This week’s judicial election in Mexico isn’t likely to resolve corruption issues or restore power to the populace. Rather, it might jeopardize investment ties between Mexico and the U.S. and could unintentionally bolster the influence of fentanyl traffickers and corrupt elements associated with the ruling party.
Mexico’s election has attracted attention, with over 2,600 judges being selected, sparking fears that major drug cartels are poised to interfere more directly with the judiciary. It’s concerning to think that organized crime could end up placing its operatives in critical positions of power.
Among the candidates are some notable figures, including a lawyer for Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, along with a former drug smuggler and individuals with connections to violent crime and cartels.
The previous administration’s “Hugs, not Bullets” policy has arguably entrenched judicial corruption, empowering drug cartels and fostering a climate of impunity. Despite this tricky landscape, Mexico has managed to maintain at least some degree of institutional norms regarding judicial appointments, but the recent election has significantly undermined this.
It appears that the judicial authorities today have very few seasoned legal professionals among them. Typically, candidates would hold advanced degrees and have years of experience, but in this case, there was a troubling lack of oversight in the selection process. Many candidates were chosen through a lottery system managed by the ruling party, culminating in a rather informal voting process.
The promise that Mexico could emerge as the most democratic nation, as asserted by President Claudia Sheinbaum, seems unrealistic. Unlike places like Switzerland or the U.S., where judges can be elected directly by the populace, Mexico’s model closely resembles Bolivia’s, where elections have transformed the judiciary into a political tool for those in power, including drug cartels.
Back in 2009, Bolivia embarked on a mission for constitutional reform under President Evo Morales. By 2011, most judicial authorities were elected through popular vote, but that led to chaos—uninformed voters and incompetent candidates created a troubled system, where the goal was often just for a president to consolidate power.
In Mexico, the judicial reform does not seem aimed at empowering citizens outside the ruling party. López Obrador has often seen his initiatives and promises fail due to judicial oversight. He knew that for his plans to materialize, he needed complete control over the system. Though he didn’t fully achieve his goals, he laid the groundwork for future attempts.
The outcome of the recent judicial elections could also weaken the U.S.-Mexico trade relationship. High-level political and economic factions might begin using legal channels to challenge businesses operating within Mexico, creating an unpredictable environment for trade.
Those elected during this election will serve for terms ranging from nine to twelve years. It’s unsettling to think that the judiciary’s fate could change in just a few months, yet the repercussions may last for years.
The U.S. must remain vigilant and continue diplomatic, commercial, and security efforts to effectively navigate these challenges with a crucial trade partner. It’s certainly a tough endeavor.
Luckily, the Trump administration seems undeterred by obstacles. The “peace through strength” approach may be the best strategy for addressing the new commercial and security realities in Mexico.
