Gran Bretaña en busca de soberanía perdida

David Cameron, el primer ministro de Reino Unido (RU) anunció su renuncia tras la victoria a favor de dejar de formar parte de la Unión Europea (UE). Irónicamente, inicialmente él fue promotor del referéndum desde su campaña para la reelección en 2015.

La votación del referéndum, sumamente cerrada, impredecible en las encuestas, dio como resultado un 51.9% a favor de la salida contra un 48.1% a favor de mantenerse en la UE y se registró una participación del 72% de votantes registrados. Mientras más se aproximaba la fecha de la votación, los medios de comunicación se percibían cada vez más catastrofistas sobre la posibilidad de tal evento. Advertían sobre la depreciación de la libra, la desaceleración económica y el fin de la libre circulación de personas, bienes y servicios con sus principales socios. Motivos altamente racionales para estar en contra.

¿Cuáles podrían ser entonces los “drivers” de los partidarios de la salida? En un principio, como lo fue en el caso de la crisis griega, se generan opiniones mal informadas sobre los (des)equilibrios en las relaciones de los miembros de la UE; así como en el caso griego se formó una opinión pública negativa de los griegos como holgazanes que disfrutaban de la vida a costa de las aportaciones de los miembros, en el caso de RU los partidos conservadores sacaron raja de la percepción de que el país transfería una cantidad sumamente desproporcionada de recursos a la UE en relación a lo que recibía a causa de la recesión en el continente y a los constantes flujos migratorios tanto de fuera como de dentro de la unión y por tanto, los recursos aportados podrían ser utilizados de mejor forma por el gobierno si no se utilizaran para atender tales fenómenos.

Además de ser falsa dichas ideas a favor de la salida, con una intensa campaña mediática atemorizando a la sociedad de las consecuencias y a pesar de que la UE cedió en los reclamos de la limitación de la libre circulación de personas (condición que fue suficiente para que Cameron cambiara su postura); el resultado fue inevitablemente dejar la UE.

¿Entonces como es qué ocurrió? Los ingleses (no así los escoceses y los norirlandeses que también forman parte del RU) no votaron en consideración de las variables mencionadas, a final de cuentas económicas, sino en un sentido fundamentalmente político. Votaron en consideración de la capacidad del RU de tomar decisiones independientemente de las necesidades/beneficios de los demás. Votaron por la soberanía.

Una soberanía expresada en términos sociales y políticos. De forma similar al sentido que se puede dar al significado de independencia o autonomía, estos conceptos deben ser acotados dentro de un margen de maniobra. Un joven puede ser independiente, hablando en términos sociales, no necesariamente en términos financieros; instituciones públicas como los bancos centrales pueden ser autónomos en términos políticos y técnicos; pero ni uno ni otro, pueden ser libres, independientes, autónomos en términos más amplios. Por un lado, el joven dependerá de las condiciones sociales que le permitan obtener un empleo y claro, limitado de acuerdo a las normas de la sociedad en la que se encuentra, por el otro, la institución estará limitada a la voluntad del sistema jurídico y a la aprobación del sistema de gobierno.

Así, el Estado encuentra limitada su soberanía a la capacidad de cumplir con sus objetivos como organización social. ¿Cuáles podrían ser tales limitantes? Puesto que un Estado en principio no está limitado a ningún sistema jurídico ni a ninguna norma social, los limites que le impiden cumplir sus objetivos son aquellos que la naturaleza le impone, hacerse de los recursos suficientes para mantener a las fuerzas en su interior satisfechas o sometidas a la toma de decisiones del aparato gobernante. Más allá de estos, cualquier limite que se enfrente será o autoimpuesto o significará un cuestionamiento a su soberanía.

¿Puede el RU como Estado cumplir con sus objetivos soberanos de forma irrestricta? Si, si puede, las condiciones económicas y financieras hacen capaz al RU de obtener los medios necesarios para cumplir con sus objetivos y es así lo consideraron los ingleses, de tal forma que en el referéndum se contestó veladamente la siguiente pregunta ¿Desea usted que el RU continúe autolimitandose debido a las normas que conlleva ser parte de la UE?  la pregunta no fue entendida como ¿conviene al RU formar parte de la UE? (como una especie de análisis costo-beneficio).

Es quizá por eso por lo que los grupos de edad superiores votaron por la salida, se identifican con la toma de decisiones del gobierno inglés y tienen la experiencia de lo que ello significa, no así los jóvenes que la mayor parte de sus vidas RU ha sido parte de la UE.

