The Two Sheinbaum Narratives

Authoritarian, but popular and getting things done

President Claudia Sheinbaum is a technocrat who has demonstrated brilliant political skill in managing domestic politics and Mexico’s relations with the US. She has inherited a difficult economic situation, but is working to improve the business environment, increase foreign investment, and fix Mexico’s budgetary problems to put the country on a sustainable fiscal path. The peso remains strong, the population feels the government’s economic policies benefit them, and the country may yet avoid the worst fallout from Trump’s trade war. Meanwhile, she appears to have a more logical security policy than her predecessor, though the stats on whether it is succeeding are too early to tell. There is a clear reason Mexico’s voters remain so strongly behind the president.

President Claudia Sheinbaum is engaging in an institutional power grab to return Mexico to a competitive authoritarian state as existed under the PRI. With much of the foundation set by AMLO, she has now consolidated her control over a rubber stamp legislature and a completely compliant judicial system to ensure the executive branch is supreme. The Morena party is by far the strongest and most organized national party, increasing its level of control at the state and municipal levels and making sure the president can control the entire country despite what should be a more decentralized federal system. Under Sheinbaum’s presidency, we should be worried about Mexican democracy failing.

Both of those narratives are true, leading to a more general political narrative of “the government is authoritarian but getting stuff done” that is compelling for many citizens, businesses, investors, and analysts. They brush aside the criticisms because things are going well enough, particularly compared to some point in the recent past (in this case, under President Peña Nieto).

It’s worth highlighting that there is some exaggeration in both narratives. The economy is not doing that well under Sheinbaum, even if her infrastructure and budget plans are compelling for some (but certainly not all!) of the business community. The security situation varies by state. The conditions for elections are still fair enough that Morena can lose if the president’s popularity declines. Sheinbaum was fairly and democratically elected, and her executive power is far from unlimited.

We’ve seen variations on this story before in Latin America, and some examples are more extreme. Augusto Pinochet ran a dictatorship after a coup while having his Chicago Boys implement an economic policy that wowed markets and helped set the stage for a pro-business surge in Chile. Hugo Chavez ran a booming economy in the mid-2000’s, wildly popular while redistributing wealth and greatly lowering poverty, even as his power grab set the conditions for the ability to hold on to power later when all that failed. There are plenty of other cases I could include of leaders who appeared to run successful governments or economies while engaging in authoritarian power grabs. Daniel Ortega’s pro-business pivot in 2007 or Nayib Bukele’s popular security crackdown both fit this mold. Another variation would be the corruption and election stealing by Juan Orlando Hernandez that was largely ignored by his allies in the US and many foreign investors because he was perceived as implementing beneficial policies in other areas.

None of those comparisons is fair to Sheinbaum or complete. And all of those stories have their own caveats¹. But those are comparisons worth making as we consider just how dangerous it is that Mexico could slide back into a perfect dictatorship style of authoritarianism. Additionally, reflecting on the comparisons to those leaders listed above and others, there are a few key differences.

First, Sheinbaum is a woman. I can’t think of another female leader in Latin America that I’d place in the category of “authoritarian but getting stuff done” other than perhaps Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (and that would be a stretch on the getting things done side). I can hypothesize ways it could make her job easier or more difficult, depending on how voters react (it’s almost certainly more difficult). But I don’t know if or how that alters the analysis because I have no other example to point to.

Second, Sheinbaum is filling the role of a “successful successor” rather than the initial leader of the movement. AMLO set the stage for this moment and now Sheinbaum is implementing. Every other leader I would put in this category was the first mover, the revolutionary, and the leader. When those leaders chose successors, those successors either betrayed the initial leaders or were just laughably awful (i.e. Maduro). For Sheinbaum, even as she carves her own path, she is still following AMLO’s lead in some way, with the former president hanging over her shoulder and pulling strings in the party. It impacts her ability to govern as well as how voters will perceive the situation if the economy or security starts to falter. Still, similar to the first point, there isn’t a good historical comparison. I can’t think of a former president who followed the initial “authoritarian who got stuff done” leader and then managed the implementation even better than the predecessor.

Third, on a personal level, I don’t think I’ve ever been as conflicted about the “authoritarian but getting stuff done” narrative as I am by Sheinbaum. The nerdy analyst capable of abstract logic is aware of all the risks associated with the judicial reform and Morena’s authoritarian slide. I see the economic and debt numbers and know that they don’t add up. The security policies are better than AMLO or EPN, but still far too dismissive of disappearances and corruption that must be addressed. And still, outside of that analytical take, my gut level reaction to watching Sheinbaum govern is, “she is doing well” in a way that it never was with Chavez or Bukele or AMLO or the other leaders who I might place in the category. I know that is horrifying to those who are staunch Morena critics. Recognizing my own biases is important in analysis, which is why I’m writing all this down today.

Every time I’ve written praise of Sheinbaum in the past few months, I’ve stopped and thought, “but isn’t this the same leader who is consolidating control of Mexico’s institutions and undermining democracy?” And every time I’ve criticized her government on institutional issues, I’ve wondered whether I’m being too hard on someone who is governing well and popularly from a position of difficulty. The best way to handle it is to accept that there are two contradictory narratives. One doesn’t excuse or undermine the other. Both will shape Mexico in the years to come.

1. For example, the economy was never as good under Pinochet or Chavez as their boosters claim.