I read José Woldenberg’s SOS addressed to his former teammates. In principle he points out: “The left mobilized for equity and democracy. It cannot now validate the construction of a new authoritarianism.” Although I endorse the concerns and intention of the teacher’s letter, I cannot fail to point out that the Mexican and world left always had a strong authoritarian streak, similar (but not equal) to that of the PRI’s worst (or best, depending on who see it) times. I wonder if it was always there, hidden, latent, and now that the ideal conditions exist, it grows and becomes stronger.
In principle, it was never “the left.” In the early 1970s there were many lefts: Stalinist, Maoist, Trotskyist, nationalist, etc. In general, none of these lefts believed in democracy as a means to change Mexican society. Influenced by the Cuban Revolution (yes, believe it or not) we believed that the armed path or the revolution was the way and meanwhile we had to take advantage of the few spaces offered by bourgeois institutions. Each group, many of whom drew from Lenin and the Bolsheviks, aspired to become “the vanguard” that would lead workers, peasants and students to overthrow the oppressive bourgeois regime. The language was that and can be seen in the writings of the time.
The overthrow of Allende in Chile confirmed our suspicions: the bourgeoisie would never allow the electoral consolidation of the left in government. Again, arms or popular uprising was the way. The result is already known: the guerrilla groups were devastated, many of their members were disappeared, assassinated, exiled or imprisoned. Much of this dirty work was carried out by the armed forces. Of the popular uprising there was not even its lights. Our theoretical and practical mistakes (to say the least) were answered with the force and brutality of the State. At that time, López Obrador was a proud PRI member.
With the electoral reform of the late 1970s, which opened the door to some leftists, several groups were ready to participate. Those of us who were at some of those meetings were witnesses in the construction of a strategy to use the electoral route in order to accelerate the contradictions of the system and provoke a radical change, a revolution. The parties of the left promised each other that they would not let money and positions divert the way. In this purpose, too, it failed.
It was not until the arrival of the Democratic Current, detached from the PRI, that decades of leftist failures ended. In 1988, Mexican society seriously saw the left as an electoral option. I would like to say that time made democrats out of those who were not, those who had an authoritarian, top-down and messianic vision of reality, but the facts are there. The internal practices of the parties of the left (and of the others) do not speak precisely of democratic behavior and institutional respect, they speak of the majority, of marginalization and expulsion of adversaries.
As a reaction to these authoritarian and anti-democratic tendencies, a set of institutions and laws was slowly and painstakingly built to try to consolidate a democracy. It must be said that these impulses to create a democratic framework came from the academies, from intellectuals, from the media, from scientists, from professionals and from a group of party militants who believed in the need to establish relatively fair and egalitarian. From here were born the INE, the INAI and a set of other indispensable institutions.
But the authoritarians were there, those who never promoted and supported the INE and the autonomous bodies, those who continued to watch the elections to gain absolute power. López Obrador belongs to this current, but the surprise is that many of those who accompanied him on his authoritarian adventure helped build the rules, laws and institutions that they are now trying to demolish.
I said surprise, but I must say that it is relative. We knew that many were opportunity Democrats and that they took advantage of any loophole to return to their practices. AMLO’s government is serving as a showcase for these trends to emerge, now shamelessly. Are we really surprised that so many people on the left, former PRI members, expansive members and former members in general remain silent in the face of aggression against the media, insensitivity to violence, militarization, harassment of autonomous bodies and a long etcetera?
Authoritarianism is intolerant and López’s is no exception. The responses that his government gives to internal and external criticism is always the same. We will talk at some point about the slam on the nose of the European Parliament. Perhaps the phrase of the Neruda poem is not correct and we, those of that time, are still the same, authoritarian and top-down.