Cabría preguntarse qué contestarían otras sociedades, porque es ahí donde se encuentra la singularidad inglesa. Si la población votó a favor de dejar de ser parte de la UE, es porque consideran que, a pesar de las consecuencias económicas, tendrán un mayor beneficio, la toma de decisiones por cuenta propia (como Estado) en el ámbito internacional, que cada individuo frente a la boleta electoral sea capaz de entender y apoyar tal idea se debe a un solo factor, la identidad como nación. materialmente, el votante no será el que se encuentre sentado ante las circunstancias que conlleven a una toma de decisión con consecuencias a nivel nacional. El votante está confiando en la capacidad y juicio del representante “ingles” para tomar una decisión en beneficio del Estado y en última instancia de la sociedad inglesa. Esa identidad es lo que hace a una nación. Bajo este enfoque cabría preguntar a los cubanos, a los mexicanos, a los puertorriqueños por mencionar algunos ejemplos, ¿votarían a favor de su nación?

Reino Unido voto por salir de la Unión Europea por una razón, Soberanía.

The New Anticorruption System of Mexico, the civil society claims against the interest of the political class (2/2)

The approved New Anticorruption System (NAS) has left no one satisfy with its shortened scope and other bias. This makes hard to imagine a happy ending against corruption, neither for society nor for PRI, which depends on the media impact that “ley 3 de 3” will have. In case people make the PRI reliable of the limited results, they would be in trouble running a competitive campaign for 2018 presidency.

At the beginning of Enrique Peña Nieto´s presidency the global media was very supportive to his proposed policies. A short-term action plan was signed with the principal parties (PAN and PRD) to approve laws that would make Mexico more competitive through the liberalization of the energetic sector, and other actions as the fiscal, the educative and the financial reforms.

Months later, the enthusiastic feeling turn into deception; every day new cases of corruption were discovered at the closest circle of the president.

Now, after a nightmare election for the PRI, a NAS was approved under the proposal of important think tanks from Mexico.

Would the approved version of the NSA mean a step forward for the wellbeing of Mexico´s democracy? After all, the country´s political system has shown to be defined by simulation.

In 2002, under Vicente Fox´s presidency, the Public Servant System “Servicio Profesional de Carrera” was approved, in order to recruit in the public administration the most professional human resources. Ten years later, the system has shown to be as corrupt as the Government Procurement.

Any newly graduated professional may be witness of this. No matter how well prepared or how well experienced the candidates are, the ex-ante elected candidate will be chosen, no matter the amounts of financial, human and material resources that have to be expend in order to make legally binding a de-facto decision.

Firstly, the vacancy requirements are designed to be met for the “amigo[1]” in question, so he/she won’t be automatically rejected; secondly, the technical exams are made by the direct superior of the position (the boss), and there is any mechanism to prevent that he/she shares it; thirdly, as said previously, in the documentation review he/she will fulfill all requirements; finally, an ad hoc committee will be integrated for interviews, taking part the direct superior, the human resources department and the internal control office, being in the best scenario those members not part of the corrupt agreement, the result will favor the previously chosen candidate awarded with a five year position.

There is no need to explain that the mechanisms for complaining any process of the ones mention above will not proceed in any way. The responsible office for complains is the Ministry of Public Function (Secretaría de la Función Pública - SFP), the one that was in charge of investigating Mr. Peña´s USD 7million house.

Similar situations can be find in other recruitment systems in the public sector (i.e. foreign affairs and electoral). Under these scenarios, is it worth it to have faith in the NAS?

---

[1] Meaning by “amigo”, someone who personally knows the future winner (family, friend, etc.) or that owns a favor to someone else and this is the way of paying back the favor.

The New Anticorruption System of Mexico, the civil society claims against the interest of the political class (1/2)

In the last elections, the governing party (PRI[1]) got 5 victories out of 12 in the local states, a total disaster when the Party president´s bet was as high as 9 victories. On the other hand, PAN[2] obtained 7 states and now it will be governing most states than ever before.

 The unexpected results of this election have a simple explanation. The most important topic at this moment on the Mexican society is the incredible and unpunished corruption in the country.

At the beginning of the year a group of think tanks used a newly acquired power of the civil society to get in the legislative agenda a New Anticorruption System (NAS). The idea of this was to build a national system that works, without any loose ends, with clearly definitions about crimes, responsibilities and functions. Opposed to the segmented, unclear and subject-to-political-factors system in force.

The debate in Congress got the attention of all society. On one side, PRI and its allies made their own proposals and fought for taking the bluntest parts of the original proposal (also the ones with more media attention, such as the one that requires all public servants to disclose their linkages of interest, their wealth and fiscal declarations); on the other hand, PAN and the leftist party, PRD[3], pushed to pass the proposal with all its elements.

As the elections got closer, the legislators decided to stop the discussion and continue after the electoral process. As a result the society expressed its discontent by voting against the PRI.

As a damage control, the PRI accepted an extraordinary legislative period with the intention of approving the NAS.   

Last week, the extraordinary legislative period was held and the NAS was approved in general vote; but the part of the proposal that gives its name “ley 3 de 3” (in reference of the above mention disclosure obligations[4]) was subject to a polemical vote, where PRI and allies finally won with a simple majority in the absence of some left wing senators, to limit the scope of the disclosure to a non-public declaration.

