Federico Reyes Heroles
Dedicated to Paco Calderón, who has the refined sense of humor to laugh despite violations to his privacy.
A source of national pride. Whether it was the precursor to Weimar in terms of social rights, or the result of a broad social movement. The Theater of the Republic, the Diario de Debates, and the signatures on the original. But there are those of 1914, 1824, and 1857. Many nations already had a stretch: San Marino, a faltering state, obtained it in 1600; the United States, with a major doctrinal contribution, in 1789; and, in 1791, Poland and France, another major doctrinal source.
The age of constitutions is a confusing line. The United Kingdom, with its Anglo-Saxon law, dates back to 1215; the Netherlands and Norway to 1814; Chile to 1828; Belgium to 1831; New Zealand to 1852; Argentina to 1853; Canada to 1867; Luxembourg to 1868; Tonga to 1875; Australia to 1901. But is longevity in itself a merit? In the Magna Carta, the cornerstone of the United Kingdom, only two articles remain untouched and in force (see Comparative Constitutions Projects, Statista). No constitutional text remains static. The validity of constitutions largely stems from their adaptation to changes in doctrine and culture. Consider legal racism in the US. The most common classification is between rigid and flexible, according to the requirements for amendment. TU.S. The US Constitution has 27 amendments, which require a qualified majority in the legislature and three-quarters of the states (38 of 50). However, the ultimate goal of the discussion should be to ensure democracy and freedom in countries. Authoritarian regimes and dictatorships have displaced many of the old constitutions: Chile and Argentina, for example. Constitutions are, after all, only a written reference. But there is more.
When Alexis de Tocqueville, a leading French thinker, returned from his journey through the United States, he expressed considerable admiration for several characteristics of the nascent democracy of the new nation. He was amazed that citizens fought their battles together, whatever they may be, in defense of their neighborhood or a law. Another focused on education as the true foundation of legality. This led to numerous studies that, using statistical methods, provided clues on how to instill values that are the pillars of a democratic regime. Lawrence Kohlberg, among others, focused on interpersonal respect as the foundation of democracy.
In Mexico, the political culture—democratic—had made significant progress. Studies by Enrique Alduncin for Banamex and, later, those by IFE/INE with the UNAM Institute for Legal Research, together with international organizations such as The Freedom House and Latinobarómetro, showed that Mexicans increasingly supported respect for the law for the right reasons: considering it the best agreement for coexistence and not out of fear of punishment. We weren’t galloping, but we were on the right track.
However, in the last decade, there has been a serious reversal. It seems that the example set by the political class has spread to a society that is fragile in its democratic convictions. The heads of the executive branch have had an enormous responsibility in this: “Don’t give me that ‘the law is the law’ stuff…” Or simply the cascade of lies, from the “excess” number of deaths from COVID, to the Interoceanic Train accident, to the endless business ghosts surrounding the former Morena leader in the Senate, to the awarding of a position in the SEP to an individual unacceptable in public service, to the ostentatious display of wealth, or… February 5, 2026, with cynical rulers who did not read Article 49: “The Supreme Power of the Federation is divided for its exercise into Legislative, Executive, and Judicial…”
Republicans, Democrats?
They amputated the Republic.
Further Reading: