A response to MIcahel Stott's September 25th article. https://www.ft.com/content/c28020e0-d4ef-4c58-b7b8-7b63521b36e5
Michael Stott’s article offers a narrow and biased interpretation of Mexico’s recent political and economic shifts under President López Obrador and his successor, Claudia Sheinbaum. His viewpoint overlooks the broader context of Mexico’s transformation and misrepresents its impact. I would like to address several key points where I strongly disagree:
1. Mischaracterization of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA):
Stott’s assertion that the US and Canada’s investment in Mexico was solely about fostering democracy and economic growth for the sake of Mexico is misleading. NAFTA was not a charitable project. Instead, it served to create a more dynamic, integrated market in North America, providing the US and Canada access to cheaper labor and manufacturing capabilities. Mexico’s integration into this system was necessary for the economic interests of its northern neighbors, as it allowed them to outsource manufacturing while maintaining regional proximity and stability.
2. Misinterpretation of Mexico’s Economic and Political Reforms:
The article praises Ernesto Zedillo for laying the groundwork for democracy, but it ignores the complexities of his presidency. Zedillo’s rise to power came under exceptional circumstances—following the assassination of his predecessor, which led to a turbulent political environment. Additionally, while his policies brought stability, they were highly influenced by the neoliberal consensus of the time. These policies, despite stimulating economic growth, did little to address wealth distribution, leading to long-term inequalities. The narrow focus on GDP growth disregards the uneven benefits, as economic prosperity largely concentrated in northern regions, leaving vast areas of the country impoverished.
3. Simplistic Comparison of Sheinbaum and AMLO:
Stott attempts to paint Sheinbaum as a carbon copy of AMLO, but this ignores the nuances of their leadership styles and policies. While Sheinbaum shares a commitment to social transformation, her approach reflects a different perspective shaped by Mexico’s evolving socio-political landscape. Her critique of the past 36 years of neoliberalism highlights the failures in addressing social inequalities and development gaps, a reality that resonates with many Mexicans who experienced job displacement and economic hardship under NAFTA.
4. Misrepresentation of Military and Judicial Reforms:
The article criticizes Sheinbaum’s policies on judicial reforms and the military’s role in the economy without recognizing the historical context. The judiciary has long been influenced by special interest groups, and attempts to reform it—such as by electing judges—are an effort to break away from these entrenched interests. Similarly, the military’s increased role is a response to Mexico’s severe security challenges, where the police force has often been unable to counter organized crime. While controversial, these measures are rooted in a reality that demands unconventional solutions.
5. Overemphasis on Relations with Foreign Actors:
Stott’s focus on Mexico’s diplomatic engagements, such as Sheinbaum’s invitation to Vladimir Putin, is misleading. Mexico’s foreign policy has always been non-interventionist, emphasizing respect for sovereign affairs. Inviting all countries with diplomatic ties to the inauguration does not signify alignment or endorsement of their policies. To single out Russia while ignoring similar invitations extended to numerous other countries distorts the narrative.
6. Lack of Understanding of the Democratic Mandate:
The article dismisses the legitimacy of López Obrador and Sheinbaum’s mandate by framing their policies as a threat to democracy. However, these leaders were democratically elected by a populace that desired change from the status quo. AMLO’s administration and the subsequent election of Sheinbaum are not signs of tyranny but rather a reflection of the public’s dissatisfaction with previous administrations’ failures to address deep-rooted inequalities and systemic corruption.
7. Economic Misrepresentation:
Stott suggests that the peso’s depreciation is indicative of reduced investor confidence. However, this fails to acknowledge Mexico’s robust economic fundamentals, such as record-high foreign reserves and increased foreign investment in certain sectors. The depreciation can be attributed to transitional uncertainty rather than structural economic weakness.
8. Misguided Critique of US-Mexico Relations:
The article assumes that Washington’s inaction equates to support for Sheinbaum’s policies. In reality, the US’s measured response reflects its understanding of Mexico’s strategic role in regional stability and migration management. The complexity of the US-Mexico relationship cannot be boiled down to a binary choice between intervention and inaction.
Overall, Stott’s article lacks a nuanced understanding of Mexico’s internal dynamics and its evolving political landscape. His interpretation of Mexico’s democratic evolution is overly simplistic and overlooks the historical, economic, and social factors that have shaped the country’s current path. Rather than viewing Mexico’s transformation through a Cold War-era lens of democracy versus tyranny, it is crucial to appreciate the complexities and legitimate grievances driving Mexico’s ongoing changes.
Comments