Across the world, corruption in politics seems inevitable. The notion that we could do something to change this seems almost like a utopian dream. Any attempt to adapt political and social systems to make them more accountable to the public is often immediately shut down as unfeasible or dangerously radical. Nearly no country on Earth escapes from perceived corruption, whether valid or not, and Mexico is certainly no exception. Mexico is a nation facing a number of serious problems, not the least of which include cartel violence, poverty, and institutional corruption. This article will analyse the latter issue, specifically focusing on corruption in Mexico’s judiciary and the reforms which former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (widely known as AMLO) enacted to address it.
These efforts culminated in September 2024, when President AMLO signed into law a series of constitutional amendments that allow judges to be elected directly through popular vote, following a congressional selection process, rather than being appointed by the Senate. These amendments impact the judiciary as far up as Mexico’s Supreme Court. With their passage, Mexico became the first country in the world to directly elect all judges. This move has faced opposition from certain sectors of society, especially from foreign actors like the United States, who have long been more concerned with maintaining their own political and economic interests than furthering democratic values. However, large swathes of the Mexican public remain fiercely in support of AMLO’s reforms. They view these changes as an essential first step towards increasing the accountability of political representatives.
Before delving into the specifics of Mexico’s judicial reform, it is first necessary to provide some background on the historical issues of corruption within Mexico’s political establishment. Since achieving independence in the early 19th century, Mexico has faced a political system rife with systemic corruption and malpractice. Following regime shifts between various empires, republics, and military juntas, Mexico elected the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in the 1920s. The party ruled the nation as essentially a one-party state for over 70 years until the opposition was elected in 2000. Throughout the PRI’s time in power, and indeed prior to their rule, various Mexican governments introduced measures, legal and otherwise, designed to perpetuate inequality and corruption within the country and its political system. These measures included but were not limited to, managed clientelism, systemic bribery, and collaboration with organized crime. While all these issues remain prevalent in Mexican politics, the key concern for the purposes of this article is the role of the judiciary, which continues to act as a barrier to societal change and the execution of popular will.
In 2018, Mexico elected AMLO as the new President by an overwhelming margin of 31%. This election marked the first time a party other than the PRI had won an outright majority since gaining power. AMLO ran under the party he founded, the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA), promising systemic transformation and change to a political and economic system which had preserved vast inequality and hardship within the country. Though not perfect by any means, with issues including his response to the COVID-19 pandemic and response to cartel violence, AMLO has led the nation towards astonishingly successful economic and political renewal. His policies, which have increased the minimum wage, reinforced welfare, and strengthened labour protections, are largely credited with the reduction in poverty seen under his term. For these reasons, among others, AMLO’s approval rating has never dipped beneath 60% throughout his time in office.
It should be noted, however, that AMLO has remained a contentious figure. Though his popularity has consistently remained high, AMLO has faced fierce detractors as well. Among political figures and everyday citizens both, certain sectors of society see him as a divisive figure who threatens the institutions they prize. Perhaps nowhere is this clearer than in the response to the judicial reform enacted in the final days of AMLO’s presidency. As highlighted earlier, this judicial reform involved a complete overhaul of Mexico’s justice system. Previously judges were appointed by a specific political body, such as the Mexican Senate, which appointed justices to the Supreme Court. Now, they must be elected directly by the Mexican people. The constitutional amendments also include reforms such as salary reduction, judicial anonymity, and the establishment of a new tribunal with the goal of increasing oversight and accountability in the judiciary.
While many intuitively see this as a step towards increased democracy within Mexican political institutions, the move has been met with fierce criticism both at home and abroad. International criticism has come primarily from Western governments, notably the United States and Canada, alongside their aligned media, who express concern over the constitutional changes, arguing that this change will undermine the independence of the judiciary, asserting that justices who are elected by the people may be more inclined to make decisions based on pleasing their constituents. Domestically, the reforms have also faced backlash and resistance, culminating in protestors breaking into the Senate in a bid to block the vote prior to the ratification of the amendments by a vote of 86 to 41. While these dissenting opinions should be taken into account, they should not be viewed as representative of the whole of the Mexican public. Judicial reforms are widely viewed as necessary in Mexico. Prior to the amendments’ ratification, polls showed that about 80% of the Mexican population was supportive of carrying out reforms in the judicial branch.
Additionally, as highlighted above, AMLO was an incredibly popular president. Reforms instituted under his leadership have gained him massive approval across Mexican society. The recent Mexican election held in June 2024 further demonstrated his enduring influence. AMLO’s perceived successor, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, was elected with the highest number of votes ever recorded in Mexican history. Though detractors are not without reasonable grounds to question the potential future independence of Mexico’s judicial system, is it not equally reasonable to ask what perceived independence existed in the past? While it may not have been an explicitly partisan body engaging in outright ideological and political actions, Mexico’s justice system, and particularly its Supreme Court, has certainly been a consistent force in bolstering the status quo. Open corruption and subservience to the rich and powerful plague the judiciary at the expense of the most disadvantaged sectors of society.
Foreign nations who have voiced opposition to Mexico’s judicial reform also face criticism of corruption in their judiciaries. The Supreme Court of the United States is an obvious example. Its recent overturning of Roe v. Wade represents a glaring case of appointed justices ruling in a manner not aligned with popular opinion. It often seems that no justice system can be absolutely free of corruption. However, Mexico’s new reforms have introduced a new justice system that aims to promote accountability and is grounded in democratic principles. Thus, if we accept that any justice system will have some inherent bias, and that a truly independent judiciary may be unattainable, we must ask is it preferable to have a justice system accountable to the common people, or only the most powerful?
Edited by Mia Alexander
Alexander Morris-Schwarz is a third-year student at McGill University where he is majoring in Political Science with a minor in Communication Studies. Alexander is currently a staff writer for Catalyst and he is interested in international relations and imperialism.