It has been more than one month since the renowned Mexican plebiscite took place. From its announcement back in 2020, this democratic exercise aroused an array of diametrically opposed feelings and opinions not just within the Mexican society, but across the world. In a nutshell, President López Obrador wanted to ask the citizenry about the possibility of judging the ex-presidents Carlos Salinas (1988-1994), Ernesto Zedillo (1994 to 2000), Vicente Fox (2000 to 2006), Felipe Calderón (2006 to 2012) and his predecessor, Enrique Peña Nieto (2012 to 2018). In this fashion, Mexicans were called to cast their vote on the question: ‘’Do you agree or not that the pertinent actions are carried out -in accordance with the country’s constitutional and legal framework- in order to shed light on the political decisions made in recent years by political actors, aimed at guaranteeing justice and the rights of the possible victims?’’. Originally, the question at stake was slightly different and included the names of the aforementioned politicians, albeit it was modified by the National Supreme Court of Justice after they found the previous version as unconstitutional. The result, thus, was this new ambiguous and fuzzy formulation.
Nonetheless, despite of the apparent praiseworthy intentions behind López Obrador’s plebiscite, the international community, scholars, and civil society have turned their gaze into this conjecture and have put into doubt the motivations and rationale that underpinned the consultation, inasmuch as it has been argued that this direct democracy tool was invoked with the sole intention of boosting the president’s popularity, rather than genuinely striving to tackle corruption. In fact, was it coherent to consult with the citizens a judiciary process that must be held by the judiciary branch? For this reason, AMLO has been defendant of co-opting and instrumentalize the Mexican democratic institutions. Simply put, López Obrador has been termed a populist.
Consequently, it is mandatory to understand the results of the consultation and its potential effects in the long run. In order to outline some conclusions on this event, we have relied upon two experts on the topic to share their inputs with us: Carlos Gonzáles, researcher at the Ortega & Gasset Research Institute in Mexico; and Yanina Welp, researcher at the Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Switzerland. In addition, official members of the Government’s party, Morena, were contacted, yet, unfortunately, they did not get back to Democracy International.
The aftermath: understanding the results
Overall, the plebiscite had a low turnout. From the nearly 94 million Mexicans that were called to the ballot boxes -from which at least 40% should have voted in favour of the plebiscite to make it binding- just 6.6 million of them exerted their right to vote (or around 7%). If these numbers are disentangled, we find out that from the latter 7% of the population that voted, around 98% voted ‘’Yes’’, whilst almost 2% voted ‘’No’’, as the official records of the National Electoral Institute of Mexico (INE) show. But, how should these numbers be interpreted?
Carlos Gonzáles asserts that the low participation rate is somehow normal and expected. ‘’’Usually, when this kind of participatory mechanisms are implemented, the turnout oscillates between 3% to 13% of the electorate roll, as we can see in Queretaro’s plebiscite (another public consultation promoted by AMLO recently in the city of Queretaro), being 7% the average participation rate’’, states him. And adds: ‘’Not to mention that when a process like this embodies a popular will, plebiscites can reach between 50 to 75% of participation’’.
However, Gonzáles brings to the fore something that has not been given the necessary attention and therefore needs to be put in the limelight: ‘’More than 100.000 people voted against the plebiscite and no one is asking about it. I truly think this may be explained by three main factors: members from other parties that organised a boycott campaign, people that voted ’’No’’ as a way to protest against the consultation itself, and people that were simply confused due to the ambiguity of the question. Unfortunately, reconstructing this data is not possible, but still should lead to a reflection’’.
In the same vein, Yanina Welp avers that ‘’the plebiscite, which was supposed to mobilise people, had the opposite effect. First of all, the turnout quorum was not grounded in reality. But more than that, this referendum did not convene any demand from the citizens. López Obrador should have promoted a constitutional reform against corruption, rather than carrying out an unnecessary public consultation which, in the end, disenchants and pulls people apart from the democratic institutions due to its poor results’’.
Even though, Welp also recognises that this kind of consultations mobilise less voters than presidential or parliamentary elections, for instance, yet when there are authentic democratic social demands the turnout rate might increase. ‘’The incentives for voting this time were few, therefore everything decanted into an erratic and abnormal plebiscite that made no sense’’, she concludes.
What are the takeaways and implications of the plebiscite?
Either for good or bad, it is safe to say that AMLO’s plebiscite is a turning point for the use of direct democracy tools not just in Mexico, but in Latin America. For this reason, it is important to grasp what those potential consequences are, and how to prevent the executive branches and politicians from depriving people to put on the table just those topics that truly incarnate a general will, particularly in Latin America where this phenomenon is common and plebiscites tend to be highly politicised.
In this respect, Carlos Gonzáles is quite positive. Notwithstanding the results and the procedures implemented, which were detrimental to the spirit of democracy, Gonzáles says that not everything is bad and that one should celebrate with joy the fact that, at least, for the very first time a Federal-level direct democracy mechanism was implemented in Mexico. This might open new doors. ‘’It is the bright side of a misfortune’’, he declares.
On the other hand, Yanina Welp remains negative about the plebiscite. Welp explains that this democratic exercise does not generate any new or valuable outputs for the strengthening of direct democracy in the region. ‘’The only effect of this plebiscite is deepening the bad image people have towards these mechanisms in an already politicised environment. In Uruguay, for example, presidents can not activate these consultations, and this is definitely the path to be followed. The idea of a plebiscite is to distribute power and to make it more accesible, not to keep empowering politicians’’, states Welp.
The arguments made by both Gonzáles and Welp depict an undeniable truth: this sort of top-down consultations shall at least mobilise concrete social demands for fruitful outcomes to arise, and for democracy to truly bloom. In this order of ideas, it is preferred that bottom-up initiatives and petitions are the ones placed in the agenda, as normally they are the result of a self-organised community’s deliberation process out of the scope of any powers or interests. Citizens know the best what they need, when they want it, and how should it be obtained. There is a still a long way to go, but for the moment, lessons need to be learned from this ever-first national plebiscite in Mexico.