Andres Manuel López Obrador’s presidency significantly shifted Mexico’s political landscape. Elected in 2018 with a promise of transformative change under the MORENA party, AMLO’s tenure has been characterized by a blend of populist rhetoric and policies that have raised concerns about the state of democracy in Mexico. Consequently, the upcoming election has raised conversations about the democratic backsliding experienced during his presidency and its potential impact on the 2024 elections while examining the role of authoritarian populism. As AMLO progresses into the last months of his six-year presidential term, he is transitioning from bending political norms to outright disregard for them, including the flouting of laws, thereby endangering Mexico’s democracy.

Upon assuming office, AMLO pledged to initiate what he termed the “Fourth Transformation,” positioning it as the latest pivotal moment in Mexican history, following the War of Independence, President Benito Juárez’s liberal movement, and the Revolution of 1910. Under this banner, he vowed to combat entrenched corruption and alleviate enduring poverty. However, in pursuit of his agenda, AMLO has dismantled checks and balances, diminished the autonomy of critical institutions, and asserted discretionary authority over the budget.

His efforts to stifle dissent and undermine democratic safeguards extend beyond mere rhetoric and hours-long podium speeches. Utilizing his power in the Mexican legislature, AMLO has slashed the budgets of numerous ostensibly independent agencies, impeding their ability to fulfill their roles as regulators and overseers effectively. In February 2023, Mexico’s Senate endorsed a reform of the nation’s electoral institution (INE), a measure critics argue will undermine democracy. The president proposed the legislative reform, known as “Plan B,” in December of 2022 after not obtaining enough votes in Congress for constitutional reform. AMLO continuously argues that “Plan B” is not an attack on INE’s power but an initiative to cut its large budget and end its political privileges.

However, his criticisms of the electoral institute trace back to his loss in 2006 when he came within 0.56% of the vote of winning the presidency and motivated his supporters to begin a mass movement. As Nancy Bermeo has mentioned, backsliding is shifting to “promissory coups” in which, for example, “the blatant election-day vote fraud denouncement” is “being replaced by longer-term strategic legislature and manipulation”, such as minimizing INE autonomy.

Moreover, he has depleted the resources of over 100 state-administered trust funds, known as fideicomisos, established by previous administrations to safeguard dedicated public support for various sectors, including artists, academics, scientists, journalists, and human rights defenders. Furthermore, he has disregarded fundamental principles of the separation of powers by appointing and installing his finance minister without undergoing the requisite legislative approval process, thus blurring the lines between the executive and legislative branches of government.

Per political scientist Adam Przeworski, one of the essential conditions for democracy to survive is that losers accept electoral defeat and recognize results as legitimate. However, AMLO cried foul in 2006 and characterized INE as a malfeasance organization with “untouchables of the power mafia.” When populists portray their political competitors as “immoral, corrupt elite” and “refuse to recognize any opposition as legitimate,” Jan-Werner Muller claims that a populist becomes an antipluralist. AMLO’s narrative of singular representation undermines democratic pluralism by delegitimizing opposition parties and civil society organizations. His self-imposed role of being Mexico’s social justice warrior for the people implies that dissenting voices are not legitimate representatives of the people, eroding the diversity of perspectives necessary for a healthy democracy.

By defeating the incumbent PRI party for his presidential term, AMLO has galvanized “the people” against the preceding governance of Mexican democracy. With heavy social presence and constant press conferences, AMLO has given himself the accessibility needed to criticize and shame independent media and oppositional politicians publicly. Through his populist lens, the polarizing discourse that villainizes his opponents has contributed to the erosion of mutual tolerance. Without a sense of democratic solidarity, Mariano Sánchez-Talanquer argues that the public is less likely to check authoritarian acts and dismiss them as his sideshow full of uncovered anger. The rising authoritarian populist justification for AMLO’s executive efforts displaces the fundamental pillars of their democratic government.

The lessons other governments learn from Mexico’s current political landscape as they also struggle to sustain democratic institutions in the face of rising authoritarian populism can parallel the ideas of Nancy Bermeo. She considers one quality of contemporary forms of democratic backsliding that opponents need to reckon with. Bermeo states, “Troubled democracies are now more likely to erode rather than to shatter.” AMLO’s incremental steps to dismantle the government that is “in his way” to create a Mexican nation demonstrate the gradual erosion of their democracy.

How can other parties win back the supporters lost to AMLO’s authoritarian trap of populism? Mexico must recognize its citizens’ desire for radical change. For many reasons, AMLO has achieved approval rates over 60% because he promises to uproot the “elite” that Mexican people are so resentful of. Unfortunately, when populists place people in a “good vs. evil” dichotomy, they can demonize opponents and oversimplify complex issues. The 2024 Election’s opposing leaders must engage with voters without censoring their views on AMLO and MORENA, offering a pathway that resonates with their desire for significant change amid Mexico’s social unrest and rampant crime.

The challenge lies in adapting to new generations, moving away from authoritarian populism while acknowledging the electorate’s demand for governmental change. Only then will Mexico move beyond its divisive “us” versus “them” dynamics.