ABSTRACT
“Here the river is the last destination. Here, men are taken by the current [ … ]. Here, men turn into jungle. In order not to die like rotten trees, They take revenge on a world that takes them where it wants to, A world that they cannot tame, And that’s why they destroy it. The logger knows how to cut, break and disembowel admirably.” Mario Monteforte Toledo, Anaité, 1948 (translated by the author as quoted by de Vos 1994: 7). The forgoing study has thus far looked at the formulation of environmental policy in Mexico during the Zedillo administration, by looking at the setting of the environmental agenda and the drafting of environmental policy. A study of policymaking in Mexico would be limited, however, if it did not pay attention to the implementation of the policies that are formulated given the historical gap there has been in Latin America between the adoption of policies and their implementation. Historically, the adherence to the rule of law has not generally been equal in the region; there has been a difference between legal formalism and individual compliance with the law. A dualism of legality has been institutionalized, where there are those who make the law, interpret it and are above it, and those who have no option but to comply. It could be argued that the gap between the adoption of certain policies and their implementation is not specific to the Latin American experience, since the same also occurs in developed countries. 1 In the case of Latin America, however, the dualism between legal formalism and actual implementation is argued to be related to culture, a tradition that can be traced back through colonial times and ultimately to sixteenth century Spain. More precisely, it refers to the principle of la ley se acata pero no se cumple (which, if translated literally, means the law must be obeyed but not complied with). Although contradictory at first glance, this principle was based on the idea of the poder moderador (moderating power). That is, in sixteenth century Spain, and subsequently in Latin America, the King was the ultimate interpreter of the law and it was up to him to decide what was legal or not (castizo or just) (Anglade 1986). Individuals could therefore appeal to the King whenever they thought a law was unjust.
