President Claudia Sheinbaum is fueling a “constitutional crisis” as she doubles down on her support for former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s “antidemocratic scheme,” former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo asserted in an op-ed published by The Washington Post.
Zedillo, president from 1994 to 2000, writes early in his opinion essay that Sheinbaum was elected “to lead a democratic country,” but as president “appears committed to following her predecessor’s aim of reverting Mexico to a one-party autocracy, reminiscent of much of the 20th century, when competitive and fair elections were lacking and the judiciary was not independent.”
The former president represented the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, which ruled Mexico as a hegemonic political force for 71 years between 1929 and 2000.
In the Post, he writes that reforms enacted during his presidency allowed Mexico to become “a multiparty democracy with regular power alteration” and to have “an independent judiciary that has, on many occasions, upheld constitutional principles against reckless moves by other branches of government.”
Zedillo subsequently accuses the ruling Morena party of “using an unconstitutional interpretation of the electoral rules” and “appearing to buy the vote of a senator by promising him and his family impunity for serious crimes” in order to achieve a two-thirds majority in Congress that allowed it to approve the contentious judicial reform, the most controversial aspect of which is the provision allowing the direct election of all judges.
The 72-year-old ex-president asserts that the elected judges “will be neither independent nor competent” and notes that “the replacement of the judiciary is being framed as a democratic process, with judges to be elected by popular vote from lists of candidates.”
“This argument is preposterous, as the lists will effectively be determined by the ruling party,” he contends.
Later in his op-ed, Zedillo notes that the Supreme Court has been asked to review the constitutionality of the judicial reform, and argues that it has the right to do so — contrary to claims from government officials, including Sheinbaum.
“One of the court’s core missions is to verify the constitutionality of actions by other branches of government — a key purpose of the 1994 judicial reform,” he writes.
For her part, Sheinbaum said this week that Mexico’s top court doesn’t have the authority to legislate or to strike down a constitutional reform that “followed all the [legislative] processes that the Constitution establishes.”
Morena sought to reinforce that view — also expressed by Sheinbaum’s top legal adviser — with its so-called “constitutional supremacy” reform, which was passed by the Chamber of Deputies on Wednesday and promulgated by Sheinbaum on Thursday.
The reform, Zedillo observes, “aims to strip the court of its authority to review constitutional amendments passed by Congress.”
“This latest move has fully unmasked Morena: Its intent is to transform Mexico’s political regime into an authoritarian one,” he writes.
“Regrettably, Sheinbaum has doubled down on her support for AMLO’s antidemocratic scheme, even emulating his tactics of slandering, insulting and threatening both the judiciary as an institution and individual judges as well as others who have criticized the amendments. She is also advocating that the government ignore court rulings,” Zedillo continues.
“The constitutional crisis she is fueling will not deliver the good and democratic governance she was elected to provide,” says the ex-president.
Zedillo’s remarks are similar to those made by Justice Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá, who said on Friday that if the Supreme Court hands down a ruling against the judicial reform — which it could do next Tuesday — and the government doesn’t comply with it, “we will have a constitutional crisis and all Mexicans will have to absorb and suffer the consequences.”
Concluding his opinion piece, Zedillo asserts that Sheinbaum — who argues that the current judiciary is largely corrupt and needs to be renewed — should “use her mandate to halt the democratic regression orchestrated by AMLO” and “initiate a genuine and comprehensive process of reform to achieve true rule of law and citizens’ security in Mexico.”
“She could then improve enormously upon her predecessor’s poor performance. She must decide between honoring her loyalty to AMLO or to the Mexican people’s will to live in democracy,” he writes.
Zedillo’s full opinion piece appears on The Washington Post website
Bravo Ernesto Zedillo! Finally a voice of reason!
A mix of reason and jaundice.
CORRECT!!!! A voice of experience and reason. Will there be democratic rule and safegaurds of the Constitution?
He needs to go back under his rock. Viva Presidenta Shei💥👌👍
You obviously know nothing about Ernesto Zedillo or Mexico’s modern history. Eres un chairo ignorante que avalas el retroceso de Mexico a un estado unipartidista. Informate.
Gracias. Pásala bien tu día 🤣
Zedillo should be honored by everyone in this country. His early and quick announcement that PAN & Fox had won the presidency was the first step to break a 70 year effective dictatorship of PRI. I really hoped once elected Sheinbaum would step into her own space. I know it is incredibly difficult in this current political climate. But Zedillo showed real courage & character in the 2000 election. He should be an alert for all.
Zedillo was the one honest PRI president in my lifetime. He should be heeded.
This corrupt criminal ex-president has no moral authority whatsoever. During his own presidency he actually removed all the Supreme Court justices and put his own. Talk about being a dictator!!! You must know your Mexican history to understand why there is such a menacing stand over the corrupt and now defunct judicial power.
how ignorant. Mexico moved forward when President Zedillo allowed a free election for the first time in decades and open the path for Vicente Fox to be elected. Sad that Fox wasted his presidency. But is another story
Right on Diego!
“court of its authority to review constitutional amendments passed by Congress” That doesn’t sound right. So the supreme court has the final say, and the majority were appointed by previous presidents! The congress was elected to take the final decision!
”Initiate a genuine and comprehensive process of reform to achieve true rule of law and citizens’ security in Mexico.” I haven’t heard the opposition give any alternative proposal on how to do that. So let the Presidenta do her thing. One thing Zedillo got right; the people will select from a list of pre-selected qualified judges, not just anybody with some recommendation letters from their neighbors.
O.K. so now the majority of the MORENA Party want to “tear apart” all past presidents in favor of ” “stupidity”. We all know that he MORENA Party is amde up of low class dumb and stupid legislators who convivence the “poor” to vote for them. Just give them a “loaf of bread” and A FEW “pesos” to buy their vote. The “HELL WITH THE COUNTRY, just follow Obrador stupid “ideas”.
I suggest to read more about the consequences of Zedillo’s actions & policies. And, maybe watch “1994”
PRI and PAN were the same corrupts.
To grasp the paradigm proposed and currently implemented in Mexico is a language that requires understanding socioeconomics, culture, history and much more.
The most notable increase in poverty in Mexico occurred during Zedillo administration. A major factor contribution to the persistent poverty during his period was the high level of income inequality.
The poverty rate in Mexico -according to the Coneval- has declined from 49.9% to 43.5% since 2028.
I mean no disrespect to former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, but he is trained as an economist not a lawyer. And, I’ve been a lawyer longer than he’s been an economist. Most of what I read is sensationalist, extremist, sophistry, or political and I reject it, except whatever the law is I strongly favor a judiciary which is co-equal with the other branches of government. I much prefer a fight between the branches than an emasculation of the power of judicial review.
A prominent Mexican-American lawyer in San Diego just wrote me, “Depending on how judicial elections are conducted and how corruption influences the selection process and the elections, if at all, this could be either a good or bad development for Mexico’s judiciary. Time will tell.”