Did Mexico's oil reform turn a deaf ear to the public?

While the energy overhaul may be good for Mexico, acting against popular sentiment carries risks. Many citizens felt their voices weren't considered.

Edgard Garrido/Reuters
Demonstrators yell behind police officers during a protest against an energy reform and subway fare hike at Reforma Avenue in Mexico City, December 14, 2013.

An editorial in the Washington Post hails the passage last week of an overhaul of Mexico’s energy industry, saying Mexico is proving to be “a model of how democracy can serve a developing country.”

It’s a great example of how things can look very different from afar than up close.

What transpired in Mexico over the past week on the ground was far from an exercise in a citizenry fully debating and coming to a consensus on one of the most sweeping changes to the state in recent decades. Instead, it was a blunt show of political party discipline, fortuitous events, and roughshod politics.

In the end, it may be good for Mexico. But in the absence of widespread polling on the issue of energy reform, I’d say politicians acted against popular sentiment. Indeed, that’s why some call it a third-rail issue in Mexico, akin perhaps to gun control in the United States. Sure, stricter gun laws might be effective in bringing down US gun violence – but try ramming it past the voters. Moreover, while it may be good for Mexico, acting against popular sentiment also carries risks.

First, here’s a recap of what happened. The Senate spent barely two days debating the wisdom of opening Mexico’s energy industry to private investment, overturning a 75-year ban. The issue was sent to the Lower House, which held some 20 hours of debate and approved the measure along strict party lines last Thursday, with the backing of the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party and the center-right National Action Party.

Within three days, legislatures in a majority of Mexico’s states also approved the measure, [enshrining it in the constitution].

President Enrique Peña Nieto, on a state visit to Turkey, issued a statement from Ankara [Monday] noting the “ample consensus that exists in the country” regarding energy reform and hailing state legislatures that have acted “very fast” to approve the constitutional changes entailed in the overhaul.

He added that the reform would make energy “cheaper for the population in general, for industry, and this will permit us to become a more attractive and competitive country…”

In reality, despite heavy government spending on publicity hailing the benefits of foreign investment in energy, my feeling is that many Mexicans still have doubts. So here are the risks: If the populace does not feel the benefits over the next two or three years, discontent about the energy overhaul could meld with unhappiness over other issues. Social stability in Mexico is not a given.

Maybe instability won’t happen. Maybe energy reform will bring faster growth and new jobs to Mexico in a few years, palpably changing life for a majority. Whatever happens, though, what unfolded this past week was more an exercise in political engineering than an expression of the public will.

– Observations about Mexico and Central America from Tim Johnson, Mexico Bureau Chief for McClatchyDC.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/12/16/211864/mexicos-oil-reform-and-public.html#storylink=cpy

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Did Mexico's oil reform turn a deaf ear to the public?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today