Federico Reyes Heroles
To nuance, “to graduate delicately”—according to the dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy—is an obligation of reasoning. But it is also a risk to the compass of principles. The election of the judiciary completed the construction of an authoritarian regime. All nuance is misleading. Mexico no longer qualifies as a democracy.
In no other country in the world has the professionalism of the entire judiciary been subjected to the interests of the public square and now… to crime. Why is this? Mexico claims to have found a better formula than that of Montesquieu, Locke, or the so-called “Founding Fathers” of the United States: Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jay, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington. In this, we have gone back about three centuries. Demagogic deception—voting is the supreme act of democracy—brought to the polls the main anchor of certainty in a State: the interpretation of laws. There are many other issues that should not fall prey to political merchandising. It is part of the civilizing process. Legalizing racism would be feasible in nations with strong racist roots. But what about the equality of human beings, of genders, or sexual diversity?
The axiological content of constitutions should not be subjected to the typical ups and downs of political games. In real democracies, the territories of principles, those who are excluded from voting, are expanding. At the same time, specific issues, such as administrative matters, are also on the rise. In the Swiss cantons, governance issues are commonplace at the ballot box: should it be street paving or wastewater treatment? That is why the right to information, enshrined in our Constitution since 1977, has spread throughout the world. Fox regulated it. It will now be submitted to the executive branch itself—a step backward: a quarter of a century. But principles are not negotiable, which is why the European Council has severely criticized Switzerland’s partisan way of electing judges. No one escapes.
But if Locke and Montesquieu or Washington or Hamilton mean nothing to the voracious ruling party, let them refer to our own history: “The Supreme Power of the Federation is divided into Legislative, Executive, and Judicial,” Constitution of 1824. In this, we have gone back two centuries. But the sad spectacle of recent months in the preparation of candidate lists, the shenanigans of the legislature and the selection committees, the flagrant mockery of electoral rules, the proud trampling of suspensions granted, the rampant violence, the cynicism of the electoral authorities and participants—including female justices—and the private and shady financing take us back, to give just one example, to 1940, Ávila Camacho vs. Almazán—a step back 85 years. The conduct of the election, with no citizen counting, a shortage of polling stations, the selection of territories to dominate specific jurisdictional issues—economic competence—and the information vacuum, takes us back to the 1980s, that is, 40 years of regression. From the “crazy mouse” to the “accordions.”
That is Mexico today: 12% of voters have taken over the judiciary. Null votes multiplied: 11%. We lost the Republic. Now they are going after the disappearance of plurality, proportionality, and a balance between votes and seats. With 54% of the vote, they won 75% of the seats. Could it be any clearer?
Thanks to SomosMX, we know that 67% of voters are beneficiaries of social programs and that 35% used the accordion voting method. The average age in Mexico is 30. Life expectancy is around 73. Our democratic spring lasted 30 years, with transparent and credible elections. 2027 is not the solution; constitutional reform is necessary. Will Sheinbaum be able to turn Morena around 180 degrees? Or will she accept to play the role of Putin in our history?
Paradox: In an authoritarian regime, democratic seeds sprouted. In a democracy, betrayal arrived.
But we have an advantage: democratic memories will weigh heavily.
Further Reading: