We already know what to do. Now we need an agreement about how to do it and with whom.

The [Merxican] political classes lost the little credibility they had because of Ayotzinapa. A consensus formed through long experience crystalized like this: only violence, corruption, impunity and incompetence come from above.

Another consensus emerged along with this: the institutions themselves are rotten, not only those that direct them. They are not at the service of the people, nor do they fulfill their functions. We need substitutes for them.

It also extends to a consensus that comes from perspective. In recent decades the political classes adulterated and finally dismantled what remained of the 1917 Constitution. We need another one. Or rather: a constituent mechanism that formulates the new social order from below.

To do that we must conceive how we get rid of what is and create democratic mechanisms of transition that forestall and contain the current disorder and violence.

There is no consensus about the way to do all that. Among those that share the conviction that we must remove the current functionaries and construct other institutions, some think that the only way of attaining it without violence is to stay within the current frameworks, through the electoral and party path. According to them, we would have to use ballot boxes to disqualify them. Any other way would be illusory or undemocratic and violent. Thus emerges a profound difference, because many other people consider that what’s illusory and undemocratic is to continue using ballot boxes, entirely inadequate for what is sought. What’s missing is to break with the current frameworks.

Within this debate, as in other questions, weighs an old tradition that centers the possibility of change on a leader or a handful of leaders. ...

Continues here.