Mexican Democracy In Unsafe Hands

Mexican democracy is the result of a long, complex, and painful historical struggle. It did not emerge overnight, nor was it a generous concession from those in power, but rather the fruit of decades of citizen pressure, political mobilisation, persecution, repression, and, in some cases, bloodshed by those demanding free elections and plural representation. Therefore, the recent attempt at electoral reform promoted by President Claudia Sheinbaum raised alarm bells: it was not simply a technical modification of the electoral system, but an initiative that threatened to dismantle some of the most important pillars of Mexican democracy.

The proposal, championed by the ruling party, MORENA, included the elimination of proportional representation in Congress. Presented under the argument of simplifying the political system and reducing costs, the reality is that such modifications would have directly benefited the party in the majority, reducing political pluralism and weakening institutional checks and balances.

Proportional representation is neither a luxury nor a bureaucratic excess. It is one of the fundamental mechanisms that allows for the existence of a plural democracy. Thanks to it, minority political forces can access Congress, participate in public debate, and represent sectors of society that would otherwise be excluded from the legislative process. Without this mechanism, politics risks becoming concentrated in a single dominant force, weakening the political diversity that characterises modern democracies.

This attempted reform exposes how disconnected and politically worn out MORENA is becoming. A nationalist left-wing party that presents itself as a democratic alternative, but which seeks to change the rules of the game for its own benefit. Far from representing a democratic transformation, this initiative reflects a worrying trend toward political control and the reduction of institutional checks and balances.

However, Mexican politics is also full of ironies. On this occasion, it was precisely MORENA's allies, the Green Party and the Labour Party (PT), who ended up blocking the reform. For years, these parties have been labeled as satellite forces or even parasitic parties, dependent on political alliances to survive. And yet, it was they who, on this occasion, helped prevent a democratic setback.

They did so not out of democratic conviction, but for political survival. Both parties depend heavily on proportional representation to maintain their legislative presence and registration. The reform directly threatened their existence. Thus, paradoxically, those who have been criticised for their political opportunism ended up playing a decisive role in defending Mexico's democratic balance.

Meanwhile, the opposition, represented by the PAN, the PRI, and MC, maintained a firm stance against the reform. However, this firmness was accompanied by a worrying lack of coordination. Each party defended its position individually, without building a solid common front to strengthen the institutional defence.

This fragmentation of the opposition represents an additional risk. At a time when Mexican democracy faces increasing pressures, the lack of coordination weakens the opposition's capacity to act as an effective counterweight. Defending democracy requires not only firmness, but also strategy, coordination, and a long-term vision.

The debate surrounding this reform also served as a reminder of the importance of Mexico's mixed system. The combination of majority and proportional representation has allowed for a balance between governability and pluralism. Mexico has been considered an example of how a mixed system can generate stability without sacrificing political diversity.

Instead of weakening this model, a true electoral reform should strengthen Mexican democracy through mechanisms that broaden citizen participation and improve political representation. Among these proposals could be the implementation of voluntary voting starting at age 16, for example. Furthermore, introducing a run-off election would ensure greater legitimacy in the presidential election, precluding minority leaderships. Another important reform would be the implementation of open national primaries, which would democratise the selection of candidates and reduce the control of party elites.

Similarly, it is essential to maintain term limits for mayors, deputies, and senators, as reelection creates incentives for accountability and legislative performance. Consideration could also be given to raising the minimum percentage required to maintain the registration of political parties from 3% to 5%, thereby strengthening parties with genuine citizen support and reducing excessive fragmentation.

These proposals represent a democratic, modern, and institutional path to strengthening Mexican democracy. However, today they seem like a distant goal. The current political debate continues to be marked by attempts to concentrate power and reforms implemented without broad consensus.

Following the failure of the reform, the ruling party has put forward a Plan B. Although less aggressive than the original proposal, this new attempt continues to generate concern. Democratic history demonstrates that setbacks rarely occur abruptly; they often develop gradually, through piecemeal reforms that ultimately weaken institutions.

Mexico has come a long way toward democracy. The defeat of the reform represents a victory for democratic pluralism, but it also demonstrates that Mexican democracy remains vulnerable to unchecked populism. As long as attempts persist to modify electoral rules to benefit those in power, the risk of backsliding will remain.

Mexico should aspire to strengthen its democracy, not weaken it. That should be the goal of any electoral reform. For now, however, that path still seems distant, as Mexican democracy continues to face challenges that test its resilience under populist rule.

Illustration: Will Allen/Europinion