Antonio Navalón
Theories have never been particularly useful or have not solved anything. There will always be arguments for and against, or positions that speculate on the reasons and justifications for what has happened. However, only the real data, information, interpretation, and their effects can provide an accurate picture that is consistent with reality.
That said, the truth is that a significant constitutional amendment—cooked up in the final days of Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s term—was planned, promoted, financed, and, in numerical terms, failed. The fact that a vote promoted by the regime, with all the resources allocated to make it happen, achieved a citizen participation rate of between 12 and 13% can only be interpreted as a complete and utter failure. Orchestrating theories or assumptions is a waste of time, but for those who still want to waste their time arguing whether the proposed justices were the ones López Obrador and the 4T wanted, the answer is simple: Yes, they were.
Anyone who wants to continue theorizing about the possibilities of consolidation of this movement must be clear that, especially in the fusion between the messianic populism of one and the political articulation of the other, the great collateral victim has been an irrefutable truth: messianism is not inherited, and Mexico has never been fertile ground for the construction or permanence of a single party.
To prove this, one needs only review our history. Those who designed the transformation of the National Revolutionary Party into the PRI were well aware that, even if power was concentrated, following the tradition of the Tlatoani, there were social elements that had to be respected to prevent an explosion.
Control always existed. But escape valves were also opened for social discontent, allowing the system to reach the category that Vargas Llosa defined as “the perfect dictatorship.”
Is it possible, in the 21st century, to govern Mexico from a single party?
The first test of this new scenario—in a country without opposition, with its political structure destroyed, and without an effective channel for expressing diversity in the face of power—has shown that there is no efficiency, no capacity for transmission, and much less sufficient political control to mobilize the masses, as the creator of the movement had hoped.
The support he sought, which was intended to bring his six-year term to a close by destroying the judiciary and making Mexico the only country in the world to elect all its judges by direct vote, simply did not materialize. In this era of social media, amid the pulse of TikTok and Instagram, someone believes that a judge can campaign, obtain funding, support, votes… and then, when judging with or without a robe, forget everything and become a good judge.
But as Breton said, Mexico is not a surrealist country. It is the country where surrealism was invented. Time and again, we sacrifice the human condition to the whims of history and to realities that are generally utopian and impossible.
The important thing now is to know whether, from a formal point of view, the minimum necessary to impose and validate the judicial reform was even met. What is certain is that, as of today, we have no alternative proposals or parallel paths.
As much as we are horrified to think about what might happen if the ceremonial costumes of indigenous communities replace the robes, we can only hope that, at least out of instinct for survival and intelligence, those who were elected—or not—on June 1 will manage to set in motion a system that is already born diminished and significantly vulnerable.
Fact: The reform of the judiciary did not win popular support. What it has sown, both inside and outside the country, is deep unease and uncertainty, and has fueled the question: what legal guarantees do we have regarding rights, freedoms, and investments from here on out?
No one can guarantee, not even the newly created Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal, that the interests, agreements, financing, or arrangements that have survived each election campaign, beyond the support of the ruling party, will not contaminate the judicial system. So far, there is no guarantee that we can aspire to a legal system that is, ideally, reliable and balanced, and a country where justice is synonymous with responsibility and proper application, rather than just another pipe dream.
The road ahead is very long and has only just begun. That is why now is the time for those who really control the temperature of the Mexican situation, from Washington, to decide to come. This is someone with a closed agenda, willing to review all fronts and the real state of affairs after the battle. This is a politician who was ambassador to Mexico and who also knows the heart of Trumpism and the State Department inside out. I am referring to Christopher Landau, currently the US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, a politician who, beyond appreciating our cuisine, colors, and music, played a key role in the arrest of General Cienfuegos.
Landau is the man in charge and will define the lines of action that concern not only drug trafficking but also a criminal network that has already been legally and politically labeled as a terrorist organization. In the coming months, we will see how far the visa revocations will extend, who they will affect, and how the political class will respond, as it is no longer just about being unable to go shopping in Miami. It is about being branded, prevented from setting foot in the United States because of real or suspected links to drug trafficking.
We are facing a new era. One in which the president must take stock, calculate what she has left, how she stands, and what tools she will have to bring about the change and the government she promised. It is a key moment in which she will have to decide between continuing to show her loyalty to former President López Obrador or opting for a path of efficiency and independence. All of this goes far beyond the type of judges we have—or do not have—from this point forward.
This is a defining moment. A moment that, without meaning to, has brought everyone to the limits of their role.
Further Reading: