Vow to accept any outcome — even an unfavorable one
Andrés Manuel López Obrador lost Mexico’s 2006 presidential election by less than 1 percentage point. He alleged electoral fraud, paralyzed central Mexico City with protests and later proclaimed himself the legitimate president. Supporters tried to physically prevent election winner Felipe Calderón from taking the oath of office.
A decade later, Mexico still suffers the consequences of an election that the left-wing politician never conceded. He often talks of the system being rigged against him, and supporters contend that their opponents poisoned the well by branding him in attack ads as “a danger for Mexico.”
Analysts say López Obrador, who argued Mexico was in need of radical change, was unwilling to put aside personal ambition for the good of the nation.
“This has always been the main issue in Mexico,” said Jorge Castañeda, Mexican foreign minister from 2000 to 2003.
The immediate fallout was Mexico’s war on drugs, Castañeda said. Calderón sought to increase his legitimacy by cracking down on drug cartels, a rising threat as he took office that dominated his presidency. Today, soldiers are still in the streets and more than 100,000 lives have been lost.
Mexico also rewrote its election laws in 2007 to avoid another divisive election by banning negative ads and limiting political speech of non-politicians.
Castañeda said candidates should promise to accept any outcome, even an unfavorable one, to avoid a rerun of Mexico’s problems. López Obrador “didn’t accept the rules after the fact,” he said. “This is what led to the division and bitterness.”
Gerardo Priego Tapía was a coordinator for the Calderón campaign in 2006 and served in Congress from 2006 to 2009. “T here wasn’t much to celebrate (during Calderón’s inauguration). The political parties did nothing to show the citizenry that we had to unite. Celebrating did nothing to close wounds. To the contrary, it exacerbated the conflict.
“We had six years of permanent conflict. We saw it in Congress. It’s something that got into Mexicans’ hearts and it’s still there. The problem is that in the healing process, society, like the political parties, hasn’t been able to find a way to heal.
“These two candidates caused the tension to continue. They were both stubborn, and their people were the same.
“The U.S. has a deeply rooted idea of solidarity. It’s an important part of U.S society, but not ours. The United States has strong institutions, while in Mexico, civil society is weak. It’s something they are going to have to take advantage of now.
“The main conflict is between politicians, but what is said between ‘professional’ politicians isn’t translated the same way by ordinary people.
“How this strong discourse from Donald Trump is interpreted at the grass roots is different from how it’s discussed among politicians on the national level. The strong statements are taken more seriously. This discourse of resentment is much more grave. This is what we have seen in Mexico after the (2006) election and so many years of division.”