The result of Mexico’s presidential election came as a surprise to many in the country — not because Claudia Sheinbaum won, but because she secured 60 percent of the vote. In Congress, her Morena party and its allies have an absolute majority. However, while the vote itself might seem like a triumph of democracy, the election’s outcome represents a major step backward.
To understand the significance of Sheinbaum’s victory requires looking back a century. After a 20-year revolution that left about one million dead, Mexico reached a political settlement in 1929 that lasted until the end of the twentieth century. That system called for government-run elections, but freedom of expression was severely curtailed, and Mexican presidents’ power was akin to that of an absolute monarch.
Mexican presidents had to follow only a few rules. For starters, they could not antagonize the US. The president was also limited to a six-year term, and while the outgoing president appointed his successor, he was not to interfere in the new administration — a rule that has been respected since 1934.
Moreover, the president did not “own” the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which never faced a serious challenge from an opposition party, and had to negotiate with its various factions, including powerful peasant, worker, and bureaucratic federations. They were all subsumed by the state apparatus, which distributed posts and perks.
In the mid-1980s, Mexico began to open its economy, culminating with the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. At the same time, Mexicans began to question the PRI’s political monopoly. As Eastern European and Latin American countries underwent democratic transitions, Mexico’s hegemonic party, which Mario Vargas Llosa christened “the perfect dictatorship,” seemed increasingly anachronistic.
Political reform eventually came from within. Between 1994 and 2000, then-president Ernesto Zedillo strengthened the independence of the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE), opened the political system to greater competition, gave autonomy to the Supreme Court, respected freedom of expression, and, ultimately, refused to appoint his successor. In 2000, Mexico launched its own transition from authoritarian rule.
Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderon, both of the National Action Party (PAN), won the 2000 and 2006 presidential elections, respectively. However, Calderon’s victory against the popular leftist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was so narrow that Lopez Obrador (known as AMLO) declared himself the victim of fraud.
Enrique Pena Nieto, the PRI’s frivolous candidate, was elected in 2012, but his administration was tainted by corruption. So, in 2018, 53 percent of voters chose AMLO as president.
After coming to power, AMLO followed the populist playbook by fueling polarization, clamping down on freedom of expression, discrediting the National Electoral Institute (INE, formerly the IFE), seeking to undo the separation of powers and flouting various legal conventions.
However, one trait that sets AMLO apart from most other populists: his messianic aura. He has often compared himself to Jesus Christ. Thus began the distribution of the loaves: A series of ambitious “social programs” — cash transfers chief among them — reached tens of millions of households through the “Servants of the Nation,” a street-level organization comprising party members and sympathizers.
Like any redeemer, AMLO has been omnipresent, appearing every weekday on La Mananera, a three-hour televised press conference in which he decrees the official truth, slanders his critics, stigmatizes the opposition and systematically lies. And yet, for the most part the dominant news channels do not criticize or challenge him, for fear that he will retaliate.
There is much to criticize about AMLO’s tenure. He ordered the army to administer roads and customs, and to construct railways, airports and refineries (all highly unproductive). The Mayan Train project, in particular, destroyed about 10 million trees. His policy of “hugs, not bullets” to avoid clashes with the drug cartels resulted in an unprecedented 187,000 violent deaths during his six-year term.
AMLO’s health policies were equally negligent. Twenty million people lost their insurance coverage when the government abandoned its successful Seguro Popular program. An expert report said that his poor handling of the COVID-19 pandemic caused 224,000 deaths (from an official total of around 335,000, although the actual tally is estimated to exceed 600,000).
These outcomes led many to believe that while Sheinbaum — AMLO’s chosen successor — would win, the race would be tight. In the event of a landslide victory, I believed that Sheinbaum would follow (or be forced to follow) AMLO’s post-election script. The result would be the suffocation of Mexico’s democracy.
Unfortunately, that outcome seems likely. Morena legislators and their allies, who have a large enough majority in Congress to pass laws without debate, are to take office a month before Sheinbaum. That means they would have enough time to approve AMLO’s proposed package of constitutional reforms, which would restrict the independence of the judiciary and the INE, and destroy the National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information, and Personal Data Protection.
So, when Sheinbaum takes office on Oct. 1, the damage might already have been done, in which case there would be no checks on presidential power, and even if Sheinbaum respects freedom of expression, as she has promised, the few remaining critical voices would carry little weight. The US, along with the financial markets, would be the last barriers to an authoritarian turn.
To make matters worse, AMLO would try to exert power over his successor. According to the constitution, the president’s mandate could be revoked in three years if Congress so decides. Will Sheinbaum manage to steer a violent, polarized country with impoverished health and education systems and weak public finances toward better outcomes, while appeasing a man whom tens of millions see as a savior? Hope dies last.
Enrique Krauze, editor-in-chief of the magazine Letras Libres, is the author of Mexico: Biography of Power.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
With the Year of the Snake reaching its conclusion on Monday next week, now is an opportune moment to reflect on the past year — a year marked by institutional strain and national resilience. For Taiwan, the Year of the Snake was a composite of political friction, economic momentum, social unease and strategic consolidation. In the political sphere, it was defined less by legislative productivity and more by partisan confrontation. The mass recall movement sought to remove 31 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators following the passage of controversial bills that expanded legislative powers and imposed sweeping budget cuts. While the effort
There is a story in India about a boy called Prahlad who was an ardent worshipper of Lord Narayana, whom his father considered an enemy. His son’s devotion vexed the father to the extent that he asked his sister, Holika, who could not be burned by fire, to sit with the boy in her lap and burn him to death. Prahlad knew about this evil plan, but sat in his aunt’s lap anyway. His faith won, as he remained unscathed by the fire, while his aunt was devoured by the flames. In some small way, Prahlad reminds me of Taiwan
When Hong Kong’s High Court sentenced newspaper owner Jimmy Lai (黎智英) to 20 years in prison this week, officials declared that his “heinous crimes” had long poisoned society and that his punishment represented justice restored. In their telling, Lai is the mastermind of Hong Kong’s unrest — the architect of a vast conspiracy that manipulated an otherwise contented population into defiance. They imply that removing him would lead to the return of stability. It is a politically convenient narrative — and a profoundly false one. Lai did not radicalize Hong Kong. He belonged to the same generation that fled from the Chinese
Former Hong Kong media magnate Jimmy Lai (黎智英), who on Monday was sentenced to 20 years in jail for his role in the 2019 Hong Kong democracy movement and “colluding with foreign forces,” once called on members of the US government for support in his struggle against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Speaking to a forum at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in July 2019, Lai, speaking about the US having the moral authority over the CCP, said: “It’s like they are going to battle without any weapon, and you have the nuclear weapon. You can finish them in
RSS