Mexico will elect a new President in a few weeks and the whole country is in full election mode. Debates on television, news on the radio, articles in the press and social media has gone full flood with news from fake to shake. After 6 six years of Enrique Peña Nieto the country seems thirsty of change and eager to vote for someone who makes the right promises. Seems like a promising base, however in six years from now the voters will look back on the sexennial and be disappointed, same as they have been every six years for quite a while now.
Why is that?
By comparing the government to a company, I will try to explain what is needed to make successful change and then describe why Mexico has no chance of change whatsoever.
The ingredients of success
To simplify the matter let’s first look a company and distinguish three main groups that are crucial to change:
1. The CEO
2. The management
3. The employees
There are obviously more interest groups in a company but let’s focus on these. Every group has specific interests and hence also a distinguished role in the change process. Let’s also assume that the CEO is the one driving the change, having understood that there is need for change.
In the same way we will then compare the approach to the presidential campaign or governmental structure in Mexico:
1. The CEO being the presidential candidate
2. The management being the actual government
3. The employees being the citizens of Mexico
For change to be successful the following things need to happen:
1. The CEO has a clear vision of what change will have to bring, ie how the company will transform from one state to the other through the process of change. Also he is able to define and communicate his vision, set clear targets and follow up on them and puts his service to the interest of the management and the employees.
2. The management needs to adhere to his vision and understand “what’s in for them”, ie have a clear gain in accepting the challenge of change and driving it together with the CEO. And they are able to convey the CEO’s message to the employees without changing of diluting it but assuring a positive reinforcement along the way.
3. The employees finally must be ready to leave the status quo and enter a certain area of uncertainty, understand the vision laid out before them, sustain it or even better reinforce it.
Seems easy right? The problem most organizations face is resistance to change and the reason for resistance comes from the management and the employees[1]. In most cases there are two major reasons for resistance:
1. “I don’t understand what they want to do and prefer to continue with what I know.”
2. “I don’t have anything to gain and hence see no point in making an effort to support it.”
The presidential candidates’ dilemma
Every candidate has to change, that’s the mere reason of existence for them. If everything were fine and no change would needed to be made, then they wouldn’t have a reason to be.
So again, that’s a good start for change. All candidates have to, and they also have no other choice than to sell it the people to be elected. So now all he has to do is to define a clear vision, communicate it eloquently to the government[2] and the citizen, to prove them that he is serving them and not his personal interests.
And here the problems start.
Over the past couple of years, I had the change to witness an American election, a German election, a French election and now the Mexican election. In the US there was not so much a vision than a promise “America first” and even if the people didn’t understand at all what it meant and what the consequences would be, it was enough for them to support it. In France after four years of a debacle for current president and his party, a young, dynamic and visionary candidate upset all existing parties, just because he was able to communicate his vision to the people and gain support. In Germany it was a “no-change” election, where chancellor Merkel tried anything to make sure people understood, that no change is good for the country[3].
So do the candidates in the Mexican election propose change? Of course they do, they have to, but there are several reasons why their message is not getting through:
1. They have difficulties to make it simple and communicate it efficiently, so that everyone would understand
2. They are not trusted and hence whatever they say is believed to be a lie
3. Their proposals and visions are so simple, most people understand it, but they clearly see it’s not enough
So let’s quickly review the major three candidates:
· Ricardo Anaya is the representative of the elitist combination of PAN and PRD. Even if he’s young and a bit Macronish he doesn’t seem to able to connect to people at their level and gain their confidence.
· José Antonio Meade is from the same party than Enrique Peña Nieto and people are so disappointed of EPN’s track record that Meade is not trusted, whatever he says[4].
· Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador finally is the one who speaks the peoples’ voice, then again his proposals are sometimes so far from reality that it’s hard to be believable. He runs for the third time now, which is an advantage for him and he might be the closest to the “trump” phenomena of the US election[5].
· And then let’s not forget that there are two independent candidates who by mere visibility and influence just have no change at all to get their message trough.
Who will win? Right now, it’s hard to tell and polls are not clear, but we might be in for a surprise. This article however is not to predict the winner and, in any case, whoever wins will not be able to change the country and here’s why:
There will be resistance
Whoever wins this election will have a hard time getting it done, because he will face a wall of resistance both from the government and the people and again there are two main reasons:
1. Their promise to be elected will probably never really be understood[6] and this will be even worsened by the fact that the promises cannot be held once you’re in office[7]. So, the only thing left is disappointment and people won’t support any change proposed. This is mostly true for the people as we can assume the government understands both the issues and the implication real office has on the delivery of promises.
2. The government will mostly resist as there won’t be enough “in for them”. This is a major issue in Mexico as personal gain is in general more important than common gain. Corruption is still soaring in this country and as the money continues to move up the pyramid, there will be little will to put it all at risk for a maybe brighter future.
The government will of course adapt, there will be changes made by the designed president and there will be further elections that might be in the presidents’ favor, but there’s also a catch it: Six years is a very long period and even if it might be reasonable to overcome resistance, it’s a very long stretch if you can’t.
At the same time people will also continue to resist, as the marginal changes that might happen, will take a long time to be perceived by the common public. Inflation, unemployment and insecurity however are daily problems that would need quick solutions and right now there seems to be no proposal on the table to fix it quickly.
So, is it all doom and gloom?
I believe not, and the reason of this article was not to paint a black picture of Mexico, quite the opposite. I believe Mexico will continue to grow and flourish, despite these elections and no matter what candidate will be elected into office. This country has a huge potential economically, based on one of the richest cultures in the world and some of the most breathtaking sites on earth. It has over 100 million people that are proud of their country and in the end will overcome any difficulty to move forward.
I believe change will come despite the current president and the one to come. The best candidate might be the one who understands that change will come from within and not from the top. After all a country is not a company and the world is not as simple as I described it just before.
What I do believe however is that
1. Change is good and necessary and constant
2. We all have to be part of change, understand it and strive for it
Only then will change be successful, consistent and lasting…until the next change is coming.
[1] If the resistance comes from the top, then the drive for change comes either from the other two groups of from outside. This can obviously also happen but again for simplicity we assume the CEO is the one who takes initiative.
[2] As in many governments a change of the head of state doesn’t necessarily mean that the body is changing. A new president of Mexico will have to start with the “old” management/government that will often face him with resistance for political or personal reasons, let alone because they don’t see their interest in change.
[3] How dangerous this will be for the future of Germany, would be subject to another article. I would argue however that now would be the best moment for a radical change in Germany to get ready for the future.
[4] At the same time it’s hard to argue for change if you’re in the same party than the current president.
[5] If I can’t vote for Anaya because he’s an elitist, not for Meade because I don’t trust him, so the only choice is AMLO.
[6] Obama’s «Yes we can» and Trumps’ “America First” are things everybody remembers, even if you don’t agree with it.
[7] Donald Trump is the best example for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment