Breathe
By Luciana Wainer
The renewal of four councilors at the National Electoral Institute (INE) is once again heating up tempers: we are used to it, but we do not stop getting into the maelstrom of opinions that accumulate in newspapers, social networks, television channels and coffee chats. On the one hand, those who accuse corruption and influence. On the other, those who celebrate the democratic and legitimate appointment. There are also -and there are always those who have a selective opinion: the councilors who are close to my opinions were genuinely elected; the others resulted from the most vile of political perversions: despite the fact that they all participated in the same insaculation, in the same lottery. Today I am writing about INE in order to write about something else. As in a mirror that shows the depths of our convictions -or lack thereof-, the election of INE councilors reflects that idea that was (dubiously) attributed to Groucho Marx: "These are my principles. But if you don't like them, I have others".
In the texts that George Orwell wrote between 1945 and 1950, and which were compiled years later under the title Right Under Your Nose, the author explains that human beings can believe in things they know to be lies. When it is proven that they were indeed wrong, the mind is capable of twisting the facts in such a way that, instead of accepting the error, new events confirm that they were right. This mechanism, conscious or unconscious, is characteristic in the field of politics, but it becomes massive at times like the present, in which the social mood seems to have divided into two large groups: 54% of the population that, according to the February 2023 survey by El Financiero, supports President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and another large sector that is strongly against him and sees in the regime a succession of attacks against democracy.
In spite of the fact that intermediate positions are more common than it seems, public opinion and interest groups, as Pierre Bourdeau explains, simplify the discourse by reducing it to the group that supports López Obrador and the group that is against him. And it is precisely between these two polarized positions where the election of the new councilors, the change in the presidency of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation or the so-called "Plan B" in electoral matters become the perfect opportunity for positioning and evidence of the social mood.
Depending on who is telling the story, this fact may be the ultimate demonstration that the government seeks to interfere in autonomous bodies, violate the separation of powers and silence critical voices, or the irrefutable example that proves that corruption was commonplace in previous governments and that has changed with the 4th transformation. In Orwell's ideas, each group will be able to make a reading of the facts in such a way as to reaffirm its position and try to exert pressure on the opposing side. The discussion is not focused on evaluating the capabilities or incapacities of the new advisors, nor on a deep debate on the appropriate way to choose them. On the contrary, what the public discussion is trying to elucidate is the affinity or ideology of each new councilor, as in a divination exercise that allows to foresee which will be the direction of their vote in the Institute when the time comes.
However, the idea of "polarization" of society, which has been the subject of multiple discussions in the last five years, appears as a consequence of a renewed optimism on the part of a large sector of the population after the July 2018 elections and the proportionally inverse positioning of another part of society. The case of Argentina can be a reference: from the middle of Néstor Kirchner's mandate, the social mood and public opinion began to differentiate into two large groups that divided those who supported Kirchnerism and those who opposed it. These differences deepened as the years -and the different mandates- went by, and began to be known as "the crack". In the South American case, there was a sector of the population that had felt excluded for decades from public affairs and that finally -rightly or wrongly- felt that they became part of the political discussions. Despite the obvious differences and the historical perspective that can only be considered in a few years time, the polarization in the Mexican social mood may share some characteristics: it is true that positions have become radicalized and that this leads to social division and limits the dialogue between the parties, however, it is worth asking: Is a society whose majority feels excluded, demotivated, disillusioned or simply apathetic towards public issues less polarized?
Perhaps, the apparent social "polarization" is also a consequence of a greater number of people expressing themselves, expressing their opinions and taking sides in public and political issues: the materialization of the theory that says that public affairs concern us all. At another time in history, the election of new INE councilors could have resonated only with groups of specialists and gone unnoticed by a large part of the population. Today, this fact finds resonance in a politically active society and in interest groups that try to impose a dominant rhetoric. That is to say, each one will try to use INE to take water for its own mill. Even so, I prefer a plentiful river of dissent to the brutal drought of despair and silence.
*Luciana Wainer holds a master's degree in Journalism and Public Policy from CIDE and a specialist in Arts Criticism and Dissemination from the Universidad Nacional Argentina.
She is the head of the news program ADN40.MX on ADN40, a columnist and weekly contributor to the radio program of MVS Noticias and Nueva Radio.
He has published reports in national and international media and collaborated in the book "Una insurrección en la mirada" of journalistic chronicle.
She specializes in gender and human rights.
In 2020 she was recognized as "Best News Communicator" by the Global Quality Foundation and is part of the Kybernus Young Leadership Network.
The opinions expressed are the responsibility of the authors and are absolutely independent of the position and editorial line of Opinion 51.
More than 150 opinions from 100 columnists await you for less than one book per month.
Comments ()