Now that we're settled in Coyoacán, I set about fixing it. A visit to our local branch of Bancomer brought me to the desk of a young, twenty-something bank bureaucrat, Vanessa.
Vanessa's initial response to my description of the problem was to raise her bureaucratic 'mask'—a veiled, guarded look definitely not conducive to creative problem-solving. So my first challenge was finding a way to help her drop the mask.
Over time I've honed my strategy: Orchestrate body language and use formal Spanish in a show of respect bordering on deference, coupled with acute sensitivity to the bureaucrat's subtle responses. When the glimmer of an opening appears, find ways to expand it.
What's going on here?
What's going on is bureaucracy, plain and—well, maybe not so simple, Mexican bureaucracy.
Living in another country can be a real eye-opener to customs taken-for-granted back home. One such custom is the principle of equality before the law.
The U.S. tradition of 'fairness' is rooted in it: one law for everyone, and everyone equal before the law. The idea of impartial fairness spills over, too; for example, the idea that the goal of a bureaucracy is to apply its rules impartially to all who apply for its services.
How do I know? Because Mexico comes at bureaucracy from a completely different starting point.
Twenty-five years ago the Diccionario de la Lengua Española published by the Spanish Royal Academy defined burocracia like this (my translation): "Excessive influence of public employees in matters of the State."
So where, you ask, does 'excessive influence' come from? The answer, it seems to me, is two-fold: first, it rests in the Spanish Crown's top-down strategy for governing Nueva España (Mexico); second, it lies in how those excluded from power adapted to that top-down strategy.
Spain's Strategy for Governing Nueva Espana
The Spanish king was head of both Church and State, and he adroitly used both institutions to maintain tight control over Nueva España, whose sole purpose in the monarch’s plan was as a source of wealth to fund the Spanish Empire.
The Spanish State was represented in Mexico City by the Viceroy and his court, which was modeled on the Spanish Court—which, in turn, aped the decadence of the French Court under Louis XIV at Versailles. The Spanish Catholic Church was represented in Nueva España by its bishops. Both institutions were authoritarian, hierarchical, and established powerful bureaucracies to control the population.
State Bureaucracy in Nueva España
If the English colonies were guided from the outset by the idea of equality before the law, something very different happened in Nueva España, where a strong, centralized, authoritarian and hierarchical State was reinforced by a powerful bureaucracy designed to protect the privileges and jurisdictions of the Spanish elite headed by the Spanish king.
Instead of one law for all, there were separate laws for different groups. Indian Laws applied to the conquered indigenous peoples. Caste Laws applied to the different ethnic groups that constituted the population of Nueva España:
- Peninsulares (Spanish born in Spain);
- Criollos (Spanish born in Nueva España-Mexico);
- Mestizos (Indigenous-Spanish);
- Africans imported from the Caribbean to work hemp and sugar plantations on the Yucatán Peninsula;
- Mulatos (African-Spanish).
Power and Bureaucracy in Nueva España
The Spanish king tightly controlled access to power in Nueva España. Political and military power was reserved for Peninsulares. Criollos could neither hold political office nor serve in the army, but they were allowed to own land, so they developed and held economic power. Religious power was shared by both Peninsulares and Criollos.
Mestizos were excluded from all power. Treated as outcasts for centuries, they survived as beggers and petty thieves and, when provided for by their fathers, sometimes achieved the status of small shopkeepers. Their Spanish heritage gave them natural immunity to European diseases; hence their numbers grew. Eventually the Mestizos would align with the Criollos to force social and political change.
Meanwhile elsewhere in Europe, suggests Octavio Paz, university education in the 16th and 17th centuries, in effect, prepared the social group that was to become at the end of the 18th century, the bureaucracy of modern society.
In Paz's view, the process of modernization of the Mexican national bureaucracy was interrupted by the War of Independence (1810-1821) from Spain and the Mexican Revolution a hundred years later. Writing twenty-five years ago (1982), Paz concluded that as of the middle of the 20th century, Mexico still couldn't rely on a modern bureaucracy.
