Breathe
By Jaina Pereyra
I am convinced that a huge problem of democracy is that the qualities you need to govern well are not the same qualities you need to be elected. Being charismatic, moving audiences, inspiring mobilizations are hardly the qualities you need to analyze public policy problems, make lawful legislation or persuade those who have different political interests. For this reason, normally the "professional politicians" have been those who jump from pluri to pluri, incapable of winning an election, but knowledgeable of the rules of the chambers and the negotiation processes.
Parliamentary life, when we had parliamentary life, depended on technicians. Those who are not particularly charismatic at the rally, but who achieve the agreements that a divided democracy needed. Over the years, as populisms have gained strength, technicians have disappeared from public life. You don't need science to extract oil, nor to build roads, said President López Obrador. Nor to win elections, I would add. Unfortunately he was right. Winning elections and governing well are two worlds that do not even have to know each other.
Now, the mania for winning elections has infected the Judiciary. Morena has changed the balance where independence and technical capacity were the main requirement. The only power of the Union in which we needed only technicians has started its first election and the spots we have seen could depress even the most optimistic. In every electoral cycle it happens: some candidate, devoid of budget and modesty, comes up with a campaign that draws attention because of its bad taste, its unwise execution or its outright ridiculousness. This is normal. However, the campaign to the Judiciary has stood out in that sense. All the spots I have seen are terrible. One more ridiculous than the next, one more eccentric than the next. If it were not because they do want to win the election, I would think the goal is to make us laugh. I would say that it is a huge failure for those of us who dedicate ourselves to political communication because the interpretation they have made of what a campaign should be seems to be a satire of what we normally try to do in an election period. However, I believe that, in spite of the result, we must recognize that the candidates have understood the basics of this election: in narrative terms, they understood how to buy the favor of the 4T . They speak of closeness to the people, of the law as an instrument of social justice, of the necessary transformation. When they speak of preparation, they do so without falling into elitism. Moreover, there are those who boast that they are more prepared than a chicharrón (if I remember correctly, in the campaign for the Government of the CDMX, Chertorivski said he was more prepared than a corn. And yes, chicharrón is more of a town than a corn (?)). Who learned that jingles get you to the polls, or at least to the memory, offers to dance to the rhythm of his name in the town square. Change, reform, destroy. All this generates hope in these times of dynamiting everything.
And yes, it is very sad. Not only from the angle of political communication, but also because the campaigns are showing that the candidates are willing to do whatever it takes to reach the position of their dreams. Perhaps they are deluding themselves into thinking that, once they gain the favor of the people, or the government, they will be able to be independent judges, magistrates or ministers, in accordance with the law. I imagine that they are not the first candidates who think that they can make unpresentable agreements or processes and, upon arrival, become untainted again. We have seen it in every election. And that's why it's all the more depressing. Because they have managed to distill what works and, apparently, democracy is not part of what works.
*Specialist in political discourse and communication.
The opinions expressed are the responsibility of the authors and are absolutely independent of the position and editorial line of the company. Opinion 51.
Comments ()