Who runs the foreign policy of Mexico? The President does not

PORTFOLIOS

* THE "PAN" preach one thing and does another

* TO JOIN THE OFFICIAL GAME?

* For which is greater: Ruth Zavaleta OR PRINCIPLES?

OF JOSE A. PEREZ STUART

1 .- The question of the elections held last Sunday in November 2009 in Honduras.

2 .- The opening of his political party, the PAN, so that it enters the troubled Mexican socialist activist Ruth Zavaleta.

3. - The upcoming visit to Mexico by Hugo Chávez and

4 .- The president's acceptance of the Mexican Socialist Party PRD, Jesus Ortega, to ally with the ruling PAN in future elections to be held in the country ...

There are four aspects that go hand in hand, in continuing to claim that Mexico's ruling party to abandon in practice its principles of doctrine and consolidated as one of social character.

Do not forget that Felipe Calderón was presented as a man of doctrinal line of the party, would seek to amend the abandonment of principle for the government of his predecessor, Vicente Fox also PAN, whose government had clearly demonstrated the inadequacies of hybrid scheme.

Indeed, the hybrid scheme of government desilucion the bulk of the Mexicans, who after 70 years of control of one party, the PRI, expecting real change. Against all hope, people watched the first non-PRI Mexican President Vicente Fox, took office in 2000, bounded by his predecessor, Ernesto Zedillo, and the discredited leader of contributions, Elba Esther Gordillo. The Fox, in contrast, did not have any definite direction, made no substantial change in the national and international direction of the country and caused the popular displeasure.

The presentation of the current Mexican President Felipe Calderón as a man who represented the opposite side of Vicente Fox, quickly faded:

A) To become presidential candidate of the PAN, it was demonstrated that open elections in that political party, Calderon had been supported teacher surreptitiously controlled by Elba Esther Gordillo throughout Mexican territory.

B) During the presidential elections of 2006, also reported that telephone calls were placed to intervene demanifiesto own magisterial leader Elba Esther Gordillo with PRI governors, to make it succeed Calderón.

C) The official election results of 2006 have been severe and constantly questioned, both by specialized analysts and politicians opposing the ruling party. The official vote difference that separated the caldron of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, was stunted. So Lopez Obrador called himself "the legitimate president."

D) Anyway, when he ascended to power, Calderon applied the same recipe as its predecessor, and had to re-allocate space in the administrative apparatus to representatives of both Ernesto Zedillo as Elba Esther Gordillo.

E) Like Fox, has made no substantive structural change that can bring out that Mexico has a government other than those arising doctrinally PRI. The only "structural" reforms that have sought to have sought changes that is efficient in the energy sector, for example. Everything else remains the same. As in the days of the PRI.

F) The handling of foreign policy was not free to Calderon. Indeed, the space reserved Fox during his tenure and was able to handle differently, with men of his confidence in front of the Camcillería, by contrast, the dumbbell Elba Esther Zedillo seemed to force the current Mexican president to return the management of foreign policy to the old social groups, Lombards, who with the PRI Luis Echeverría, José López Portillo and Miguel de la Madrid, handled the Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

* Immediately Calderon was seeking a rapprochement with Fidel Castro's dictatorship.

* Immediately Calderon was also restored close to Hugo Chávez.

* Not only that, they torpedoed the Mexican presidency of the Christian Democratic Organization, in the hands of the PAN Manuel Espino.

However, the problem is that President Calderón is perhaps forced not only forgotten the ancient Mexican principle of international relations or law Estrada of "non-intervention and self-determination of peoples". So that immediately after the recent elections held in Honduras, disqualified. As is general knowledge, Manuel Zelaya was constitutionally deposed from the office of president by the Congress of his country because he violated the Honduran Constitution. However, instead of sending him to prison, Congress took a magnanimous gesture, take it out of the country, but this was used by Hugo Chávez to try to convert Zelaya a "martyr" and try to reimpose illegally in the presidential chair with support from the Brazilian Socialist government.

Why, then, to play into Chavez?

Faced with natural allies, as employers in the country and militants of the party itself which took him to the presidency, Calderon seems to be taking both his government and the PAN to a social position through open partnerships with Socialists

* The visible president of the PAN, Cesar Nava, repeatedly has sought alliance with the Socialist Party PRD.

* Last week declared "Mexican Exception" to the militant socialist Ruth Zavaleta, significant other of the PRD leader in Iztapalapa, Rene Arce. Zavaleta, unlike PAN, is in favor of gay marriage and abortion, for example.

The National Action Party, which was the big loser in the elections held in July this year in Mexico, has been decreasing its electoral clientele, precisely because the loss of identity among voters. The partnerships established with the socialist PRD, have not generated victories but defeats.

How to find electoral loyalty among Mexicans, if the PAN is allied with a discredited party, scandalously divided and flying early doctrine also totally opposed to theirs?

Will agree that the Mexican military and / or vote for the PAN in Ruth Zavaleta regarded as "exceptional"?

In Mexico, the next general elections are within 18 months. The ruling PAN has organized a national membership campaign doomed to fail, "then what good is to join a party called" exceptional "to those who go against its own principles? So why should I be a member of that party if, as happened three years ago, it allowed anyone, not a member of it, could elect a presidential candidate?

perezstuart@gmail.com