By Andrés Lozano
In the never ending Mexican political telenovela, president’s Fox chief of staff and press secretary resigned his posts on July 6, 2004. His letter of resignation is nineteen-pages-long. More than a letter of resignation is one from denunciation against his former boss, charging him of trying to impose his wife as his successor. Go figure.
Durazo has long tails preceding him, a real stoolie. Years back he was slained candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio’s private secretary, murdered while campaigning back in 1994, under unclear circumstances and complicities making suspects alike of close associates and political foes within his party. The suspects’ list is the same today as ten years ago. Durazo, a PRI’s card-carrying member since youth, switched allegiances when Vicente Fox won the 2000 elections. At that time, Durazo penned another letter accusing his all-life party, resigned and became chief of staff of his party’s defeater in a sort of musical chairs scheme, rife with disloyalty and cunning.
An old Spanish proverb aptly applies to the case: “Robber that robs robber enjoys a century of indulgence.” How many years of absolution for the deserter deserting a deserter? Disloyalty being so despicable does not warrant amnesty vested upon thieves? On July 3, 2000, Vicente Fox turned his back against the voters made his triumph feasible. One day after said victory. Now, Durazo ditches him. The list of defectors of the “Administration for a Change” grows by leaps and bounds. Grim the cost of sham and more musical chairs.
Fox never had a plan to govern. He devoted himself to attain the presidency for notoriety’s sake, to be prominent in People’s Magazine front-page picture. Accomplished his goal, he quickly tore down the contraption used to woo and fool supporters. From the onset, he kept his own party, the one that nominated him, at arm’s length. He slighted his party and constituency by accepting in loan a residence offered by a prominent crony of the former regime to set up temporary office. Needlessly and from origin, he cluttered the transition.
Durazo’s resignation simmers incongruity. Durazo was the confidante of slain candidate Colosio, that is: a to-the-marrow member of the PRI. With the hindsight of perspective, for sheer common sense, Fox made a terrible mistake appointing him at the most vulnerable of positions around him. Durazo’s’ resignation-denunciation letter is a simple stab in the back. His well-written explanation puts Fox at the mercy of his foes, exhibits him as a dunce.
It is unclear if Durazo concocted his ruse in connivance with López Robador, Fox’s Nemesis, or was a coincidence. Yet, synchronicity is impeccable to bolster AMLO’s cause. It conveniently diverts public attention from the daily mismanagement practiced by Mexico City’s mayor, at a crucial time when he faces justice for contempt. It also coincides with PRD’s subversion attempt of July 5, 2000. On said date, PRD’s operatives cancelled access, nationally, to the Department of Justice offices to threaten and defy the rule of law if the people’s elected government continues the case against López Robador. It is also a warning of revolt to come if the law is applied. Coercion against the Nation at its worst. If Durazo and the PRD were not in cahoots, luck is notorious for the benefit of both.
Durazo’s preemptive blow puts national stability at a risk. Fox is shallow, a poor manager, and clumsy, yet, it is the chosen President by the people, he embodies the State’s attributions and for this reason deserves respect, even though he does not behave respectably. Behind him, there is legion of inept and evil presidents not betrayed by Durazo’s predecessors. It is a grave fact that a crafty aide in synchronicity and possible attunement with the PRD chieftain in rebellion browbeats the presidential figure with impunity.
Durazo denounces a fact; it is crucial for him to support it with evidence. He must back his palatial coup caper, to derail the democratic process, with facts. There is a rift between presidential musings and a factual conspiracy. If Durazo can back up his denunciation he is a hero, otherwise a slanderer for broadcasting sheer comments heard in confidence if ever made at all. His personal destiny is immaterial; meantime he is counting his thirty pieces of silver of infamy. Soon enough he will emerge among ‘Fox’s enemies’ a fast growing confederacy of former ‘friends’. Nevertheless, in fact, Durazo has only spread hearsay and it is crucial to underline it until he proves otherwise.
It is a sorry fact that Fox decreases in value the presidential image due to his wife’s slovenly antics. This said, under no circumstance does it justify the PRD’s seditious attempts propped up by a possible Judas’s incrimination, until proven the accuser’s claim of a conspiracy. Durazo’s alibi, thus, reeks of a diversion effort to conceal his, and probable coconspirators, old attempt at sandbagging the president. It is not an established fact Durazo’s role in Colosio’s untimely demise. It is pertinent pointing this fact out, since at least he enjoys exposing bosses and former associates. And this is a fact.
Andrés Lozano email@example.com