This was the week of the presidential post-debate and not necessarily because of the confrontation of ideas between the candidates and the candidate, but because the format did not allow a true dialogue and comparison of proposals between the participants nor did it facilitate knowing what they were proposing; coupled with complaints about aspects in the organization and errors in production such as the failure of the clock or camera shots.
It is not about pointing out blame either, it is clear that, in Mexico, the parties are afraid of debates and with an electoral authority subject to their designs, that is its result.
But, between now and April 28, the day of the second debate, the discussion these days has come more from the statements of the President of the Republic in the “Mañaneras” where he began by questioning the questions asked to the participants in the debate, pointing out that none of them were about the works he has carried out during his administration, but on the contrary, they were critical of various areas of his mandate.
He assured that “the entire narrative of the debate was that, in recognizing absolutely nothing, it is the narrative of Televisa, Azteca… and Universal”, and he concluded by saying that this narrative was used to formulate the questions in the debate, with an alleged consultation to citizens, leaving drivers the “privilege of choosing the questions.”
And still yesterday in the General Council of the INE, the ruling bloc faithfully took up these “claims” to try to find an even more stuffy debate than last Sunday.
For Denisse Maerker and Manuel López San Martin, the greatest of our respect for their work as moderators; as well as, for Ciro Gómez Leyva or Joaquín López Doriga, for the constant mentions that were not favorable to him, just for doing journalism.
What is not worth it is to stigmatize – once again – the media and journalists, if the citizens who sent their questions questioning what they suffer daily (health, education, etc.) is because they lack medicine or decent public schools, it is for no one a secret.
Currently, most nations have become convinced that authoritarianism has only meant backwardness, poverty, absence of freedoms and prevalence of violence, which is why they reject it as a form of government and domination, imposing the will of the people. peoples to evolve to ever deeper processes of democratization, in which their societies eliminate, sooner rather than later, the pathologies that still remain as reminiscences of a political practice that refuses to perish.
Today’s Mexico must consider it as a warning of the serious danger that nations run when they do not conduct their political coexistence along the paths of dialogue, tolerance, social peace and pluralism. Now is the time to prove it.