Mexico is currently embroiled in a highly contentious debate over a sweeping judicial reform proposed by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) and his ruling MORENA party. The reform, which has passed in the lower house of Congress and is expected to sail through the Senate, aims to radically overhaul the nation’s judicial system by making judges, including Supreme Court justices, subject to popular elections. This move has triggered a wave of protests, strikes within the judiciary, and concerns both domestically and internationally.
Whilst López Obrador argues that the reforms are necessary to fight corruption and make the judiciary more accountable to the people, the changes will undermine the independence of the courts, weaken democracy, and shake investor confidence. The reform comes at a time when Mexico is positioning itself as a vital player in global trade, particularly with its North American partners under the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (T-MEC). However, this proposed overhaul threatens to destabilise the political and economic landscape, raising concerns not just within Mexico but far beyond its borders.
The Historical Context of Mexico’s Judicial System
Mexico’s judiciary has long been viewed as one of the weaker branches of government, often criticised for inefficiency, underfunding, and corruption. The legacy of one-party rule under the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) throughout much of the 20th century left deep scars on the political system, with the judiciary often seen as an extension of the executive branch. Whilst Mexico has made strides in recent decades to build a more independent judiciary, the proposed reforms represent a dangerous reversal.
Under the current system, judges are appointed based on merit, experience, and examination results. This professional vetting process ensures that judges have the qualifications necessary to uphold the law impartially. However, AMLO’s reform would dismantle these safeguards, replacing them with a system where judges are elected by popular vote. This risks turning the judiciary into a politicised institution, where judges are more concerned with appealing to voters or political elites than interpreting the law.
The independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of democratic governance, ensuring that the executive and legislative branches are held accountable. By shifting to an electoral system for judicial appointments, Mexico risks undermining this essential check on power. In a country with a history of authoritarianism, such a move could pave the way for a return to one-party dominance, where the judiciary is no longer able to act as a bulwark against executive overreach.
The Democratic Implications
Democracies function on the principle of checks and balances. The separation of powers ensures that no single branch of government becomes too powerful. Mexico’s proposed judicial reforms blur these lines, particularly because MORENA, López Obrador’s party, holds overwhelming majorities in Congress. If voters elect judges who are sympathetic to MORENA, the party would effectively control all three branches of government.
This could have far-reaching consequences for Mexican democracy. The judiciary is supposed to act as a neutral arbiter, interpreting the constitution and ensuring that laws are applied fairly. Under the new system, however, judges could be swayed by political considerations, making decisions based on electoral concerns rather than the rule of law. This is particularly concerning given that MORENA has already demonstrated a willingness to push through controversial legislation that consolidates power within the executive branch.
Moreover, electing judges could open the door to outside influences, including corruption. Judicial candidates would need to raise money for their campaigns, potentially creating a system where wealthy individuals or special interest groups can influence judicial decisions by contributing to campaign funds. The risk of politicising justice is real, and it could lead to decisions that favour powerful elites or criminal organisations rather than ensuring justice for all.
Human rights groups have also raised alarms that this reform could violate international standards designed to protect judicial independence. Without experienced, impartial judges, Mexico risks violating the fundamental right to a fair trial, a cornerstone of democratic societies.
Economic Impact and Investor Confidence
The uncertainty surrounding Mexico’s judicial reform has already begun to ripple through the economy. Investors are growing increasingly concerned about the future of Mexico’s legal system, and financial markets have reacted with unease. Following the June 2024 elections that saw MORENA secure majorities in both houses of Congress, Mexico’s peso lost over 10% of its value—a clear signal that markets are nervous about the direction the country is headed.
One of the main concerns is the potential for increased legal uncertainty. Businesses operating in Mexico rely on a stable, predictable legal system to enforce contracts, protect intellectual property, and resolve disputes. By subjecting judges to popular elections, the reform introduces the possibility of inconsistent or politically motivated rulings. This could make it harder for businesses to plan for the future, leading to a decline in foreign investment and slowing economic growth.
This comes at a particularly bad time for Mexico, which is seeking to capitalise on the global trend of nearshoring. As companies look to move their supply chains closer to home in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Mexico is well-positioned to attract new investment. However, this judicial reform threatens to undermine investor confidence, particularly among Mexico’s key trading partners, the United States and Canada.
Diplomatic Relations and T-MEC Concerns
The judicial reform has also raised red flags among Mexico’s international partners. The United States and Canada, Mexico’s co-signatories to the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (T-MEC), have expressed concerns about the potential impact on trade and investment. US. Ambassador to Mexico, Ken Salazar, warned that the reform could reduce investor confidence and threaten the strong trade relationship that has been built under T-MEC.
The reform introduces new uncertainties into the legal environment in Mexico, potentially complicating cross-border trade and investment disputes. Under T-MEC, investors from the US. and Canada rely on the Mexican legal system to uphold their rights and provide a fair and transparent process for resolving disputes. If the independence of the judiciary is compromised, it could lead to a breakdown in the mechanisms that support T-MEC, jeopardizing one of the most important trade agreements in North America.
There are also concerns about the broader impact on diplomatic relations. The United States and Canada have long viewed Mexico as a key partner in promoting democracy and the rule of law in the region. By undermining judicial independence, López Obrador’s reforms could strain these relationships, leading to increased tensions and potentially even trade disputes. Given Mexico’s reliance on its trade relationship with the US., any disruption to T-MEC could have serious economic consequences.
Domestic Protests and Criticism
Domestically, the proposed reforms have sparked widespread protests, not only from judicial workers but also from legal scholars, human rights activists, and students. Federal judges and magistrates have gone on an indefinite strike, and even Supreme Court justices have joined the work stoppage. This unprecedented level of opposition from within the judiciary highlights the deep concerns about the potential consequences of the reform.
Opposition lawmakers have also voiced their concerns, arguing that the reform will undermine the rule of law and weaken democratic institutions. María Josefina Gamboa, a prominent opposition lawmaker, criticised the ruling party for pushing through the reform without addressing the concerns of the thousands of people protesting outside the legislative chamber. The decision to hold the vote in a sports complex, far from the protestors, only added to the perception that the ruling party is out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Mexicans.
Whilst López Obrador’s supporters argue that the reform will make the judiciary more accountable to the people, critics warn that it will do the opposite. By allowing the executive branch to nominate judicial candidates, the reform concentrates power in the hands of the president, eroding the checks and balances that are essential to a functioning democracy.
As President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum prepares to take office in less than four weeks, her backing of López Obrador’s judicial reform signals a continuity of the current administration’s agenda. Sheinbaum, a close ally of AMLO and a prominent figure in MORENA, has expressed her support for the reforms as a way to tackle corruption and enhance the judiciary’s accountability to the people. However, this continuity of governance brings with it concerns about a prolonged period of concentrated power. With MORENA holding majorities in both houses of Congress and Sheinbaum poised to assume the presidency, there is growing apprehension that the reform will cement MORENA’s influence over all three branches of government for another six years.
The risks of a further six-year presidency dominated by MORENA are substantial. Such a scenario could see the erosion of institutional checks and balances, particularly if the judiciary is perceived to be aligned with the ruling party. The political homogeneity across the executive, legislative, and now judicial branches could stifle political opposition, marginalise dissenting voices, and foster a climate where democratic norms are weakened. This long-term concentration of power may undermine public trust in the independence of Mexico’s institutions, both domestically and internationally, raising further concerns about the country’s adherence to democratic principles.
Conclusion
The proposed judicial reform in Mexico represents a pivotal moment for the country. Whilst López Obrador’s administration frames it as a necessary step toward fighting corruption and making the judiciary more accountable, critics argue that it undermines judicial independence, weakens democracy, and threatens Mexico’s economic stability. The reform risks politicizing the courts, opening the door to corruption, and introducing uncertainty into the legal system, all of which could have far-reaching consequences for Mexico’s future.
As the reform moves through the Senate and protests continue, the country faces a choice: maintain the integrity of its democratic institutions or risk sliding into a system where the judiciary is no longer a check on executive power. The international community, particularly Mexico’s key trading partners under T-MEC, will be watching closely. The outcome of this reform will not only shape the future of Mexico’s democracy but also its position on the global stage.