The approved NSA has left no one satisfy with its shortened scope and other bias. This makes hard to imagine a happy ending against corruption, neither for society nor for PRI, which depends on the media impact that “ley 3 de 3” will have. In case people make the PRI reliable of the limited results, they would be in trouble running a competitive campaign for 2018 presidency.

---

[1] PRI – Partido Revolucionario Institucional.

[2] PAN – Partido de Acción Nacional.

[3] PRD – Partido de la Revolución Democrática.

[4] …disclose their linkages of interest, their wealth and fiscal declarations.

How to create a Constitution for Mexico City without make it useless?

In México, the Federal District, no longer exist, officially since January 29th this year, its name is “Ciudad de México” México City, an additional state of the country. Therefore, there will be some changes largely expected for the local government, for example, the ministry of public security will no longer have to be approved by the President, as well as the attorney general of the city; additionally the city will have access to other budgetary pockets of the national income. On the other hand, the citizens will have to expend more money on hiring more government employees, because the “delegaciones” now will be municipalities and such change will mean that they should have their own council.

Of course people is not very enthusiastic about it, there is a feeling that there was not a need for a local constitution. As a prove of that is that, in the election there were only 28% of potential voters the ones that chose the Constituent Assembly.

Now we will see a new chapter in the battle for Mexico City, how to create a constitution that reflects better the interests of each party? It is not for the wellbeing of the citizens, is for the image that the new constitution will project for all the country. Everyone is conscious of that, the political integration of the assembly does not mean more budget, the positions are nonpaid, so there was not particular interest for people to try to win, that’s also another reason of the low participation of voters.

During campaigns was usual to hear about particular minority groups trying to be taken into account by their proposals for the constitution; women’s, homosexuals, young people, indigenous people, etc. Of course they have the right to push for their particular agenda. But, in for the writing of the constitution, parties will try to explicitly express each of one of those rights, without care if there is the possibility of establishing more general principles. That’s their point; parties have the opportunity to speak to their own “clients”.

For example, we can expect to see many references to the right to work, “Article X. young people has the right to work…”, “Article XI. indigenous people has the right to work..”, “Article XII. women has the right to work..” and so on.

 Since that perspective, we will end with a local constitution similar to the ones in Venezuela with 350 articles and Ecuador with 444 articles, making the process useless and the hole process just a political waste of time and money.

Comments on article “ideas for reducing the debt burden” (The Economist, may 14th)

Link at The Economist original  article
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21698669-ideas-reducing-debt-burden-chronic-problem?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fpe%2Fed%2Fachronicproblem

Buttonwood wrote an article in The Economist last 14^th May about the high indebtedness of developed countries and the unforeseeable way to reduce it or at least limit it.

Are countries able to change the debt growing tendency? 3 tendencies seem to indicate that this is not possible in the med term: 1 the declining revenue of taxes creates a deficit in the current expenditure; 2 for those countries issuing debt in their own currency, the point of non-viability (real or perceived by bond holders) is practically non-existent, in nominal terms; and 3 the actual economic cycle still requires governmental support by continuous spending (is so necessary that some countries are thinking on the “monetary helicopter” meaning, transferring money to other economic agents, families and companies).

Then, is there a problem?

Buttonwood indicates that the risk is that, whenever is necessary to raise interest rates to control inflation, the real cost for the debtor will increase (nominally it will be still under control).

The real risk is the debt appetite of the bondholders. In theory the debt could keep growing and growing, as soon as there is a market that demands that debt at a given interest rate. When there is no longer a desire for that government debt for bondholders, a domino effect is generated, affecting not only public spending, but the constant economic stimulus of companies and families to keep the economy afloat; in consequence a fiscal adjustment will be necessary, as the ones experienced in Latin America in the 80s or as the present Greek case, not to mention the contagion that it could cause around the world.

In light of that, it seems that is not yet time to worry for developed economies, the non-viability point seems far away in an uncertainty and volatility world, where developed countries’ debt seems the “most reliable” for investors.

On the other hand, if the idea of those countries governments´ is definitely diminish the debt per se, the correct way is to deleverage all economy’s indebtedness, including families, companies and government. But as Buttonwood mentions, the consequence is recession.

Indeed, debt forgiveness and many other similar ways to “exchange” debt (for example, exchanging debt by social expending or environment conservation, that had been put on the table since the 80s) are good ideas, but so far without any progress; is complicated that debt holders of developed countries accept that deal and noting indicates that those options are viable now.

Aside to those proposals for new emissions with innovating features (GDP-Linked, Collective-Action-Clauses, etc.); to deal with the already issued debt, a set of institutional arrangements seems necessary. Different ideas have been spoken but without the sufficient global consensus to get them started; like a global debt Tribunal that helps to reconcile the interest of the debt holders and the issuers. This Tribunal would edge uncertainty for debt holders and avoid that sovereign countries reach the “non-viability point” as it was reached in the Argentinean case.

Maybe is time to discuss this kind of proposals again, after all, the consequences of a default for developed countries, could be catastrophic.