🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
On June 2, millions of Mexicans went to the polls. The result was a resounding triumph for outgoing President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) and his Morena party. Claudia Sheinbaum, AMLO's chosen successor as president, claimed nearly 60 percent of the popular vote, besting second-place finisher Xóchitl Gálvez by more than 30 percentage points. Morena's candidates won seven of the nine contested governorships, a supermajority in the lower Chamber of Deputies and very close to a supermajority in the Senate. Morena dominated the local races as well, giving the party control over 27 of Mexico's 32 state legislatures.
Why does this matter? Because as the old saying goes, elections have consequences. AMLO, still a popular figure after six years in office, made it abundantly clear that he had unfinished business and wasn't going to spend his final months planning his retirement. At the top of the list—reforming Mexico's judicial system, which AMLO frequent upbraids as corrupt and "rotten."
AMLO's reform package, however, is likely to make the judiciary even more rotten than it already is. Despite what AMLO and his surrogates may say in public, it's difficult not to see the judicial reform measure as nothing short of a transparent revenge campaign against the one institution in Mexico's system of government—the courts—that has put a check on his policies. AMLO may dress it up as a nationwide exercise in democracy now that thousands of judges at the federal, state, and local level will soon be elected rather than appointed to their positions. But the reality is far more convoluted and potentially dangerous for the state of Mexico's still relatively young democracy.
The reform has a few major items. First, merit and legal experience are essentially thrown out the window in favor of political popularity. The 11 justices on the Mexican Supreme Court, 1,635 judges and magistrates in the federal court system, and 5,700 more at the state and local level will now be on the ballot. Those with only a few years of legal work and a law degree will now be able to run for a judgeship, all but making a mockery of experience. The Tribunal for Judicial Discipline, tasked with oversight, will also be elected. The bill is well on its way to passage—Morena recently managed to find the one vote it needed to clear the general text through the chamber. It's now up to the state legislatures, but with Morena holding such extensive power outside Mexico City, it's only a matter of time before the reform officially becomes the law of the land.
Many lawyers, judicial workers, and citizens are furious with the proposal. During my latest trip to Mexico City last week, there were protests in the downtown area every single day of the week, culminating in this week's attempt by demonstrators to storm the Senate and disrupt the proceedings. Opposition lawmakers were relegated to delivering pointless speeches for posterity on why it was a terrible idea to hand the judiciary's keys to the masses. One elderly man I spoke with told me in no uncertain terms that AMLO was all but turning Mexico into Venezuela—instead of cases settled based on law, he told Newsweek, they will now be settled based on what the executive branch wants. In the extreme, Mexico would return to its previous status as a one-party state. This isn't some conspiratorial statement; Morena is betting it can use its popular support and election machinery to get Morena-linked judges into the chambers, capturing the entire system in the process.
The man I talked with is a keen observer of the news. But many of his compatriots aren't as diligent. According to a poll by El Financiero, more than half of Mexicans surveyed said they knew little or nothing about AMLO's judicial overhaul, even as nearly half supported it, nonetheless. While this is only one poll from one daily, it suggests that a good chunk of the country is simply accepting AMLO's explanations at face value. Those who don't are belittled by the outgoing president as thieves, elitist, or even traitorous.
With the exception of Ken Salazar, Washington's ambassador in Mexico, the United States has taken a pathetically muted tone on all of this. Writing in an Aug. 22 open letter, ambassador Salazar was blunt: "Based on my lifelong experience supporting the rule of law, I believe popular direct election of judges is a major risk to the functioning of Mexico's democracy." The U.S.-Mexico trade relationship could be negatively impacted as well, since U.S. businesses won't have as much confidence in fair proceedings as they once did. AMLO responded immediately after with a hissy-fit, declaring a pause in contacts with the U.S. Embassy.
The U.S.-Mexico relationship will survive. But for a country like the U.S., who likes to pat itself on the back for being the world's leading advocate for checks and balances, you can the latest political developments down south are causing some restless nights.
Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
