Big Ben's Bicentenary

2006 looks set to be the year of Mexican national pride. With the Presidential election landing in the middle of the World Cup, you can be sure that nationalist fervour is going to be cranked up several notches as summer approaches, and Mexican flags will be flying in full colour around each candidate whenever a photo opportunity arises.

As well as playing up the football factor though, the potential leaders have latched on to something altogether more resonant with the Mexican people; they seem to be deliberately identifying themselves with Benito Juárez, the man still revered as a national hero and the greatest President Mexico has ever had. This month celebrates the bicentenary of Juárez’ birth in Oaxaca state, and the presidential candidates are using the opportunity well, carefully constructing speeches and rhetoric to make sure that they’re identified with Juárez in the public’s collective consciousness.

For example, each of the three main Presidential candidates has adopted slogans espousing Juárez’ ideals: Felipe Calderon, (PAN) has chosen ‘Valor y Pasion por México’ (Courage and Passion for Mexico). Roberto Madrazo (PRI) has opted for ‘Mover a México para que las cosas se hagan’ (Move Mexico so that things get done), while the current favourite, Lopez Obrador, has gone full tilt Juárista with ‘Por el bien de todos, primero los pobres’ (For the Welfare of all, the poor first) – all sentiments which implicitly evoke the ideals of Juárez and lie at the heart of the Mexican people.

It’s no surprise that leaders are keen to be associated with Juárez. He was, in many senses, the father of modern Mexico. Even 200 years after his birth he is still regarded as a national hero and remains the standard for other statesmen to aspire to. He forged Mexico’s identity, strove to introduce the rule of law and social justice, and left a free and independent nation behind him. But most importantly for the current politicians who evoke his name, he was a man of the people.

It is this consideration – Juárez’ humility, humanity, and down-to-earth accessibility – factors conspicuously lacking from the Fox administration – that the candidates (and in particular Obrador) have latched onto as much as his historical impact. By comparing themselves to Juárez, the leaders are subtly suggesting that as well as upholding his ideals, they will also protect the rights of the indigenous poor, a voting majority whose star is rising, and who will have much more say in the country’s future over the coming years.

Massive changes are taking place across the whole of Latin America. The swearing in of Evo Morales as the new Bolivian President was undoubtedly a milestone for Latin American politics. As well as crystallising the strong leftward political shift taking place across the continent, and marking a further step out of the USA’s shadow, Morales is the first full-blooded indigenous leader in Latin America since Juárez became Mexican President 150 years ago.

Like Peru’s President Alejandro Toledo, a former shoeshine boy, and Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who famously did not eat a solid meal until the age of seven, Morales rose from humble beginnings to reach the country’s top political position. But Morales, even more than his neighbours, even the America-baiting Hugo Chávez, has become a symbol for indigenous and anti-imperialist causes.

The swelling sentiment of indigenous pride can be felt across Latin America, where a quiet backlash against the subordination of the indigenous population is taking place. While racism is still very much an issue, the white oligarchies do not hold as much sway as they traditionally have, and the current fervour can be summed up in Morales’ refusal to capitulate to North American conceptions as much as in Chávez’ election rally to the Venezuelan voters, ‘darken yourself!’ – Enmoróchate!

The parallels between Juárez and Morales are clear – poor, indigenous workers who overcame prejudice and hardship to become the leaders of their countries and champions of social justice. But, in a way, the struggle to the top was even harder for Juárez than it was for the Bolivian leader. Morales came to his position from being the leader of the cocoa leaf farmers’ union, with a wide backing from the populist blue-collar workers and high approval ratings from his peers. Juárez, on the other hand, rose through the system as the son of illiterate servants, picking up a degree, a judgeship, a seat on the municipal council, and the Governorship of Oaxaca on the way. And this at a time when the indigenous population in Mexico was not even second class citizens, but regarded as little more than animals in the eyes of the ruling elite. The fact that he became President at all is remarkable. What he achieved during his tenure is little short of a miracle.

As the architect of the Mexican constitution and champion of civil rights, Juárez has been compared to both Washington and Lincoln, and the comparisons are certainly not misplaced. Like those great leaders, Juárez was successful in war, threw off the shackles of foreign occupation, established a constitutional democracy and instituted a number of liberal reforms. In other respects, Juárez even surpasses his American counterparts. He provided better access to healthcare and education, countered the political and financial stronghold of the Catholic Church, promoted equal rights for the indigenous Indian population, and championed the raising of living standards for the rural poor. He renewed patriotism and united Mexico in a shift towards tolerance, in a manner that has rarely been seen before or since, anywhere in the world.

Morales will struggle to achieve Juárez’ accomplishments; though a potent symbol of the Indian struggle, his domestic agenda so far has been little more than thumbing his nose at America, a policy which has garnered much support at home, but a hostile reception in Washington. Bolivia is too poor and unstable to keep up this stance, and relies heavily on foreign aid to keep her economy afloat. Even as a member of the ‘Axis of Good’ with Chávez’ Venezuela and Castro’s Cuba, it is unlikely that Morales will make a significant impact other than cosmetic changes.

Juárez is the perfect example of a united Mexico, and indeed should be seen as an exemplar for leaders across Latin America. Like Morales, he arrived at his place in history from very humble beginnings, but steered the country to stability and liberalism without fanfare or hyperbole. If Latin America’s steps towards social democracy are to continue in the coming years, national leaders need to be sure they can live up to their promises, and not just fill the air with flatulent rhetoric. As Juárez recommended, countries should strive towards the dual goal of domestic wellbeing and mutual international support if they’re going to achieve greatness. For the right direction to be taken, leaders should not just keep a keen eye on the present, but also consider the lessons of two centuries ago.

Dan Walker Smith