ustxtxb_obs_1984_01_27_50_00013-00000_000.pdf

Leon Dra w ing by Bo b Ske w is observed certain principles since they were clearly stated by, well, you remember your history, the principle of non-intervention was established by Juarez,” Hernandez says. This might not have much to do with paving the streets, or tenants’ rights, in General Cepeda or Piedras Negras, but wherever candidates of the Mexican left encounter opposition from the conservative PAN it is likely that this issue will serve, at least to get the attention of the voting public. Navarro suggests that the specter of America intervention in Mexico itself might be raised as an issue in the December election: “Mexicans know that their country shares some 2,500 kilometers of border with the United States. In the event of, let us say, well another oil embargo, what is to stop the army of the United States from crossing the Mexican border?” Navarro concedes that such action is unlikely, adding that American adventurism in Mexico is much more likely through a surrogate such as Guatemala. Yet as strange as it might seem, municipal council seats in Monclova, Zaragoza, Acuria, and Arteaga could be determined by the foreign policy of the Reagan administration as the PST works to remind voters of PAN’s ideological connection with \(and alleged financial And if they succeed in becoming the leading party of the opposition? “We will continue to concentrate on three areas in the legislature: housing, employment, and food,” observes Hernandez. “Over the long term our goal is collective ownership of major industries . . . a government of workers . . .” Sources of Employment “Only the working class can create wealth,” someone adds. Determined to head off a litany of Marxist slogans, I venture a question. What is the percentage of those workers out of a job? The consensus is 30% . Navarro explains that an exact figure is hard to come by: “It’s impossible to determine a precise figure. When companies dismiss all of their occasional workers, part of the labor force goes from underemployment to unemployment. And I don’t consider a skilled worker, with a tray suspended from his shoulders, working as a street vendor, as employed.” Asked about their position on Mexican workers hazarding a trip to the U.S. to look for work, both legislators agree that for many there is no choice. Even where employment is available, it is often impossible for heads of families to provide for the most basic needs. Hernandez explains that the country is divided into three zones in which minimum wages are fixed by the government. “Here in the north, the border states, the minimum daily wage is 520 pesos. dollars. You imagine providing for a family today in Mexico earning three American dollars a day?” Those workers leaving represent lost allies in a class struggle, potential party members, or votes. “We would prefer that Mexican workers remain in their country. But as long as there is such scarcity of work here and a demand for manual labor in the United States, Mexican workers will emigrate,” Hernandez says, “and the present system is unjust and inhuman. Mexican workers are treated like . . .” There is a pause and someone concludes, “like animals.” Hernandez offers that he does not see any potential for improvement in the Simpson-Mazzoli bill. Providing no specific criticism of the bill, he argues that it will not improve the conditions endured by the Mexican worker in the U.S. “The demand for Mexican workers in the U.S. is a reality. If Mexican workers are going to be employed, they should be treated the same as American workers . . . they should receive equal salary, the social benefits of employment, education of their children, social services. And there should be established a realistic system of documentation.” Hernandez, Navarro, and a chorus of partisans, when asked, voice their opposition to joint U.S.-Mexican economic development programs \(as pro posed on occasion by U.S. Senator problem of unemployment in Mexico. I ask about maquiladoras, Americanowned and managed plants employing Mexican labor in Mexico. Chrysler and Ford operate new plants in Saltillo, the state’s most important industrial center. All shake their heads in disapproval. Hernandez explains. “We welcome sources of employment, factories, plants . . . but only those properly Mexican, not foreign-owned.” Two socialist legislators do not a social revolution, nor even a working minority, make. The social revolution, as PST activists see it, remains to be made. And it must start at the polls, where parties of the left must win the support of the Mexican worker. For a minority of two there seems to be, at present, little need to state proposals or criticism in specific terms. That should follow, assuming that the fledgling party, like other minority parties recently certified, can make the quantum leap from a protected plurinominal minority to a legitimate political force. And that might be more than the party that institutionalized the revolution intended when it consented to electoral reform in 1977, although Navarro sees PRI’s decision to extend electoral reform to smaller cities as a sign of good faith. And yet it can be argued that some good has come from what little political pluralism now exists here. Moribund for more than 50 years, electoral politics in Mexico is beginning to show some sign of life. Flanked by minority parties, PRI is encouraged to offer something more than the tradi THE TEXAS OBSERVER 13