(Expansión) – Many people who attend forums on entrepreneurship and impact investment, such as the FLII last week, are struck by the fact that, despite getting involved in challenges such as poverty, gender inequality or environmental deterioration , there is very little talk about politics, even in times of extreme politicization.
There is a proclivity to avoid discussions that are generally unproductive and capable of distancing ourselves from people with whom we share many things and can work as a team. In addition to a certain instinctive realism against disappointment and boredom.
I have dedicated a large part of my life to meeting entrepreneurs, but their ability to generate effective solutions to challenges before which governments and politicians, with all their resources, seem powerless and are usually part of the problem, never ceases to amaze me. However, to abstract oneself completely, as if politics were nothing more than that, is a mistake: self-exclusion and, therefore, another form of evasion from reality.
Above all, politics cannot be only a struggle for power and a show of diminishing quality. Even etymologically, it must be a space for citizens to, from the recognition of differences, reach agreements in a civilized way and generate solutions for the common good. Something too important to simply delegate to politicians. Especially in a situation like the one we live in Mexico today.
There are times when citizen involvement is critical, which require a definition: the dilemma in which the June 6 elections place us is. Here is a position, as a proposal that I consider consistent with the ethos of impact entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility.
First, we must recognize how bad we are, beyond the problems that we already dragged and persist of violence, poverty or corruption. What is new is the growing polarization fostered by the government and the game played by most politicians, including those in the opposition, with no willingness or proposals to get out of the tension, much less ideas and commitments on the rest of the challenges of the people and the country.
That way we will only go to more deterioration and conflict in the coming months and years, and by 2024 it would be worse. That is why it is necessary to change the terms of the public debate, and we citizens can perform this miracle, putting issues, ideas and solutions on the public agenda that today are lost between stridency and confrontation. Our election this Sunday should be oriented along these lines.
The dilemma is very clear, as in fact both poles of the political spectrum postulate it: to endorse, or not, the majority in the Chamber of Deputies that President López Obrador has counted on. This is the fundamental question, beyond the acceptance or rejection of his government, be it its narrative or the results: should it extend that expanded power, which has not had any president for a quarter of a century, or opt for the vote useful in favor of counterweights, containments and preventive coverage?
We remove ties to a notorious will for empowerment, because its ends would justify the means and concentration, or we limit it, considering the risks to the division of powers and democracy. My conviction is that the responsible option is the second, in the face of a movement and leadership that tend to assume themselves as exclusive holders of legitimacy and social initiative, instead of being understood as part of a State and a national plurality that transcend them and They demand that they reconcile and coordinate.
The insistence on disqualifying and betting on the imposition, even at the cost of violating the rule of law, is a highly probable scenario if a blank check is endorsed. No matter how laudable its causes, and even if the moral superiority proclaimed is real, it is convenient to establish democratic controls.
I like the way the analyst Solange Márquez phrased the dilemma of the useful vote in a column on the matter: rather than rewarding or punishing, let’s go to the polls to limit; force the power to submit to the laws and to dialogue with sufficient representation of the opposition in Congress. Is this a congregation of saints? No, and neither is the current hegemonic force: all the more reason for counterweights.
The risks are inscribed in human nature, as the famous aphorism of Lord Acton prevents: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Looking for references, I found another perfect for the occasion, which the historian expert on fascism Emilio Gentile recovers: “So that power cannot be abused, power must put a brake on power.” Montesquieu, the great theorist of the division of powers, said it in the 18th century.
Why the useful vote in Mexico in 2021? Precisely to counterbalance and force power, including the opposition, to give opportunity for dialogue and agreement. On this basis, starting Monday, June 7, trying to turn the page on that divisionism that, if it persists, will only exacerbate the problems about which, at least, we should have the ability to speak without disqualifications from the start.
Editor’s Note: Rodrigo Villar is a social entrepreneur and Founding Partner of New Ventures, where he seeks to transform the traditional way of doing business and create a new business model that perceives impact as the status quo. He has an MBA from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and studied Accounting and Financial Administration at the Tecnológico de Monterrey. Follow him on and / or on. The opinions published in this column belong exclusively to the author.
