IN UPCOMING ELECTIONS, MEXICO WEIGHS ITS POLITICAL FUTURE / GEOPOLITICAL FUTURES

In Upcoming Elections, Mexico Weighs Its Political Future

The two leading candidates support divergent paths to the same end.

By: Allison Fedirka

The biggest question facing Mexico in the upcoming presidential election is how the country can balance democratic governance while also supporting strong centralized authority. 

The two leading candidates in the race represent opposite sides in this debate. 

The approach that prevails on June 2 will serve as the cornerstone of the administration and will shape its strategies toward security, economics and international engagement for years to come.

Despite the two leading candidates’ differing approaches, there is consensus among Mexican politicians and the general public on the main problems facing the next president. 

They agree on the need for a strong central authority that promotes national development and can wield control over regional governments. 

They also agree on the need to end the country’s drug war and find ways to take advantage of China’s economic decline and other opportunities created by the global economic climate. 

Where they differ is on how they believe Mexico can achieve these goals.

Mexico’s geography and history dictate that a strong central government is needed to keep the country together. 

National unity has been a challenge for Mexico as far back as Spanish colonization. 

Mountains, deserts, plateaus and peninsulas naturally segment the country, resulting in power vacuums, disparities in economic development and strong popular support for local leaders over distant federal ones. 

Over the years, this challenge has manifested in various forms, from separatist movements to parallel governments to revolutions. 

These internal fault lines tend to get aggravated during times of insecurity, economic hardship and political uncertainty.

Historically, the Mexican government dealt with governance challenges by centralizing power. 

Porfirio Diaz, who ruled the country from 1876 to 1880 and again from 1884 to 1911, and the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which ruled from 1929 to 2000, stand out as the most prolific sources of centralized power in Mexican history. 

Diaz’s stints in office, known as the Porfiriato, were characterized by economic growth, modernization and limited personal freedoms. 

(This period did not end well, and helped kick off the Mexican revolution in 1910.) 

The PRI’s dominance differed in that the party ruled by relying on clientelism, rotating party figureheads and controlling political leadership at both the national and state levels.

The end of the PRI’s power monopoly set the stage for Mexico’s current governance dilemma. 

Politicians initially adjusted the constitution with the aim of reducing executive authority and empowering other government institutions, particularly the judiciary. 

This was viewed domestically as a democratization push, resulting in the expansion of political participation throughout Mexico and the decentralization of political power, with three different parties – the National Action Party, the PRI and the Morena party – occupying the presidency since 2000. 

However, the changes also undermined the power structure that kept order among the different interest groups vying for influence. 

Over the past 25 years, the democratization process has largely stalled, with some institutions weakening or collapsing completely due to political fragmentation. 

However, others have evolved and improved their standing – including, most notably, the Supreme Court. 

From this situation, a key question arose: How does a country that requires strong central control maintain democratic governance?

Traditional political theory offers two schools of thought. 

The first, institutionalism, prioritizes building institutions and enforcing existing norms. 

Constructivism, on the other hand, calls for building a strong public consensus around shared ideas and values and then creating norms based on these ideals. 

Both schools of thought revolve around constructing a strong foundation and enforcement mechanisms that, if executed successfully, will allow the government to project power across the country and, eventually, abroad. 

While the general concepts and end goals are similar, the strategies for achieving them drastically differ.

Mexico’s two leading presidential candidates each embody one of these schools of thought. 

The candidate of the ruling Morena party, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, has adopted a constructivist approach. 

Morena views the political party as the main vehicle connecting the central government with local governments and the people based on shared views and values. 

It also supports reducing the power of government institutions in favor of prioritizing the role of political parties, with the aim of reasserting control over the country. 

The party has reached deals with diverse groups to allow them to operate in exchange for their support during elections. 

Morena argues that this approach is democratic because it does not advocate the dissolution of state institutions, but the party’s outreach to groups outside the government has raised concerns that it could eventually undermine democratic institutions. 

Morena has faced opposition from different interests, like the Supreme Court and security forces, that have gained power in recent years and feel threatened by its governance strategy.

Meanwhile, opposition candidate Xochitl Galvez has adopted an institutionalist approach. 

The opposition has called for professionalization of institutional structures, which would help make them the center of the country’s political system and the main source of power projection within Mexico. 

Some of the more hardline members of this camp also support modernizing the constitution to formally change the country’s political system to one dominated by technocrat-run institutions. 

A major challenge facing this strategy is that it would require tearing down the old power structure before installing a new one. 

This would inevitably create political tensions and irk some powerful economic actors that benefit from the remnants of clientelism and crony capitalism.

Mexico's choice in the upcoming election is ultimately between returning to a governance system that worked in the past or transitioning to a new one. 

The outcome of this struggle will decide the future of influential groups in Mexico like the military and teachers' unions. 

It also runs a high risk of creating conflict among business elites who support different governance paths, based on what better serves their interests. 

Mexico’s ability to resolve this issue will also directly affect its ability to project power abroad and improve its international standing.

Andres Araujo contributed to this analysis. Mr. Araujo is an intern at Geopolitical Futures and a student at the University of Valle de Atemajac in Guadalajara, Mexico, where he studies international relations.