Mexico is paying a high price for its opposition parties’ malaise
by Gerónimo Gutíerrez.
Editor’s note: Amb. Gutíerrez served as Mexico’s Ambassador to the United States and also as Mexico’s Undersecretary for Governance.
Mexico’s political opposition today finds itself in a dire position. Since its founding in 2014, the ruling Morena Party has made extraordinary gains. It now holds the presidency, 23 of 32 governorships, comfortable majorities in the federal congress and 27 state legislatures, and, together with its allied parties (the Workers' Party, or PT, and the Green Party, or PVEM), has the power to enact laws and even amend the Constitution at will. President Sheinbaum enjoys exceptionally high approval ratings (around 70%), much like her predecessor, former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, did.
In recent years, Morena-led governments have taken actions that appear to significantly weaken institutional checks and balances, the separation of powers, and democratic norms. To be sure, Morena and the President reject this characterization — but critics, both in Mexico and abroad, make a persuasive case. For example, the Global Democracy Index published by The Economist now classifies Mexico as a hybrid regime, no longer even a flawed democracy.
In the 2024 election, the traditional parties (PAN, PRI, and PRD) received only 27% of the presidential vote, compared to the 60% won by Claudia Sheinbaum. Currently, the PAN governs just four states, the PRI only two, and both hold modest parliamentary groups in Congress. The PRD no longer exists. Movimiento Ciudadano (MC) appears to be the emerging party. It secured a significant 10% of the presidential vote in the last election and currently governs two states. However, it is hampered by internal inconsistencies and scandals, which raise serious doubts about its long-term potential.
Under these circumstances, it is only natural to ask whether the political opposition has pursued the right strategy to counter Morena’s rise — and if not, what that strategy could look like in the future. There are no easy answers, but perhaps a few sensible working hypotheses.
In a country where 43% of the 128 million population lives in poverty (according to 2022 official figures), machine politics work. The Morena governments have built a vast platform of social programs, including direct cash transfers that reach an estimated 25 million households. Opposition parties have wavered between timidly supporting these programs and criticizing their effectiveness, political bias, and fiscal sustainability. Unless they can clearly articulate where they stand…
Mexico’s new security laws expand military power and erode civilian oversight
The final stage of the National Guard’s militarization is now underway.
In September 2024, former President López Obrador amended the Constitution to formally place the National Guard—already operating in practice as a military force—under the control of the Ministry of Defense. Last week, Congress convened an extraordinary session to approve legal reforms introduced by President Claudia Sheinbaum. These reforms aim to align at least nine existing laws with the 2024 constitutional amendment and complete the transformation of the National Guard into the fourth branch of the armed forces. These secondary laws mark the culmination of the process initiated by López Obrador and underscore that Morena’s priorities remain unchanged.
Throughout its electoral victories, Morena has made clear its conviction that the military should play a prevalent role in public life. The secondary legislation has further entrenched this vision, and the concern lies not merely in the specific laws being passed, but in the broader ambition to forge a new political regime defined by the primacy of military authority. In liberal democracies, the military sphere is deliberately constrained; in illiberal regimes, it is expanded.
Before the 2024 reform, the Constitution stated that in times of peace, the military could not perform any activities other than those strictly related to military discipline. The constitutional reform changed this, allowing the armed forces to carry out any function established by secondary law. This is a significant shift which opens up many new possibilities for what the armed forces are allowed to do.
For example, the amendments submitted to the legislature expand the powers of this body, authorizing it, among other things, to intercept private communications and carry out undercover operations. This move comes alongside…
New rules: The 4T ushers in a new age of peak power
by David Agren.
Former PRI governor Fidel Herrera passed away recently. He was remembered for a sordid administration in the late 2000s, when Los Zetas took over the state. As the discovery of a clandestine refinery in Veracruz revealed, the state-crime nexus continues – even with Morena in power since 2018, having ousted Herrera’s Institutional Revolutionary Party.
Herrera scandalized Mexico throughout his term. He won the lottery twice while in office. And he coined the trademark phrase: “Estoy ahorita en plenitud del pinche poder” – roughly translated as “I’m at the height of my f*cking power.” A less polite translation would be a confession to being drunk with power.
The line encapsulated the impunity and abuse of authority during his term in Veracruz, which was followed by the thievery of fellow príista Javier Duarte – under whom Veracruz became a cemetery for journalists.
Morena and its allies in the so-called “Fourth Transformation” (4T) have channeled Herrera’s authoritarianism in recent weeks – even longer, according to critics – as they push as a series of reforms through congress, where they hold constitutional-proof majorities.
The 16 reforms range from changing wildlife laws to ban the use of captive marine mammals in theme parks to building platforms for boosting state surveillance capacities and a measure to allow National Guard members to seek public office (despite being under National Defence Secretariat command.)
Squatters, scaremongers, and the challenge of Mexico’s ghost homes
by Madeleine Wattenbarger.
A new housing program sparked indignation across Mexico’s mainstream media this week. With the initiative, the Institute for the National Housing Fund for Workers (Infonavit) will offer refinancing plans to people who have stopped paying off their Infonavit housing loans. It will also offer a rent-to-buy plan to squatters of abandoned Infonavit homes.
Establishment media figures in Mexico decried the program’s implications for private property in Mexico. El Heraldo radio host Luis Cárdenas insisted that the judicial reform would allow Morena to seize private dwellings. Speaking in a video posted to social, Cárdenas claimed, “The head of the Infonavit will turn over your house and mine to the criminals who squatted it.” The Infonavit has said that the measure only applies to homes that are not in dispute.
Speaking on Monday, Infonavit director Octavio Romero Oropeza explained that the program is an attempt for the government to recover social housing units without resorting to mass evictions. An ongoing Infonavit census has found 25,000 abandoned houses across the country. Local governments, concerned about them becoming a locus of crime, have long requested that the Mexican state do something about the empty developments.
According to Silvia Emanuelli, the Latin America regional director of the Habitat International Coalition, the UN’s housing organization, Mexico’s abandoned homes are a result of pro-market policies reproduced across the continent in the 1990s, with the logic first applied in Chile under the Pinochet dictatorship. Those policies mandated a reduction in the state’s role in the housing market. Private companies were put in charge of building housing, and homes became merchandise.
Mexico’s economy is declining & faces mounting threats
by Macario Schettino.
In my first column for The Mexico Brief, six weeks ago, I wrote that Mexico was in a recession. Now that we are nearing the end of the year’s first half, the evidence is even stronger. Although an unusual event in February has led many to think otherwise, the truth is that we are already seeing a generalized downward trend.
Consumption contracted year-over-year for the fourth consecutive month in March, and the preliminary indicator suggests no meaningful change in April and May. On average, the decline has been -0.5% compared to the previous year, starting from last October when the current administration took office.
In investment, the situation is worse. The decline began in September, and the following seven months have all shown negative numbers, averaging a yearly contraction of -4.4%, also since October.
In overall economic activity, growth since October is flat, with three out of those six months showing contraction. The impact is now noticeable in employment, with monthly declines and virtually zero annual growth. It’s worth remembering that — since the year 2000 — whenever employment grows at a rate below 1% annually, a recession is a certainty.
Except for employment data, which we have up to May, the rest of the indicators end in March and therefore do not yet reflect the full impact of global uncertainty caused by Donald Trump — especially since the “Liberation Day” event on the afternoon of April 2. We don’t know much about what has happened since then, except in the case of remittances, which saw one of the steepest drops on record in April: -12% compared to April 2024.
Claudia Sheinbaum faces adversity
by Luis Rubio.
Editor’s note: Mr. Rubio as a political analyst and chairman of México Evalua.
From the moment she was nominated as Morena's presidential candidate, speculation arose regarding her capacity and willingness to break with her predecessor, as has been the tradition in Mexican politics. Although speculation has not ceased, the evidence is overwhelming: the president sees herself as an operator or implementer of AMLO’s agenda. However, circumstances have changed, and the need to respond to a scenario infinitely more complex than the one her predecessor faced (in part due to the legacy he left behind) is forcing her to increasingly take actions that he clearly disapproves of. The question then is: what comes next?
In Mexican political tradition, it was said that the outgoing ruler did not choose a successor but rather an executioner. That clearly did not happen with AMLO, who carefully selected someone with the skills to manage a government, but not to undertake bold political initiatives. Which of these paths will prove true? So far, there is no doubt that AMLO’s logic dominates the landscape. At the same time, it’s not clear what the true profile of the government led by Sheinbaum actually is.
Boz, a publication focused on Latin American governments, conducted an interesting analysis of Claudia Sheinbaum.
Can Mexico and the US understand each other?
by Luis Lozano.
Perhaps one of the more complex relationships in the world is the one between Mexico and the United States. Sure, anyone will say that relationships between neighbors are always complex. Germany, France, Spain and England spent centuries at war between themselves to maintain access to markets, geographic dominium and prevalence of their religion. But their past is common, and their populations have lived in those places for millennia.
The US and Mexico are two young countries, shaped by distinct worldviews rooted in the different empires that conquered and created them. On the US side, the prevalence of puritanism and Protestantism. Britons settled in the Northeast based the culture on collective work and humbleness. On the Mexican side (including Texas and California), no colony was created, even though Mexicans like to call it like that; the strategy of the Catholic Spanish crown was to delegate royal power to the viceroy of the territory called New Spain. The Spaniards inherited a Roman tradition of incorporating conquered populations into their culture, which is why building cities, churches, and universities was so important to them. Both of the oldest universities in the Americas were founded by Spain in what is now Lima (Perú) and Mexico City in 1551. No university was founded in North America by the English settlers at the time.
However, once both countries fought for their independence, differences started to appear which saw the US become an Empire and Mexico a nation still struggling with its profoundly different realities. One of the most important chapters in the US-Mexico relationship is how Mexico lost half of its territory to the United States. How each country has internalized this historical event perfectly reflects their distinct, idiosyncratic identities and outlooks.
Judicial reform is Sheinbaum’s Frankenstein
by Emiliano Polo.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum will not govern the political order she has helped construct. Under the guise of a so-called “judicial reform,” she has championed the creation of a new political system, one that now lies beyond her control. In their relentless pursuit of domination, she and her party failed to establish a coherent regime, instead unleashing a disordered and volatile landscape they neither fully understand nor command. She likely believed she was inheriting the rewards of a master plan orchestrated by the previous López Obrador administration to concentrate power. In reality, she accepted a Faustian bargain, one that now threatens to consume its intended beneficiaries.
Illiberal regimens indeed have to subdue and weaken the judiciary not only because they are barricades against arbitrariness, but because judicial systems are complex arrangements, hard to redesign and reestablish; any attempt by the opposition to reestablish the rule of law will be an arduous and lengthy process: national legal systems go beyond norms, bills, lawyers, and judges; they shape and constitute practices, mores, and attitudes that are hard to reconstruct.
The president and the ruling party, which no longer complies with her wishes, will control some judges, maybe most of the time, but not all the time; and it is precisely in this projection of inconsistency that a sign of weakness will prevail instead of power and control.
This was a reform not just designed to weaken the judiciary but to distribute it as a bounty; as in any corrupt scheme or proposition, the supporters expected their reward and part of the spoils. Likely, the president thought she would be spared from the unpredictable and anarchic environment that she sponsored; most likely, she will be a victim.