Mexican Green Party gains seats in Congressional election
Congressional and local elections were held July 5th in Mexico. The Ecologist Party of Mexico gained 25 seats, up from 17 seats in the last election. The lower house Chamber of Deputies has 500 seats, 300 of which are elected directly via plurality voting in single member districts while 200 are elected via proportional representation via a party list (somewhat similar to Germany’s Mixed Member-Proportional system). The Mexican Greens are rumored to be aligning with the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) to form a majority in Congress. As I recall, Mexico has a Presidential system just like us here in the U.S. so even though the opposition parties may form the majority in the legislative branch it does not force the resignation of the president because the president is elected separately. See, we here in the U.S. can have some form of proportional representation without changing to the parliamentary system. We can still have the three branches of government and separation of powers. I think a lot of proportional representation/electoral reform opponents like to purposefully confuse people by claiming that we’ll have to change to the parliamentary system. The system of government (how the government is structured) is not the same as the voting system (how you elect the politicians)!
As some of you know, the Mexican Greens campaigned vigorously on the reinstatement of the death penalty (which is against the Global Greens charter). This has caused some discord within the international Green movement. The European Green Party had even withdrawn recognition of the Ecologist Party of Mexico as a legitimate Green Party. The Mexican Green Party had also has had problems of corruption and nepotism according to their Wikipedia page. A fellow Green mentioned to me that the European Green Party’s response might have appeared imperialistic because it looks like the “Europeans” are ordering around former colonies.
Isn’t that really strange? A Green Party in FAVOR of the death penalty? Do you think this stance by the Mexican Greens is opportunistic because of the recent crime wave over the drug trade or is it a principled policy change in response to local needs?
What do you think?
Thanks for Ballot Access News for the story.
———————————
(For all you Greens out there, we at GPW would like to report more state and local chapter news. So if your local chapter or state Green Party has any press releases, events, opinions, or stories we’ll gladly reprint or publish them! You can send them to waltergreenlists@gmail.com)
Thanks!
Great reporting Walter!
Congrats to the Green Party of Mexico!
Their increased number of representatives is a great victory for Greens in Mexico and around the world.
One of the appealing Green Party ideas (that some call libertarian, or conservative) remains decentralization.
It is folly for Greens outside Mexico to try to tell the Green Party of Mexico how to run their affairs, or campaigns.
Let us applaud their success.
Hello, Walter.
By the time I finished your article, my mind became concerned with one of the issues to which you are pointing. Death penalty and its supportive embracement by a Green Party.
I am a Mexican, and find it politically plausible to be a member of a Green Party and embracingly support reinstating death penalty in a country where rampant impunity has led to waves of an overlooked, disparate, apparently-unstoppable criminal violence. I, myself, do not support death penalty as a first appliable resort.
But I don’t see why the could do so, while, legitimately, maintaining a truthful green status. It might seem odd, when considering environmentalism as a form of pure protection of life, but, when you handle this ideology as a matter of convenience for a society, it works if you adopt both views as yours.
Not every conservative is a laissez-faire market supporter, and not every liberal is a fiscally left-wing oriented person. The issues may, and do, generate minimal tensions even between closely-tied factions.
Green Parties have had a huge consensus over a myriad of situations. The underpinning generated by small disagreements shows that an environmentalist view may carry connotations never before standardized by the common advocates of such vision.
For instance, the Green Party of Mexico believes reinstating death penalty will in fact, indirectly or not, protect the life of the well-doing citizens of Mexico, and improve the conditions of the future generations thereafter. I don’t believe it, but I assume they are aware of how this belief still matches their vision of a convenient environmentalism, thus adjusting their points of action to reach a same goal with different methodical forms.
Environmentalism has been adjusted to a set of core beliefs that eventually became the apparently unified “green” perspective. Watch the discern it provokes when different sociohistorical backgrounds clash with its proposals.
The European faction that posed for PVEM’s rejection as a “true” green party, might accept environmentalism as a philosophy fond of life, kind to all its forms when no compromise is set. Human life included, of course.
The PVEM, however, takes another stance when this debate is more concerned with the punishment to be used to regulate the crime of rational -yet irrational- humans (in what they see is more convenient for society), than a concern of long-term life protection that leaves aside this extreme form of commitment towards justice.
Whatever thoughts they propone as theirs, with their priorities set differently, they are still greens, for they stick together to similar ecological, peaceful solutions. Irony surrounding each of PVEM’s stance on what peace means, of course.
Why can’t the US ever elect a representative from a third party? Is it because this nation is too stupid?
In the past, plenty of minor party nominees (who were not also the nominees of any major party) have been elected to the U.S. Congress. And every election year, the Progressive Party of Vermont elects people to the Vermont legislature, and there are usually a few other minor party wins for U.S. state legislative seats. After all, the Green Party won one in Arkansas in 2008, and one in Maine in 2004 and 2002, and one in California in 1999.
I think that this ought to serve as a warning to Greens – that power corrupts. Greens are not exempt from that, except to the extent that we stay out of power. Remaining open in our process is essential as we work to gain more power in the United States.
