Along with these two events, an Artistic and
Cultural Festival for Democracy will be held from August 18-26 in Mexico City's
central plaza or Zocalo. It will
include live music, drama, audiovisual and visual arts, storytelling and mural
painting. In addition, there will
be nationwide essay and documentary contests focusing upon themes relating to
the July 1 election and its aftermath.
In the meantime, AMLO continues to receive
increasingly negative coverage in most of the national media. More often than not, he is portrayed as
a power hungry politician who, apart from being a poor loser, is willing to
plunge the country into chaos to serve his own political ambitions. Despite the fact that he has
consistently insisted that his movement be conducted by peaceful means and
always within the letter of the law, the media often describe him as just the
opposite, a violent person advocating violence. Violations of a host of
electoral laws by the PRI, meanwhile, are routinely ignored on the nation's
main television networks, Televisa and TV Azteca.
Out of what appears to be sheer desperation,
the PRI leadership has now accused Lopez Obrador of triangulating money in his
campaign as well. They claim to
have concrete evidence of such a financial scheme but did not furnish any to
reporters at the press conference where that announcement was made. As the same
allegations were already made during the campaign itself, it stands to reason
that if the PRI had any hard evidence to back up its claim, it would have
presented such evidence long before now.
In most respects, the post electoral conflict
goes well beyond the personal presidential ambitions of Andres Manuel Lopez
Obrador. Whether Lopez Obrador
would even be a candidate in the new round of elections is subject to
speculation. The issue at hand, the invalidation of the July 1 election due to
the PRI's blatant fraud, vote buying, coercion, intimidation and massive
overspending, is of far more critical importance. The question is:
will the TEPJF bow to the pressures of the country's elite and confirm a
second spurious president in a row, or will it take the far more courageous
stand of refusing to ignore the compelling evidence that has been brought
before it by invalidating the July 1 presidential election results?
Please
note: Critical
additional information for this article was furnished by Kurt Hackbarth.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
