The transcript of this episode can be accessed by clicking the “Transcript” button below the title. All other episodes are here.
Luke talks with Mariano Guevara about Mexico’s first-ever popular election for federal judicial officials, including why the elections are significant, what’s taking place in preparation for the elections, and what the elections mean for students and the younger generation in Mexico.
Mariano is a law student and political activist in Mexico. He can be found at mariano_gl17 on X and Instagram.
This episode is in Spanish. An abridged translation in English is below.
Luke: Hello, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the Democratic Constitution podcast. Today, we're going to talk again about the judicial elections in Mexico, which take place on July 1st. The blog is dedicated to the movement for a democratic constitution in the United States. However, we've talked a lot about political issues in Mexico, especially about changes to the Mexican constitution and the elections for the magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice. Almost a year ago, I spoke with José Luis Granado Ceja and Kurt Hackbarth about the election of Claudia Sheinbaum and questions of democracy and the US Constitution. In February of this year, I also spoke with Sami and Alfredo about Marena and Mexico's political history. And in March, I chatted with Ricardo Miranda about the University Program for the Study of Democracy, Justice, and Society and the judicial reform process. But okay, today I'm very excited to talk with Mariano Guevara. Mariano is a law student and political activist, and we'll be talking about the judicial elections.
Mariano: Thank you very much to you and the audience. It's a pleasure to be here. I'm very grateful that other countries are paying attention to what's happening in Mexico. This reform to the judiciary is a truly revolutionary act. So, thank you very much for the space, for allowing us to continue spreading the word about an event that sets a new standard in Mexican politics. It's a before-and-after with this reform to the judiciary.
L: Can you introduce yourself, including your political background and current studies?
M: My name is Mariano Guevara Luna, as Luke mentioned. I'm 20 years old. I'm currently studying law at a private institution in Mexico. I couldn't get into a public university due to exam issues and other issues, so I had to take this opportunity to study in another spot. I’ve been a part of Morena for about two years, and I never deny where I received my political formation. Beyond the fact that my academic training in law came from my school, everything related to political education has come from the people I've met and from the largest left-wing movement on the entire American continent.
I was 18 when I joined Morena. I was and have been active since the movement's youth. Today, I'm also with a left-wing collective in which we oppose the global hegemonic system, both politically and economically. We are a collective that operates from a conscious leftist perspective, A critical and very revolutionary movement called Generation Hope. Generation Hope is abstract; it's made up of absolutely everyone there. There are no committees, no editorial line, and no commissioner. No, we're all part of that collective, which is why I say it's a more horizontal collective of young people.
As for the party, I would call it the most institutional approach to what exists in politics today. We have to adhere to statutory guidelines, we have to adhere to principles and values that are specific to the movement, but which are undoubtedly very similar and converge with what we in Generation Hope are also active in today.
L: Perfect, it’s great to know where people are coming from.
M: Yes, definitely, just as you mentioned. Luke, I normally emphasize that law schools, their curricula tend to have right-wing values. And then, if you also come from a family with conservative tendencies, it's easy for you to opt for an ideological line based on the doctrine and what the professors express in their classes.
What drives the ideology of the right is the great global capital. And what drives the ideology of the left, well, I call it love, tenderness, values that are very close and connected to the vast majority of the people of Mexico, and also the world. They are shared globally. Some struggles have to be leftist, or else we would be in a serious contradiction. It's like, suddenly, Free Palestine is leftist. I can't imagine what other ideology could support such a movement against what the Israeli state is doing. A kind of apartheid, something like that. I don't imagine the feminist movement suddenly being rightist when the capitalist system itself has fostered this systematic violence against women. These kinds of issues are very present in the formation of the cadres we currently represent, from the leftist project Morena.
L: What will happen on June 1st in Mexico?
M: On June 1st, we will elect our judges, magistrates, and Supreme Court justices. I'd like to say, or begin with this context, that it's something completely innovative. It has already been practiced in other countries. In the Americas, it was even practiced in Bolivia; participation was very low, and that somewhat discredited the process.
But, for example, in the United States, we know that certain judges are elected by popular vote. Well, here in Mexico, judges, magistrates, and justices will be elected as a result of a kind of lawfare that was forming in Mexico. Lawfare is a soft coup, a coup based on the laws, when you seek to discredit or overthrow a legitimate popular government. I refer to a popular government as a leftist government. A government that supports the vast majority, and the vast majority supports its ruler, or now our government. That's lawfare, that was brewing in a certain way from the Supreme Court when President López Obrador was in charge of the country.