Paz would be pleased to note that the current Diccionario de la Lengua Española (available in MS Word-Spanish) offers these definitions of burocracia (my translation):
1. Organization regulated by rules that establish a rational order for the distribution and management of matters (within its jurisdiction);
2. A group of civil servants;
3. Excessive influence of civil servants in public matters.
Over the last twenty-five years, then, a modern definition of a 'rule-regulated' organization whose purpose is to 'establish a rational order' over matters within its jurisdiction has supplanted the definition based on 'excessive influence' (cited earlier and which now occupies third place). It was this definition that was current when Paz analyzed Mexican bureaucracy in 1982.
Reed has a saying, "In a battle with culture, the culture always wins." It is reasonable, then, to expect the lingering influence of the earlier definition of bureaucracy.
Los de abajo (The Have-nots) Respond
Exclusion from power is relative, and the ways of responding to arbitrary, authoritarian rule are many. This reality complicates efforts to describe the response of the have-nots during the three hundred years of Spanish rule.
Even los de arriba (those from above, the haves) had their coping strategies. Mexican historian Rubio Mañé, for example, writes (my translation): "Clearly, the Viceroy always had the freedom to express his opinions to the king, to recommend certain measures and at times to contradict orders sent by the king. The formula is a familiar one: Obey, but don't carry out [the king's orders]". In Spanish the saying is, "Obedézcase pero no se cumpla". A loose translation might be, give lip service to but don't carry out, orders from above.
Coping was considerably more difficult for los de abajo. Excluded from political power, the Criollos were nonetheless able to use their economic power to influence the state bureaucracy.
The situation of Mestizos was very different. Excluded from all power, the Mestizos had to fall back on their own resources. Arguably, these resources, learned at the knees of their indigenous mothers, included the value of the primacy of family and a tradition of work as honorable.
The legacy of the Spanish fathers was more complicated. When fathers made the effort to help beloved sons, they typically set them up as petty shopkeepers. But far too often, the Spanish handed down a disdain for work linked to the strong sense of privilege grounded in a love of luxury and culture brought from Spain.
How the Spanish monarchy sought to control the indigenous population also played a significant role. From the Antilles Islands, the Spanish brought the role and title of cacique, which translates roughly as chief. The cacique performed the role of head man, even strong man, among his people. As the sole bridge between the Spanish and the indigenous communities, caciques wielded enormous power, which they used to benefit family and friends.
To repeat, the social and political structure—authoritarian, hierarchical and often arbitrary—was designed to protect and preserve the Spanish ruling elite. The common people (los de abajo) had no choice but to defer to the demands and whims of anyone with any kind of official authority.
Independence from Spain (1810-1821) brought political power to the Criollos, but only marginal improvement to the situation of the Mestizos. Attitudes and behavior remained controlled by arbitrarily created policies designed to protect and enrich the expanded ruling elite (Criollos), and by the personal agendas and even the whims of individuals in power.
While the U.S. and Western Europe were striving to achieve the ideal of equality before the law, with associated principles of justice and fairness; the former Spanish colonies, including Mexico, were struggling to come to grips with their problematic Spanish colonial legacy. In what was essentially a hostile environment, all social, economic and political activity was based on personal relationships—on who one knew, or could get introductions to, and on how much influence could be brought to bear on them.
Thus the burden of survival and success fell squarely on individuals, family groups and the networks they were capable of building. Anyone outside of one's own personal group was treated as a potential enemy or competitor—as someone to be taken advantage of or ignored altogether, depending on circumstances.
Labeled personalismo, this web of social relationships is evident today; in fact, some say it is the very foundation of Mexican society. Mexican public intellectual Jorge Castañeda's recent book (2011), Mañana Forever?: Mexico and the Mexicans, was written in English to explain Mexico to readers in the United States. Castañeda uses the word 'individualism' to describe this culture trait, but it is more accurately described as personalismo—personalism.
So, you might ask, how does one thrive in such a hostile setting? Individuals able to achieve positions of authority—beginning, it might be argued, with the caciques—use their power not only for their own benefit, but for the benefit of family and friends as well. Enter bureaucrats of all kinds!
Where Does that Leave Us Today?
So at the bank when Vanessa drops her mask, she is indicating that she feels respected and that hence she will deal with me on a more personal level. She will use her authority and her connections to obtain the result I seek. And that is precisely what has happened.
The legacy of the Spanish fathers was more complicated. When fathers made the effort to help beloved sons, they typically set them up as petty shopkeepers. But far too often, the Spanish handed down a disdain for work linked to the strong sense of privilege grounded in a love of luxury and culture brought from Spain.
How the Spanish monarchy sought to control the indigenous population also played a significant role. From the Antilles Islands, the Spanish brought the role and title of cacique, which translates roughly as chief. The cacique performed the role of head man, even strong man, among his people. As the sole bridge between the Spanish and the indigenous communities, caciques wielded enormous power, which they used to benefit family and friends.
To repeat, the social and political structure—authoritarian, hierarchical and often arbitrary—was designed to protect and preserve the Spanish ruling elite. The common people (los de abajo) had no choice but to defer to the demands and whims of anyone with any kind of official authority.
Independence from Spain (1810-1821) brought political power to the Criollos, but only marginal improvement to the situation of the Mestizos. Attitudes and behavior remained controlled by arbitrarily created policies designed to protect and enrich the expanded ruling elite (Criollos), and by the personal agendas and even the whims of individuals in power.
While the U.S. and Western Europe were striving to achieve the ideal of equality before the law, with associated principles of justice and fairness; the former Spanish colonies, including Mexico, were struggling to come to grips with their problematic Spanish colonial legacy. In what was essentially a hostile environment, all social, economic and political activity was based on personal relationships—on who one knew, or could get introductions to, and on how much influence could be brought to bear on them.
Thus the burden of survival and success fell squarely on individuals, family groups and the networks they were capable of building. Anyone outside of one's own personal group was treated as a potential enemy or competitor—as someone to be taken advantage of or ignored altogether, depending on circumstances.
Labeled personalismo, this web of social relationships is evident today; in fact, some say it is the very foundation of Mexican society. Mexican public intellectual Jorge Castañeda's recent book (2011), Mañana Forever?: Mexico and the Mexicans, was written in English to explain Mexico to readers in the United States. Castañeda uses the word 'individualism' to describe this culture trait, but it is more accurately described as personalismo—personalism.
So, you might ask, how does one thrive in such a hostile setting? Individuals able to achieve positions of authority—beginning, it might be argued, with the caciques—use their power not only for their own benefit, but for the benefit of family and friends as well. Enter bureaucrats of all kinds!
Where Does that Leave Us Today?
So at the bank when Vanessa drops her mask, she is indicating that she feels respected and that hence she will deal with me on a more personal level. She will use her authority and her connections to obtain the result I seek. And that is precisely what has happened.
When the branch in Pátzcuaro confirmed that, yes, Jenny and Reed have an account at our branch; they nonetheless neglected to email or fax a copy of our signature card. Consequently, Vanessa says she has no way of confirming that, indeed, we are the people with the account in Pátzcuaro—yes, I know, but please don’t go there. Arguing does absolutely no good—trust me on that!
But not to worry, assures Vanessa with perfect bureaucratic aplomb, if you will bring your passports plus copies of your electric and phone bills to confirm residency in Coyoacán, I will be able to transfer your account from Pátzcuaro to our branch here in Coyoacán and issue new Debit cards to each of you. Yes, Reed’s card is now blocked as well. Sigh….
Shall I mention here that I have been involved in this process for weeks? Perhaps now is also the time to mention the primacy accorded to the value of paciencia—patience—in Mexican culture.
Oh, and if arguing will get you nowhere, neither will getting angry. Years ago, when I was working at Pemex, a Mexican colleague relayed a traditional Mexican saying, "He who gets angry, loses." Sigh....
Keen to Know More?
If you're interested in another take on Hispanic bureaucracy, Jenny's post Tips for Succeeding with Mexican Bureaucracy begins with a hilarious, highly informative, professionally produced 'short' (3:30 min) documentary depicting Spanish bureaucracy. Don't miss it!
The 'short' is followed by my adaptation to the idiosyncrasies of Mexican bureaucracy of Seven Simple Steps for dealing with bureaucracy, which were initially developed by an expat from the United Kingdom living in Spain. Jenny's 'Take' builds on insights we've gained in our multi-year experiences of learning to deal effectively with the bureaucracy.
If you're dealing with Mexican bureaucracy, Jenny's post What Makes the Mexican Legal System So Different? will help you understand how Mexican law, grounded in the legal system known as Civil Law, is quite different from the U.S. legal system, which is grounded in Common Law. This understanding is essential for dealing effectively with Mexican bureaucracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment