Ruling party in Mexico won't give up grip easily

Critics charge that the PRI, in power for 71 years, is trying to buy voters in next month's presidential race.

By DAVID ADAMS, Times Latin America Correspondent

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 20, 2000

MIAMI -- After learning that it was being rumored that he had died, the author Mark Twain had this remark cabled from London: "The report of my death has been greatly exaggerated."

Much the same might be said of speculation surrounding the fate of Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, in next month's presidential election.

With good reason, the July 2 vote is being heralded as the most closely contested election in Mexico's history. But experience has shown that predicting defeat for the PRI, which has survived in power for 71 years, is not wise.

Opinion polls show the governing party's lackluster candidate, Francisco Labastida, in a virtual dead heat with Vicente Fox, his dynamic rival from the opposition PAN, or National Action Party.

For the first time, Mexican voters can count on a truly autonomous electoral entity, the Federal Electoral Institute, or IFE. The new authority has won enormous credibility since its creation in 1994 as part of a wide-reaching series of electoral reforms.

But Mexican political scientists warn against underestimating the PRI's chances. The party has survived in power longer than any other in the world.

It's a point PRI leaders also like to remind observers. "Do not disregard the PRI's powerful nationwide organization," Javier Trevino, PRI campaign spokesman, recently told reporters. "You win an election through communications and through organization, and no party besides the PRI has such strong organization."

But watchdog groups monitoring the election in Mexico and the United States, say the PRI's party machine remains one of the major obstacles to a genuinely free and fair vote.

In the past five years, analysts say, Mexico has spent $1-billion to $2-billion improving its once notoriously corrupt electoral system, cleaning up voter lists and issuing fraud-proof voter cards. The reforms had the support of Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, who most analysts say deserves credit for trying to modernize Mexico's political system. Still, the system has its pitfalls.

"The IFE has made incredible advances," said Eric Olson, editor of Mexico Election Monitor 2000, published by the Washington Office on Latin America, an independent policy group. "The problem now has become much more sophisticated in areas that are gray."

Election analysts are especially alarmed by allegations of a PRI campaign to trade federal welfare programs for votes. Major question marks have been raised about coverage of the election by Mexico's two main TV giants, Televisa and TV Azteca, both of which are closely linked to the ruling party.

Among those most concerned are some of Mexico's new electoral officials at the IFE. So worried are they about recent conduct by the PRI that last week four of the nine IFE members warned that electoral abuses by the governing party threatened to taint the electoral process.

The members criticized the government for "buying and coercion of votes" and the "grave and very unequal" coverage by the media.

"The IFE asked President Zedillo to suspend his intense publicity campaign to promote the works and projects of his government, but he never answered," said IFE member Emilio Zebadua. "We assume that his answer was "no' because they didn't stop it."

At the center of the controversy is a government anti-poverty program, Progresa, which provides education, health and nutrition to 2.6-million families, mostly in poor rural areas where the PRI has traditionally enjoyed strong support.

Studies have shown that distribution of public benefits may be used to inappropriately "condition" voters. Before an election, analysts say local party officials have been known to make promises to their communities if the ruling party carries the area. Fear that the community may suffer if the party loses can be a powerful factor in voters' choices.

Last year the Mexican Chamber of Deputies convened a special commission to monitor the use of federal public resources in elections in the state of Nayarit. It found that the PRI won in 9 out of 10 municipalities where more than 26.5 percent of families received assistance from Progresa.

An opinion poll in April also found that 25 percent of Progresa welfare recipients believed the program belonged to the PRI. An additional 40 percent said it belonged to the PRI and the government and 47 percent of recipients believed the program would be eliminated if the PRI lost the election.

Critics accuse the ruling party of using Progresa to blackmail poor voters into supporting the PRI. Senior officials at Progresa are reported to have joined the PRI election campaign.

Government officials deny any impropriety. Instead they say it is normal for a political party to promote its social achievements at election time. "After 71 years of one-party rule, it's not surprising that the lines between the government and the party are blurred," Olson said.

Although vote buying and coercion are illegal, electoral officials say the border between what is allowed and what is proscribed is almost non-existent. There's also little the IFE can do about it because it lacks sufficient regulatory authority.

"Mexico is a country of poor people. Unfortunately there is buying and coercion of votes," said Juan Molinar, another IFE member, referring to the almost 60-million Mexicans living in poverty, out of a total population of 100-million. "It is a problem of poverty, since the resources are given to underprivileged sectors who need the assistance and are afraid to denounce it."

But election analysts fear that in the event of a close election result, the Progresa issue could lead to allegations of fraud. Experts calculate the 2.6-million Progresa families could contribute as many as 7.3-million votes, possibly forming the basis for a legal challenge to the election.

Fox, the opposition candidate, has warned he will not accept the results unless he loses by more than 10 percent, an unlikely result if the polls are right.

Electoral officials also point to a recent intensification of bias in media coverage, which in recent weeks has strongly favored the PRI. IFE officials who monitor media fairness say they have noticed a dramatic increase in strong negative content directed at Fox.

The IFE has also complained that local television stations have refused to carry its public service announcements designed to educate voters about illegal vote-buying and coercion.

Analysts say the use of Progresa and the media bias are only part of a shift in the PRI's election campaign back to the dirty tricks of the past. Some analysts say this comes in response to recent political setbacks for its candidate, who fared badly in two televised election debates.

Turning to the party's old guard, known as the Dinosaurs, may hurt Labastida. Until now the PRI had attempted to build its campaign around a new image as a modern democratic party. After 71 years in power, it seems old habits die hard.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.