-in. There were still some strong feelings against him, but soon enough he was recognized as the president. Since then, his role as president hasn’t been questioned.
Iran will need to pass this test if its attempt to become a democratic state is to be taken seriously. If not, it will be stripped of whatever vestiges it had left. Not even a sham democracy anymore, Iran will be a weaker country than before: a divided land.
You might want to check these out, too:
Tags: ahmedinejad · calderon · democracy · iran · lopez obrador · mexico · mousaviNo Comments
0 responses so far ↓