Following Mexican Independence, decades of uncertainty in Mexico’s political sphere ensued. PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) was able to maintain power for most of the period through electoral fraud and large connection networks. By the end of the 20th century, however, scandals and controversies had caught up to them, and new parties began taking power. In 2018, AMLO (Andrés Manuel López Obrador) of the Morena Party, running on a populist platform, won the presidency in a landslide election. Although it can be argued that centralization is necessary as a tool to address the needs of underserved communities and fight corruption, because of increased reliance on the military and constitutional reforms that changed the judiciary landscape, Mexican democracy is backsliding towards Authoritarianism at an alarming rate. AMLO and the Morena Party were able to accomplish this through populism tactics and the consolidation of power.
Since the start of his tenure in office, AMLO staunchly began measures to take over civilian institutions and replace them with the military. During his Presidential campaign, AMLO promised to combat growing corruption and power within the government and the military. However, to meet the demands of his mandate, AMLO increasingly utilized the military, an institution that is subject to very little democratic oversight. There are many problems with increased militarization, many of which signify a shift toward an authoritarian regime. Most civilian institutions are directly fueled by the Mexican people and are thus always open to public scrutiny and inspection. Taking over these institutions through the military takes away some of their accountability and diminishes transparency. Additionally, the weakening of these democratic institutions through the military only centralizes power within the regime, paving the way towards a transition to authoritarianism. The introduction of the military in these areas hasn’t even benefited the system. The presence of the military in the public safety sector has done little to bring violence under control. The military has even been involved in a large number of human rights abuses. It is hard to see any other reason for the takeover by the military of civilian institutions other than as a tool for AMLO to consolidate power and develop plans for a future authoritarian regime. Even today, the “Mexican military has accrued enough power to merit questions about its political leanings, long-term goals, and de facto ability to override government decisions” (Sánchez-Talanque 69). The normalization of the military in everyday life and its increased power poses a significant risk to Mexican democracy. This idea is corroborated by Berg and Polo, who write that “in the past, the Mexican army described itself as an institution that transcended the political context and looked beyond the current government; today, it has subordinated itself to not just the government but to the Morena Party” (Berg 1). An increasingly powerful military, coupled with links to political parties, throws the entire Mexican democracy into chaos.
The Morena party, specifically AMLO during his tenure, have also attacked the nation’s judicial system in an attempt to gain power and further their ambitions. To do this, AMLO employed a specific brand of populism, reminiscent of Latin dictators of the past. Through these attacks, key democratic symbols such as judicial independence, electoral oversight, freedom of the press, and accountability have suffered. To exhibit the true scope of his assaults, during 1,562 of his morning press conferences between December 2018 and June 2024, AMLO rhetorically attacked the judiciary 428 times. Through his rants, AMLO was able to gain the support of the people and would implement a series of policies that would change the landscape of Mexico’s judicial system. AMLO’s “Plan C” implemented the popular election of federal judges at all levels, including the Supreme Court. This would compromise the already-established separation of powers between the different branches of government. The popular election of judges would introduce partisanship and politics to the judicial world. Rather than being neutral decision-makers, judges would be directly influenced by political parties and cater their decisions to gain public support. This would undermine the court’s legitimacy and even promote the growth of authoritarian regimes. Through control of the courts, the regime in power would be able to go after other important democratic institutions such as the independent media, election commission, or even academic institutions. This especially pertains to current Mexican developments as after the regime forced out thousands of state and federal judges, options for their replacement came directly from a list that was directly created by commissions selected by the Morena-controlled legislature and executive. As mentioned previously, control of the courts would allow the regime in power to attack other democratic institutions without any reprimand. U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar shares similar sentiments, exclaiming that “the reform could make Mexico’s judiciary more vulnerable to influence from organized crime and undermine confidence in the country’s judicial system” (Diaz 1). Through attacks on and reforms of the courts, the Morena party has opened the doors for a possible transition towards authoritarianism.
Many critics may argue that centralization is necessary as a tool to address the needs of underserved communities and fight corruption. These beliefs were shared by AMLO, who was able to frame his overhaul of the judiciary as a tool to improve democracy. He painted opposition-controlled institutions as barriers to welfare distribution and the will of the people. This populist rhetoric helped him gain support and continue his ideas through the election of Sheinbaum. AMLO’s claims, however, hold little truth. Through his actions, “Mexico’s poorest citizens were receiving a smaller portion of the spending and less money than under previous administration” (Sherman 1). Due to his policies, AMLO has left many of Mexico’s poorest in the dust, completely contradicting his campaign promises and beliefs. Additionally, through his actions, the wealthy are getting richer, expanding the already massive wealth gap. Morena’s reforms go against their campaign promises and directly threaten to undermine the democratic institutions of the Mexican political sphere.
SOURCES:
Aguilar, Azul A. Aguiar, et al. “Is Mexico at the Gates of Authoritarianism?” Journal of Democracy, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1 Jan. 2025, muse.jhu.edu/article/947883.
Berg, Ryan C., and Emiliano Polo. “The Political Implications of Mexico’s New Militarism.” CSIS, http://www.csis.org/analysis/political-implications-mexicos-new-militarism. Accessed 11 Apr. 2025.
Diaz, Lizbeth. “Mexico’s Planned Judicial Reform Is ‘major Risk’ to Democracy, Says US Ambassador | Reuters.” Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mexicos-planned-judicial-reform-is-major-risk-democracy-says-us-ambassador-2024-08-22/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2025.
Sherman, Christopher. “Mexico’s Poorest Receiving Less Government Funds under President Who Brought Poor to the Fore.” AP News, AP News, 24 May 2024, apnews.com/article/mexico-poverty-election-lopez-obrador-182061c29209528ea5553ce89d6db09c.
Sánchez-Talanquer, Mariano, and Kenneth F. Greene. “Is Mexico Falling into the Authoritarian Trap?” Journal of Democracy, Johns Hopkins University Press, 19 Oct. 2021, muse.jhu.edu/article/815937.
