For every positive note on the electrical reform there are ten negatives. I’m not saying it, the woman who supervises the media said it this Wednesday in the President’s daily presentation. More than 1,100 criticisms graphed the inspector, compared to only 105 defenses on all communication platforms. Naturally and using all the logic of which he is capable, he concluded that this is the clear reflection of a campaign of the right.
About that, two things, the second more important than the first. The first is more of a question. Or three. Where did you get that in public debate, the disparity is suspicious? Should half agree and half in favor? If the proportion were the other way around, would García Vilchis say that the people are with the President or would he also speak of a campaign?
But I move on to the second point, which seems more important to me: the absence of independent voices in defense of the electricity reform. I started looking for the few notes and the guard is right: there are almost none. Well, I found many statements from Nahle, AMLO and Bartlett, but almost no voice on the outside. Well, to tell you that in the newspaper Regeneración, a medium that assumes itself (and is worth) lopezobradorista and on the left, there is not a single opinion article that explains the benefits of the reform so far in October.
In La Jornada I did find three. Luis Hernández Navarro, a respected man of the left and of the union struggle, wrote an article on the historical fight of the unionist Rafael Galván, with a journey through the ups and downs of electricity regulation. Today’s is, it is concluded, an important fight because it derives from that. What I did not understand is why guaranteeing 54 percent of state production is good for that fight, but yes, I learned a lot from the past.
I also ran into Luis Linares. Yes, I know that he is in the Energy Regulatory Commission and that he is linked to the government, but let’s not put that as a negative point but the other way around, as a point in his favor. He knows what he’s talking about. And yes, you do know: he criticizes the unfair subsidies to the Oxxos, the evasion of payments and the abuses of some companies. What I did not understand is why giving a majority of marbles to the CFE is going to eliminate that.
Another who wrote positively about the reform was Alfredo Jalife, who warns about the energy apocalypse, describes the problems of the world and ends by saying that this reform comes just in time. What I didn’t understand is why CFE will stop (or alleviate) the apocalypse.
Among the readers, there was one who sent a letter to defend the reform, with the very valid argument that this time “it is our (then) turn”, and the neoliberals had their chance. What I did not understand is why taking turns will solve our energy supply.
In the Washington Post I came across an interesting text by Rodrigo Benedith, who talks about the notorious vulnerability of the Federal Electricity Commission and I agree. What I didn’t understand is why protection will make it more efficient and less vulnerable.
In Milenio I read Patricia Armendáriz, that although she is a deputy of Morena, it cannot be said that she is subordinate. His position is clearly his and he argues for it. She warns that today’s costs are miscalculated and lists the big losers from the reform, concluding that if they lose, she doesn’t see why citizens lose. I did not understand if that makes the reform guarantee supply and low prices. As far as I understand, the criteria for calculating the costs that she says are wrong are not changed.
I googled “benefits of the electrical reform” in various ways. The first thing that appears is the position of the current President and the second is the position of the PRI in the 2013 reform.
García Vilchis does not lie, but he exaggerates. There are no positive articles on the reform. There are good diagnoses on the current supply situation and consumer prices; the abuses of scoundrels and the holes through which the CFE is thinning, but I did not find a single article that explained the impact of the three constitutional modifications on the numbers of that supply, on the indices of those prices or on the elimination of those abuses , those scoundrels and those holes.
I propose that they do better. We need more engineers, more members of the chambers, more experts, more academics, more journalists, and more analysts to dedicate themselves to breaking down the benefits of what seems to be an ideological whim within the framework of a well-diagnosed situation.
Please defend AMLO’s reform.
Ivabelle Arroyo Ulloa is a political scientist and analyst, with 24 years of journalistic experience. He is a jury member of the Walter Reuter German Journalism Prize in Mexico. He directs a digital magazine on capital politics and writes for Jalisco media.