Mexican Democracy Hangs In The Balance
Mexican Democracy Hangs In The Balance
A victory by the ruling coalition could mean long-lasting single-party rule.
On June 2, Mexico will hold its most important election in recent history. At stake is not only the presidency, and assorted political offices, but, in all likelihood, the very survival of Mexican democracy. The current president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, intends to cement his legacy by passing power on to a handpicked successor—and, in so doing, threatens to restore and extend Mexico’s long-time tradition of single-party rule. In a significant sense, what is on the table in Mexico’s election is even more damaging to democracy than what Mexicans got used to in the bad old days of Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) rule. Then, presidents enjoyed power while in office but did not “own” their party. With López Obrador (commonly known as AMLO), Mexico may be facing unknown terrain: a political figure whose power extends well beyond a six-year term limit.
To understand what is in play in the June election, it is worth having a primer on Mexican political history. Between 1929 and 2000, Mexican presidents—all of them PRI—enjoyed near absolute power while in office. Thousands of executive and legislative posts in the 32 states and over 2000 municipalities were periodically distributed within the party, which never suffered a serious challenge to its power. This was the “Mexican Political System,” which Mario Vargas Llosa famously called “The Perfect Dictatorship.”
The system had few external boundaries (opposition parties were almost entirely symbolic, the government managed elections, civic awareness was limited, and freedom of expression was restricted), but there were internal limits: The president did not dominate the PRI. His greatest privilege was to choose his successor, a rule fulfilled every six years from 1934 onwards. The outgoing president left power enjoying impunity and immunity, but the incoming president governed without any obligation to obey the previous one, often resulting in distance or even rupture. It was “the King is dead, long live the King.”
The system remained untouched until the end of the 1980s. Influenced by the winds of change in Europe and Latin America, the PRI lost its sustenance and legitimacy. Bowing to the inevitable, President Ernesto Zedillo (1994-2000) initiated reform: He ensured the independence of the Federal Electoral Institute, refused to appoint his successor, opened competition among parties, restructured the Supreme Court to give it full autonomy, and respected freedom of expression. The victory of Vicente Fox, the candidate of the center-right National Action Party (PAN), marked Mexico’s peaceful and orderly transition to democracy in 2000.
Two PAN and one PRI government came next, with poor or mediocre results. In opposition, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, then a populist candidate from the left who publicly spoke of himself as a redeemer and even compared himself with Jesus Christ, refused to acknowledge his defeat in 2006, called himself the country’s “legitimate president,” and then claimed fraud, again, in 2012. He finally won the presidency in 2018 with a clear majority of 53%. Unlike the PRI presidents, AMLO is the owner of his party, Morena. Morena, as opposed to the old PRI, is not a party but a movement around a caudillo. It is no coincidence that AMLO acts as the owner of Mexico.
Although AMLO cannot be reelected, he can govern by proxy. His chosen successor is Claudia Sheinbaum, who has promised to follow his program to the letter. Some see this as electoral machination—trusting that Sheinbaum, a physicist and reputable academic, will break free once in office. However, there is no reason yet to doubt her when she claims that her priority is dutiful continuity.
In political terms, such adherence would imply perpetuating—perhaps in a more discreet but no less authoritarian style—AMLO’s script. It would mean maintaining the army's presence in non-military tasks (managing highways and customs, building trains no one uses, airports without passengers, and non-functional refineries). It would mean continuing the “hugs, not bullets” approach to organized crime, which has in practice meant giving up entirely on law and order. (Mexico suffered 186,000 violent deaths during López Obrador’s term.) Finally, it would mean approving AMLO’s latest reform package, through which he aims to end the judiciary’s autonomy, to dismantle the National Electoral Institute, and to suppress the National Institute of Access to Information.
With that reform package and López Obador’s divisive legacy at stake, the following myriad scenarios come into play.
If, as now seems likely, Sheinbaum wins the presidential election but the parties supporting her (including Morena) lose elections in Mexico City and other states and do not reach a qualified majority in Congress, her margin to maneuver will be reduced. This scenario of limited victory would offer her an opportunity to change course and bring about a much needed national reconciliation. Mexican democracy will be saved.
If Sheinbaum wins and insists on following AMLO’s script, she will find herself in testy negotiations with Congress, with critical legislative provisions arbitrated by the Supreme Court and contested in the streets and social networks. Democracy will breathe but not rest easy.
If the official machinery of buying and inducing votes (along with the intervention of organized crime) results in a wide-margin victory for the ruling party, AMLO, emboldened by what he would interpret as a mandate, could turn Sheinbaum into his Medvedev, leading to the suffocation of democracy.
Fortunately, there are other scenarios. The opposition unexpectedly has a competitive candidate, Xóchitl Gálvez, who is touring the country with growing impact. Polls appear to show a tightening race. Her biography carries indisputable legitimacy. Of humble and partially indigenous origin, she is a self-made woman who studied engineering, founded a highly advanced building company, and joined public service as a civil servant concerned with social problems. She is straight-talking, proactive, and courageous—virtues that have stood out in presidential debates.
If Gálvez triumphs by a wide margin (difficult but not impossible), it may force something unprecedented in López Obrador’s biography: the acceptance of a defeat. Democracy would truly breathe.
If, however, Gálvez wins by a small margin, Morena and its allies (headed by AMLO, seconded by Sheinbaum, followed by an enraged social contingent) will claim fraud and take to the streets seeking annulment of the elections. Opposition citizens would also defend their triumph. Months of uncertainty and turbulence would follow, awaiting the verdict of the Electoral Tribunal's verdict. In that circumstance it is hard to know if the Tribunal, facing concerted pressure, would maintain its independence.
Mexican democracy is not only young but inexperienced. In two hundred years of independence, Mexico has tried genuine democracy in only two other periods: the liberal era of Benito Juárez (1867-1876) and the fifteen months of President Francisco I. Madero (1911-1913). The first period ended in dictatorship, the second led to revolutionary violence. Since 2000, we have been in the third iteration of Mexican democracy—the result of the hard work of Mexicans who over many decades fought for political rights and liberties. It would be a serious historical setback to lose those gains now.
Enrique Krauze has written over twenty books including Mexico: Biography of Power, and Redeemers: Ideas and Power in Latin America. He is the editor of the magazine Letras Libres and co-founder of Editorial Clio.
Follow Persuasion on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube to keep up with our latest articles, podcasts, and events, as well as updates from excellent writers across our network.
And, to receive pieces like this in your inbox and support our work, subscribe below:
 |
|
The media strategy of the mexican reactionaries to use foreign publications to give weight to their desperate critiques is pure malinchismo. Or maybe it is the only public they can find since nobody in Mexico outside their tired clique of ineffectual intellectuals reads them anymore.
Mexico needs a decent opposition, but the current one is so discredited and out of ideas they can't provide it. They would do better to direct constructive criticism at themselves instead of calling somebody who implements direct democratic reforms and has so much public support anti-democratic.
Mexico was not successful before AMLO. Mexico was not successful while AMLO was in office. Mexico will not be successful, irrespective of who wins the next election. More than 100 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville predicted that Mexico would not be successful. He was right. Check Mexico’s PISA scores. They are between Kazakhstan and Mongolia. No surprise that (measured by PISA scores), Singapore is number one. The rise of China dooms Mexico, in more ways than one.