Luis Rubio
Mexico is split into two worlds, with perceptions appearing to be irreconcilable. According to recent surveys, President Sheinbaum commands more than 70% approval, while the remainder of society disapproves of her, frequently in a resounding fashion. In general terms, these numbers are not radically distinct from those observed in the 2024 presidential election or from the trends of recent years. Perhaps the big question is what this tells us about the present and, above all, the country’s future.
The first thing that should be elucidated is wherefore these numbers derive because their permanence depends on the entire governmental strategy. When the government relies on such high approval numbers, it is easy to ignore the rest of society, whether because the government loses sight of it or consciously decides to ignore it. That is, this is about a calculation and a wager: the calculation concerning whether that support base can be maintained with the existing strategies, and the wager has to do with there not being factors that alter the equation.
According to Alejandro Moreno’s surveys starting in 2023, 60% of the population felt satisfied. It had seen the growth of its real income and thus of its consumption capacity, and it approved the then-president’s management. On its part, the remaining 40% disapproved of the president’s management, considering that it was damaging the future well-being and attempting to go against growth and development prospects. The central difference between the two contingents lies in the level of schooling and the contrast relative to their place in the socioeconomic structure: those who live day-to-day against those able to count on relative certainty in their economic future. The former have benefitted from the direct transfer programs of the Morena governments, while the latter agonize over the country’s long-term stability and viability.
The crux of the contrast seems to lie in each contingent’s perspective of time. For the cohort that feels satisfied, what is important is the here and now; for the remaining 40% what matters is the perception of the future: Where are we going? This is about perspectives emanating from very distinct visions and economic realities, that expose the circumstance of a divided country: the one that has had the opportunity to advance on the education ladder and the one that remained mired in an educational system that does not prepare one for the job market nor for life. The former enjoy reliable employment while the latter count on governmental “support.”
Perceptions are crucial for electoral purposes but constitute a risk when their support system is tenuous. To the degree that the government can guarantee that its cash transfers will continue to flow and that their real value will not erode through more significant inflation, the bet is reasonable. Contrariwise, to the extent that the economy was to confront adverse headwinds, the strategy would become exceedingly risk-ridden.
To date, the government has preserved a politico-electoral strategy designed by AMLO, sustained not only in the transfers but also in an introspective vision of the economy geared toward protecting what exists. With some exceptions, the current government has followed the same general trend, but, although with a more ideological, quarrelsome, and defiant content, as illustrated by the recent exchanges with Trump, it has recognized the importance and inevitability of closer economic ties with the U.S.
If one could observe the panorama without electoral bias, the present government strategy would appear quite daring. On the one hand, the economy faces essential problems: inflation continues to be high; the debt, while not at catastrophic levels, has been growing; the fiscal deficit is highly worrisome (in itself as well as the manner in which it affects the creditworthiness determined by the rating agencies); and the potential conflict with Trump threatens the viability of the principal growth engine of the economy, the exports. On the other hand, except for the issue of security, where it is clear that a new strategy is being attempted, the government has not been doing anything to revert the sub-standard trends observed in education, health, infrastructure, justice, and the Rule of Law. In any case, the reforms of the past months in matters of justice, energy, and autonomous entities have been going in the opposite direction.
In diverse forums, President Sheinbaum has expressed her conviction that nearshoring comprises a great opportunity for building a successful future. This deals with, without a doubt, a possibility that could be fruitful. However, the wager would imply returning to square one in terms of what has been done in the past months to create an environment of predictability for investment and conditions for Mexicans emerging from the educational system to possess the qualifications that the job market exacts. We certainly are not there as of today.
When one contemplates the government’s approval and disapproval numbers, the relevant question is who will be right at the end of the road: those who are satisfied or those who are worried because they see the risks multiplying and that the opportunities are not such.
@lrubiof
Further Reading: