In addition to the heightened role of the legislature and supreme court in Mexican politics, democratization has also increased the political importance of the governors of the 31 Mexican states.
I had never heard of CONAGO before last year, and indeed, I don’t know much about the organization’s history (though it appears the first conference was in 2001). However, this National Conference of Governors has been very active over the last couple of years. They meet regularly and hold special meetings on topics of importance. They also make policy suggestions for national policies, like social security.
Today, CONAGO is in the news again because the governors and Madrazo, Calderon, and the PVEM presidential candidate have signed an “acuerdo” with regard to the upcoming 2006 presidential elections. Notably, Carlos Slim, the wealthiest businessman in Mexico, was the promoter of the pact, in which candidates agreed to focus on putting forth proposals for economic growth and other good things for Mexico rather than negative campaigning. [Also notable was AMLO’s absence. This is not commented upon by the article.]
These pacts are common during campaign season, but of course are not binding. As many leaders of the UNT liked to point out to me during interviews last year, Fox and the other candidates in 2000 signed a pact with the independent labor union to signal their support for certain policies, and Fox has done relatively little on that front.
The more interesting point, for me, is that the governors, through CONAGO, are more often being discussed by the media as political actors at the national level. In real terms, however, it is not obvious how governors have real influence on national policy. Governors do not participate directly in the national policy-making process, for instance. Instead, their influence is probably, as Joy Langston argues, through the national party and the ability to place candidates on the lists or in plurality seats in the Chamber of Deputies and Senate.
If that’s the case (and I think Joy’s argument is convincing), then why do they bother with CONAGO? How does CONAGO help them achieve their policy goals? Is there no direct effect on policy but CONAGO instead gives Governors more publicity? [Since there’s no re-election, is CONAGO really a vehicle for ambitious governors to create national presence for national campaign bids?] So, what are the incentives for governors to participate in CONAGO, and why do they bother if their real influence is through other (partisan) channels?
I think it’s an interesting puzzle, and I think there’s a paper to be written there. But, I don’t know what the paper’s answer to the puzzle would be.