@Janet Jackson- You make a good point. Though we have the 4 principles (Social Justice, Participatory Democracy, Nonviolence, and Ecological Wisdom) that unite all Greens around the world, Green Parties can differ in ideology and policies. That makes sense because we value local autonomy and decentralization like you pointed out. Each country’s Green party has to listen to the local needs within the context of each country’s unique socio-political situation. In that sense, we are a “Big Tent” party. But on the other hand, there are crucial issues stances that I don’t see any Green Party (or candidate) taking (ex: Denying the existence of anthropogenic climate change)
@AFOH- Thank you for your insights. I’m always wary of casting judgment on controversial non-U.S. Green Party situations because I don’t live in that country and maybe there’s something I don’t know that native Greens to that country do. So thank you for offering your perspective. I agree with you, the PVEM Greens and the European Greens interpretations differ on the sacredness of life and what (and who apparently) that includes.
I can think of another excellent example of differing interpretation of Green values that I heard about here in the U.S. While generally most Greens are pro-choice I’ve actually heard of a few Greens who are pro-life based on the “consistent life ethic” and see abortion as antithetical to the Green value of “non-violence.”
On the issue of vetting who are real “greens”; I’ve always believed that an individual Green can take a position that isn’t in line with party policy and platform issues as long as they believed in the 10 Key Values. I truly believe we are an inclusive Big Tent party that embraces diversity of people as well as opinions. So this makes room for traditional of “value” conservatives within the party. Of course there is a limit I guess. There ARE issues that are not uncompromisable such as acting on global warming and ending the war in Iraq. Any self identified Green who doesn’t believe in global warming is probably not a Green.
@Third Party Revolution- I cannot possibly see a third party candidate winning a federal seat in the U.S. while we have the first-past-the-post system. Couple that would media and ballot discrimination against third parties and it’s almost insurmountable. So long as we have FPTP, third parties just have to keep building locally until they can be viable or wait for the perfect storm to win a federal seat.
The trouble with the Death Penalty is that it is mostly used on the little fish and rarely on the big fish.
Having read the letter of the European Greens to the PVEM, I can see why the Mexicans saw it as imperialistic. It was not a reasonable invitation to dialogue; it was a condescending ultimatum. However, the Green Party is international, and since the actions of individuals GPs can have an impact on the image of the movement, I believe that member parties of the Global Greens have the right to decide who they will recognize as part of the Global Greens.
I also think that the PVEM’s support of the death penalty is ignorant at best, and opportunistic at worst. The death penalty has never been shown to deter crime; it is just an easy way for politicians to appear tough on crime. A much more effective way to stem the tsunami of drug-related violence in Mexico would be to legalize and regulate drugs. Legalizing marijuana alone would wipe out 70-80% of the cartels’ profits. It is disappointing that the PVEM took the politically expedient path rather than the better solution of legalization.
When I heard that the PVEM was calling for the reintroduction of the death penalty, I hoped that the Global Greens would try to invite them to reasoned dialogue about the death penalty, Green values, and more progressive solutions to crime. Unfortunately, I think the hasty, emotional response of the EGP erased any chance of that happening.
I’d like to ask a question about the Mexican Green Party please, so as to be informed.
I’ve somehow gotten the idea that members of the Mexican senate earn more money than members of any other senate in the world. How is it – and is it true – that the leader of the Mexican Green Party is the son of the former leader of the Mexican Green Party? If true, how can this be?
Is it true or false that the the Mexican Green Party is really a business to earn Mexican Senate money.
Why is the Mexican Green Party allied with the PRI, who was in control of Mexico prior to the last General Election for 70 years?
Here’s an idea for the US : get Statewide PR adopted for on one house of one state legislature. I can’t think of any achievable reform that could do more to start the process of breaking up the two-party duopoly.
There are 16 states that have initiative and referendum for constitutional amendments. .
http://www.iandrinstitute.org/statewide_i&r.htm
Most voters are not strong D or R partisans and would welcome greater competition in elections.
I think the main hurdle would be securing enough funding for a successful campaign. It would have to be enough to counter the inevitable lies and distortions.
“Why can’t the US ever elect a representative from a third party? Is it because this nation is too stupid?”
You have to realize that the antiquated first-past-the post/winner-take-all plurality system used in the US greatly handicaps third parties. Most democracies in the world use a form of PR:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/PRsystems.htm
icr – one of the states where proportional representation may be a possibility in the near future is California. CA has 7 ballot-qualified parties: American Independent, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Natural Law, Peace and Freedom, and Republican.
Only Democrats and Republicans are in the state legislature, but voter dissatisfaction with CA’s dysfunctional government is running high. There is talk of a possible constitutional convention, and if there were an organized campaign for it, electoral reform such as instant runoff voting for single-winner elections and proportional representation for legislative elections could be seriously considered.
You must live in Mexico to understand PVEM´s position on Death Penalty. 80% of mexicans are agree with this punishment because of crime situation, specially the drug war we have now thanks to consumption of drugs in the United States. Many drug dealers are now kidnaping and killing everyone that gets in their way.
I was not green until PVEMs campaign on death penalty and many other social proposals including environmental issues of course. I think that they convinced many mexicans specially young people. Thats why they got 2.2 million votes in this election.
Now Greens in Mexico have moved to third position in the half of the country above the left party PRD.
I think that a political party that wants to be government must listen to people. Thats what I understand for democracy. If most greens around the world are not agree with death penalty, they most convince and offer solutions for crime, and not only criticized others for taking action.
And please tell European and “first world greens” that if they dont want death penalty in Mexico they must stop consumption of drugs and selling arms to mexicans drug cartels!
Greetings from Mexico