Mexico is preparing to elect its 58th president on July 1, 2018. But Mexico has not always been democratic. The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) political machine controlled Mexico from 1929 until 2000 under the informal norm of dedazo, when the sitting president would reveal his hand-picked successor without a primary election. This lasted until the PRI’s rule was interrupted for 12 years by the National Action Party (PAN). After Vicente Fox was elected in 2000 as the first president from an opposition party, Mexico was able to formally democratize.
This particular presidential election, however, has seen the rise of a populist candidate over traditional party candidates like Ricardo Anaya Cortes for the PAN, who is second in the polls, and Jose Antonio Meade for the PRI, who is third. The leading contender in the polls is left-wing populist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, also known as AMLO, who left the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) after running as a presidential candidate in the 2006 and 2012 elections to become the leader of the inchoate National Regeneration Movement (MORENA).
For 18 years, Mexico’s presidential elections have been a symbol of the institutionalization of democratic practices. But these 18 years have been marked by violence and distrust in the government, starting with the PAN and culminating with the PRI. 18 years is not long enough to effectively institutionalize democracy. The increased popularity of independent candidates in Mexico not only represents a return to populism and the second decline of the PRI, but a fundamental threat to Mexican democracy.
The dominance, death, and resurrection of the PRI
Although the PRI dominated Mexican politics in the twentieth century, multiple factors led to its defeat in 2000. Instability from the secession of the PRD from the leftmost-wing of the PRI, the assassination of a reformist PRI candidate in 1994, the Zapatista insurgency in the state of Chiapas, and several successive economic crises starting in 1976 that culminated with the peso crisis in 1994, led to the PRI’s declining popularity, allowing the PAN to win in 2000 and 2006.
However, the PAN lost support after several unpopular policy decisions. In particular, after President Felipe Calderon launched Mexico’s war on drugs in 2006, the PAN experienced decreased support for its policies. Restructuring law enforcement and neutralizing criminal organization leaders have done little to reduce violence or establish the rule of law. Consequently, the PRI was able to regain the presidency in 2012 when Enrique Peña Nieto was elected on a platform of reform and coalition building.
However, Peña Nieto was not able to hold onto this image for long — conflicts of interests, inadequate response to the massacre of 43 students, control of news media, and other public scandals have plagued his sexenio, or six-year term. The delayed response to the student massacre especially was an inflection point in his administration, revealing vast civilian discontent and a disconnect between them and the government.
A scandal-ridden PRI sexenio thus explains the choice of Jose Antonio Meade, a center-left technocrat, as the candidate for the PRI. Meade has worked for both the PRI and the PAN administrations and has been relatively free of corruption scandals and accusations. His destape, or “reveal,” by Peña Nieto, however, was reminiscent of the traditional dedazo process, as Peña Nieto effectively chose Meade without any polls or party conventions. This has not set well with the Mexican intelligentsia. PRI party members and voters alike are reluctant to support Meade for his work with PAN and his unclear party allegiance. Consequently, Meade is only third in the polls.
What’s next for Mexico
The PRI has a tough, if not impossible, road ahead in the presidency. Given that elections are decided by plurality vote, Meade’s entry into the race has divided the vote between him and PAN’s Anaya, which almost guarantees the presidency to AMLO.
Such a complicated electoral system has both benefits and disadvantages. Mexican democracy has progressed to the point where candidates outside the current party system are viable, but this allows for the resurgence of classic Mexican populism, one that has lead to economic mismanagement, inopportune isolationist policies, and disappointment at the failures of messianic promises. AMLO has amassed support because of his personalistic appeal to voters, not his party platform. MORENA is merely a personalistic vehicle for his candidacy, not a creation of institutional precedent like the PRI or PAN.
Consequently, a new wave of populism is emerging, where voters follow the candidate rather than the party. The PAN has historically been an opposition party since its inception, so the effects on its existence as a party will be subdued. Similarly, the PRD should also expect to be minimally impacted. Besides the fact that the PRD split from the PRI in 1989, this election cycle, the PAN and the PRD are in a coalition behind Anaya. But the PRI has been the face of the Mexican government for 71 years before the PAN took over and for the last six years. The PRI is a metonym for institutionalized parties, and will almost certainly be affected by recent trends. AMLO’s current dominance in the presidential election thus foreshadows the rise of populist candidates in future elections, and demonstrates Mexico’s embrace of personalistic parties over institutionalized parties. This is the near future of Mexico.
Image credit: Flikr/Eneas de Troya