Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
Opposition parties in Mexico have declared they will refuse to form an electoral alliance under any circumstances in the upcoming elections. With different tones and varying explanations, the leaders of the PAN, PRI, and MC parties have declared their intention to run separately in 2027, aiming to reinforce their individual proposals and attract additional votes. Their hopes for going their separate ways are based on several assumptions made in the heat of internal debates. The PAN, which has won the presidency twice, is assuming the electorate will be enthusiastic about its “return to tradition.” The PRI is convinced that the voters, seeing the disaster of Morena’s administration, will once again place their trust in “those who know how to govern.” And MC believes that its “fresh and new” face will be convincing in the face of “the old.”
Another assumption shared by all three parties is that Morena’s governments are progressively and rapidly exhausting, due to inefficiency and corruption, and that, therefore, a significant part of the electorate is seeking new options. Given this, they will turn their attention to them individually. MC says, “It’s my turn, I will be the surprise that saves Mexico!” PAN and PRI are confident that their pasts will vindicate them as options for government in the face of Morena’s misrule.
A third assumption is that Morena is rapidly rotting from within, and that internal corruption, incompetence, and growing rivalry between Sheinbaum and López Obrador will open up rifts that cannot be resolved without an internal civil war. There are clear signs of internal warfare that will be expressed in the nomination of their candidates. And if the judiciary, the revocation of the mandate, and possibly the election of the National Electoral Institute (INE) councilors are also included in that election, that gibberish is an invitation to uncontrolled post-election conflicts.
The economy is another factor that, for the opposition to justify going their separate ways, is part of a catastrophic assessment. The collapse of the “humanist model” will reach its limits in 2026. Therefore, 2027 will be the time for each opposition party to present its “best” alternative, in the hope of shining before the electorate. They assume that the collapse of the national economy will cause the electorate to rush toward the opposition’s offers.
Finally, they assume that pressure from the United States on Mexico, and on the Morena government in particular, will favor opposition voices in 2027. This is due to Trump’s successful interventions in the elections in Argentina and Honduras, as well as pressure for regime change in Venezuela. The international scene tends to place Mexico as the last bastion of “Latin American popular socialism.” From one contradiction to the next, Morena’s socialism clings desperately to power by distributing cash.
Do all these elements justify the opposition not uniting in 2027, and why should they think about 2030? Historical experience teaches us at least three useful things for these circumstances.
There are no small enemies. Underestimating the Morena government could be a gift to that party and its government. And a miscalculation by the opposition. There are so many cases that demonstrate this, but the best example is Venezuela, where the opposition was never able to unite.
If the leaders of the opposition parties listen to the call of the mermaid who says that “now is the time” for each of them to take a qualitative leap forward, then they have ceased to be leaders, becoming mere rowers going with a current of opinion lacking in complex and profound analysis.
To think that “what comes from outside” will cause the collapse of the Morena government is to oversimplify what Trump is doing. He is not interested in democratizing Mexico. He is interested in subjugating Mexico, which is something else entirely.
Contrary to what party leaders think, now is the time for a unified effort by the opposition, focusing on the highly complex task of national reconstruction rather than the slow progress of each party. It is time for political leadership, not for complacent rowers.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: