Mexico’s winners

The practical winner in Mexico’s vote Sunday, though he no longer will be in office starting Dec. 1, was President Ernesto Zedillo, who will be remembered positively in history books no matter how the actual winner, Vincente Fox Quesada fares as the new president. The United States should do what it can to encourage this significant turn toward democracy.

It is, at times, difficult enough for Americans to decide what sort of democracy they live in without wondering about Mexico’s. So it would not be surprising to discover the election of Mr. Fox, confirmed as this nation celebrated its founding, caught many Americans off guard. They did not expect honest elections in Mexico and, traditionally, the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), did nothing to upset that lack of expectation.

Mr. Fox’s National Action Party had made advances in previous, lesser elections, but it was Mr. Zedillo who placed the future of his own party at risk by appointing an independent elections commission, producing what many observers called Mexico’s fairest election in memory. It also, of course, produced the end of PRI’s 71-year run of the presidency. Mr. Zedillo deserves lavish praise for taking steps toward democracy that many in his party would have avoided.

His actions help this nation, as well. Mexico is not only the United States’ second-largest trading partner, it also shares serious concerns over working conditions and environmental standards, putatively established through Nafta, as well as immigration and trade issues. The United States benefits from a partner that depends more on open democracy and less on intra-party dealmaking, and now has an opportunity to reinforce the results of the election.

It can begin by doing nothing that endangers the value of the peso, and instead help Mr. Fox achieve a smooth transition into office. It is appropriate for the Clinton administration to plan meetings with the new president, both to lay out issues of particular importance to the United States and to signal to other nations the importance of the election. Avoiding economic setbacks, like Mexico’s recession of 1994, should be at the forefront of early discussions.

Like Bill Clinton and Britain’s Tony Blair, Mr. Fox ran a campaign that ran over ideological markers so often that it nearly obliterated them. He appears to be a leader less concerned with advancing a set of causes than with advancing Mexico and, if this proves to be the case, he will fit in well on the world stage. But however his career turns out, its beginning through a fair and honest vote makes it remarkable. He can thank his predecessor, Mr. Zedillo for that.