This leads us, or is like the straw that breaks the camel's back, to bring about judicial reform. Now, also speaking of justice, we are one of the countries in the Americas where justice is very expensive and unfair. So, that's something that if you survey the people of Mexico, 9 out of 10 Mexicans, we'll be able to tell you that our justice system doesn't give us justice. I mean, we often fall into a simulation. So, as a result of this and what I mentioned about lawfare
It led us to reform the judiciary, which is a place where conservative groups generally take root worldwide, and Mexico was no exception.
It's typical of the judicial system itself, where elite groups, oligarchs, and conservatives seek refuge, and what they don't win in elections, they seek to win through rulings in favor of minorities in this country.
L: Yes, I am familiar with the term “lawfare.” There are many examples of its use against Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO).
M: Two examples come to mind. When they tried to reverse Enrique Peña Nieto's energy reform, which was part of the Plan for Mexico, something like that, where this macabre alliance was formed between the PRI, PAN, and PRD, where our energy sovereignty was visibly at risk.
It was also illegal and went against the Constitution itself. Despite that, they managed to privatize everything related to hydrocarbons; we lost all types of production in Mexico, production capacity, and we ceded it, in this case, to the United States.
In other words, we, with the raw material that is gasoline, which is oil, when we started, it was sent to the United States, it was refined in the United States, and it was returned to us as gasoline. That was against the Constitution. It's an issue that goes against the Constitution. And the private sector, with transnational corporations, was also allowed to sell us the final product, such as gasoline. This also went against the Constitution, which was reformed, and at that time, the Court and the Judiciary fell.
Another situation is the electoral reform of President López Obrador, already in his six-year term. He sought to reform the INE (National Electoral Institute) to eliminate plurinominal elections, which are those political figures or profiles who, as such, are not voted for by society, but are part of the quotas that political parties have according to the number or percentage of votes they received in the election.
So these types of reforms were sought, one to counter Peña Nieto's reform and another to also generate greater autonomy for the National Electoral Institute, because let's remember that institutions in Mexico were also co-opted by the right. Just as the so-called autonomous constitutional bodies are, they were also spaces where the right managed to become sufficiently involved to have, I would call it, institutional control.
President López Obrador, with all possible popular legitimacy, with both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies approving them, reaches the Court through constitutional control mechanisms that the right, starting with the PAN, seeks to challenge, and the Court, without studying the merits, that is, the substance, what's part of the law, they study the form.
“Look, the legislative procedure was violated, it wasn't respected, it wasn't sufficiently discussed, it was approved more quickly than it should have been, in theory,” they said. As if these weren't practices that previous regimes had engaged in, and worse.
On top of that, laws were passed that went against the people. And these were laws that were passed in favor of the people. It's about continuing to reclaim these values that were part of the 1917 Constitution.
So, when President López Obrador begins to realize this, it's inevitable that he'll have to propose a reform to the Judiciary. I mean, this was much more obvious before what was going to happen on June 1, 2024. Which is the so-called Plan C.
L: There have been lots of progressive changes to the Constitution under AMLO and now, Claudia Sheinbaum. Why does the election of judges catch your attention?
M: It's either continuing or continuing with a legacy left to us by our greatest moral leader, President López Obrador. I mean, that's the first response. As people on the left, it's about embracing what we fought for, since he was part of the government. In the last six-year term.
Two, because we're seeking this independence from the judges, from the powers that be, and from the political powers. That these powers be the ones that truly judge the people of Mexico. In other words, it's from these judges that we'll be given justice or not.
What are we seeking? These judges no longer owe themselves to these powers, but rather to the power of the people. That those of us who judge the judges should be the people. The issue is that here in Mexico, there has been an attempt to discredit the people, trying to say that there are people who cannot understand what they're experiencing.
Yes, it's a complicated process. That's what I'd like to point out. But I think it's forcing those of us who understand the project to come together and be as explanatory as possible. The reform, the ballots, are quite complicated to understand.
Here in Mexico City, we're going to receive nine ballots. I mean, it's suddenly very complicated. And from these nine ballots, at least 55 judges will be chosen. It's truly a huge challenge we're facing. Some people simply didn't know what a judge, a magistrate, and a minister are. And that's fine, they're not obligated. This is also a result of why the judiciary needs to be reformed.
I'll explain why. The judiciary in Mexico, and often lawyers, try to speak in a language that only lawyers can understand. And these are the kinds of practices we're trying to break so that the lawyer, the judge, the doctor, the teacher, the lawyer, become increasingly closer to those without that academic rank, because they're also part of a society.
And then we'd be talking about the supreme power of the elite. Those who reach those positions are the elite. They're privileged people who can be representatives in those positions. So, with this reform to the judiciary, we're also seeking to restore the value of the 1917 Constitution. That Constitution, which is a product of the Mexican Revolution. The Constitution of 1854 is also a product of the struggles of liberals against conservatives. For example, Benito Juárez was President of the Supreme Court thanks to the 1854 Constitution, and later became President of the Republic.
These kinds of issues are being sought to be taken up again. “Hey, but why are you looking back?” Because it's important to look back at the past to see what didn't work, so as not to repeat it or do it again. And also to look back to see what did work and repeat it. So, that's why reform is essential, and also why going out to vote on June 1st of this year. What we're experiencing is something completely historic.
L: I find this system very interesting, at least the attempt to do something new, something more democratic.
M: Yes, without a doubt. It's funny. There are members of the right who say this is a step backward for democracy. I don't know if you've heard recently that Ernesto Seguido Ponce de León rose from the grave, saying that, in theory, presidents shouldn't have to continue speaking after leaving office, and he comes and tells us that Dr. Claudia Sheinbaum is helping to end what little democracy we have left. We're in constant democratic decline.
And it's a bit hard for me to understand, because if you're giving more power to the people, then it's a greater democracy. It's an inconsistency, I return to the same point, an ideological one in its argument. What is democracy? Demos is people, kratos is power. So, with this election, more power is being given to the people. So, if we look at it this way, it's more democracy for democracy. Are there things that can be improved? Yes. Is it a complex process? Yes. Is it complicated for many people? Yes. But it's the first process.
I mean, let's imagine when Mexico becomes independent, so to speak, achieves independence from the Spanish colony, and, in that case, Iturbide is elected as the first emperor. It goes wrong, and we arrive at our first presidential election, which is Guadalupe Victoria. I don't think it was the best election in the world, nor the cleanest, nor the most correct. But it was the first, and it was new. It was a new process that the people of Mexico at that time were facing.
Well, it's something very similar to what we're experiencing today. It's part of getting used to it, it's part of winning that cultural battle, and it's also part of a collective effort. This isn't about saying, "If I know what the reform is like, or who the candidates are I'm going to vote for, I'm going to keep quiet." On the contrary, this is a collective effort where, as far as I know, and the other colleagues who are also helping in the process, we are helping the great collective of the people of Mexico, well, in this case, Mexico City. This is also fostering collectivism, and that should be applauded.
L: What's happening now in preparation for the elections?
M: Well, look, what's already happening right now is that there are people who voluntarily want to take care of the process, without forgetting the fraud and all the institutional mismanagement that the right-wing has perpetrated in Mexico. Training is also being provided to people so they can understand. I mean, all of this, and it's important to mention, I'm a member of a political party, but this is being done through a citizen-led process. Political parties here, both legally and ethically, are not getting involved, which I think is correct. It's part of respecting the autonomy of the judiciary and what constitutes us as a republic, which is the separation of powers.
So, I think I'm going back to the same thing here: values like collectivism are being revived, where people who have gradually come to understand the reform, well, we meet in a kind of study circle. And we even call on certain candidates, also respecting the rules of the Electoral Institute. Because they're also quite rigid, and we have to be cautious with them. And that's how we're getting to know our candidates for judges. Spaces are also being created where people are trying to explain each of the ballots, what the colors are, and also trying to discern which profiles truly fall under a progressive ideology and with an ideology of social consciousness, class consciousness, social justice, etc.
So that's also a very complicated process we're facing, where suddenly there are wolves in sheep's clothing. What do I mean by this phrase? Well, those people who were against the reform at the time, who went out to march against it, saw they had an opportunity to get a job. So that's where we have to be careful. All of this isn't included in the CVs. It's not included in the rulings they were part of, designed, or helped draft. That's only achieved through a dialogue like the one you and I are having, for example, it's the only way we're getting closer to what the ideology is, and not just a political ideology, but an ideology of life that they live by.
I'd say that right now, of the 55 candidates we have to choose from, I have at least 20 already secured, but I'm missing 35. Especially considering that there are two types of levels: the federal level and the local level. At the federal level, there will be six ballots, and at the local level, we will be given three. The most visible profiles are those who are running for federal office. It's a bit more difficult to identify who is seeking a local justice position.
L: I think it's very important to have the opportunity to meet the candidates, to talk with them, to ask them various questions, to get to know the candidates, and so on. It's very interesting because, obviously, in terms of federal offices in the United States, we don't usually have the opportunity to meet the candidates.
The election or selection, we could say, of federal offices is in the hands of the president and the Senate. How interesting that we now have the opportunity to meet every person in very important positions.
M: Without a doubt. So, the local justice system is the one that the American people can choose?
L: Yes, exactly. In the United States, we have the opportunity to elect state judges and local judges. We do not have the opportunity to directly elect federal judges.
M: I was reading that the justices of the Supreme Court in the United States have lifetime appointments. Because the logic goes, the longer you're in that position, the more impartial you are. I don't think that's the case. I mean, I think power corrupts in a certain way. And President López Obrador said it corrupts the intelligent or the stupid. In Mexico, the Supreme Court term will be reduced from 15 to 12 years. So we're talking about the fact that if nine ministers are elected in this election, they'll last two six-year terms in that space. If we're in 2025, they'd be leaving until 2037. The court would be renewed until 2037, and I think that's quite interesting.
Speaking a little bit about democracy and what this podcast is about, here in Mexico, the ministers were chosen by the president of the Republic. He would send a shortlist of three candidates to the Senate of the Republic. If the Senate of the Republic couldn't reach an agreement, the president would send a new shortlist. If they failed to reach an agreement again, then the president would choose who among those three would be the next Supreme Court justice. Now that people can choose their justices, gosh, it's a substantial advance for our country's democracy.
L: Federal judges in the United States don't have a limit. Precisely because of this idea that, well, if there's no limit, they are outside the political process, living in their world, and for that reason—and this is something very important—they are far from the influence of the population. Well, this is absurd. They have political ideas.
M: Yes, without a doubt. This narrative has also suddenly been established in Mexico: to say that the judiciary is going to be politicized. When we are all political beings. Naturally. I mean, trying to say that people who are already politicized are going to be politicized is also an argumentative and ideological inconsistency. I think this happens a lot here in Mexico. Those people who agree with that conservative project suddenly have a hard time explicitly saying that they support said project.
In Mexico, those of us who are militants on the left laugh a lot. If you ask me,
“Hey, Mariano, do you support the left? Yes, yes, I support the left.”
“Do you support Morena? Yes, I support Morena.”
“Hey, I don't know, neighbor, do you support the PAN? No, I don't support the PAN. I'm Mexican. I'm a citizen. Oh, okay, but who do you vote for? Oh, no, well, yes, I vote for the PAN and the right.”
The majority is very clear with their answer. But suddenly, this minority has a hard time saying, “yes, I agree with this project, there shouldn't be legalized abortion, legalized drugs, that there shouldn't be social progress, that there shouldn't be these economic supports that are also very controversial, etc.”
Something very similar happened with the judges. Virtually all judges, or the majority — I'm not going to say all because that's a generalization— but a good percentage of the active members who are currently judges in the Judiciary do have a very clear doctrine and way of conducting themselves. This is what has already been discussed in this conversation we're having, that they have these right-wing tendencies.
The fact that our candidates are now approaching us and maintaining this direct contact, because there's nothing better than having direct contact with your potential voters when you're a candidate, you can take off that mask. Suddenly saying, “You know what? Well, I'm going to be a judge who's going to go against the ruling party” or, “I'm going to be a judge who will be with the ruling party.”
L: What is the opposition to the elections? The elections will happen. Without a doubt. What is the opposition? And also, who is in the opposition? I've heard, for example, that sometimes law schools aren't necessarily in favor.
M: Okay, very good question, Luke. The opposition really lies in the fact that conservative groups in Mexico are going to lose the strength they had in the judicial branch. I've heard and read a bit lately about how of the three branches of the union — executive, legislative, and judicial — the most powerful is the judicial branch. Why? The judicial branch is the one that dictates the legality of acts, so to speak. Whether your act is legal or not. So, if we suddenly have large companies of oligarchs, like Ricardo Salinas Pliego, who also transmit a libertarian discourse, although he has a television concession that belongs to the state, and at one point, the state also helped him obtain said concession, there's still a contradiction with what he defends. But I would say that the main opposition that exists comes from the elite, from Mexico's conservative groups.
This reform is the most radical one that encompasses the entire Fourth Transformation project, because we're already getting involved with the most complex interests of Mexican politics. There are examples, as you mentioned a while ago, of what lawfare is. In Ecuador, they overthrew Rafael Correa. In Brazil, Lula da Silva ended up in jail. At the time, the judiciary made life impossible for Peronism and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.
The fact that the left won the judiciary in Mexico speaks to the authentic revolution we're experiencing in our country. It's a true revolution, and it's a peaceful revolutionary act. And here's the most complicated part: the vast majority of the Mexican people are in favor of this reform. So, this is something that has been deteriorating for the right, because that's the opposition that exists.
Suddenly, those rulings that were favorable to them so they couldn't pay taxes, well, now we'll have to see if the judges continue to follow this pattern of helping these great oligarchs avoid paying taxes, that's an example. Or also if there are certain rulings where golf courses or recreational or entertainment centers are suddenly built, which only a few people who are against the environment will be able to access. We'll have to see if those rulings continue to favor them or the people.
In terms of the political opposition that exists in Mexico, I can tell you that there is practically no opposition. The opposition, after last year's electoral process, was completely diminished in political and electoral terms. But something we mustn't forget is that the right will always have money and capital because big business will always support the inherently right-wing conservative bloc. And that should never be underestimated. You know this very well. In the United States today, it's said that Donald Trump is the one who governs, but if we look at who's behind Donald Trump, it's the world's great oligarchs. I mean, even worse, we're no longer talking about the oligarchs of one country, we're talking about the oligarchs of the world. We're talking about Elon Musk, we're talking about the owner of Facebook, Google, and Amazon. I mean, big business is behind Donald Trump. It's not at that level in Mexico, but it's big oligarchs with money in Mexico and internationally who have always sought to have some control over the government. Since President López Obrador came to power in 2018, they've lost some control over the government.
Even though these great oligarchs, like Claudio X. González, who is also a very rich man in Mexico and very involved in politics, no matter how much money they throw at him, it doesn't stick. It doesn't stick because people, through a cultural battle steeped in political ideology, have managed to gain this political space in favor of Mexico.
You asked that question about law schools. Note that it's a very controversial topic. I think there, for example, the judiciary, despite the reform that's being implemented, can't get involved as such in the curriculum. No matter how progressive a judge, a magistrate, or a minister may be, they can't tell a school to make its curriculum progressive. It's not possible. I think the best recommendation I can make is that those who want to study law, but from a different perspective of practicing it, reading it, practicing it, and understanding it, do so. I believe there is no greater revolutionary act than that. Because if you're a leftist agent who suddenly goes and studies law, the vision you'll bring to it when practicing law, well, it's going to be with a social conscience.
I think that's very important to mention. Don't say, no, you know what? Don't get involved, don't get involved. You're on the left, don't even get involved in a right-wing school, because they're law school, sorry, don't get involved because they're right-wing. Well, no, because it discourages those who want to make a practical change. I think that's where it starts. And in terms of curricula, I also think it's essential that those of us who practice law under a different logic can also suddenly get involved. If we reach certain positions of power, they can be used to benefit future students.
Some lawyers are very legalistic. What do I mean by legalistic? Well, this is what the law says, and I'm not going to go against what the norm or the law states. Listen, but when you apply the norm or the law, you're violating a human right, or you're going against a private individual. Yes, but this is what the law says.
What is the logic we must have as future lawyers? For example, in my case, being closer to rulings or to an alternative justice system that ensures the well-being of the people. I mean, of those who are part of this judicial controversy. So, I think it's still a fairly complex process because everything starts with the curriculum.
L: How involved are the younger generations and also university students in this process? And also, what does this event and the change to the Constitution mean for the younger generations, and also the students right now in Mexico?
M: For future generations, I think it marks a before and after. For those of us who don't know anyone or are part of the current judiciary, it sets an exceptional standard in the logic that you won't necessarily have to have someone assigned to you to get in. Many times, we are people who have quite a lot of content, but due to a lack of systematic opportunities, we're unable to transcend.
Many of these candidates are young people between 30 and 40 years old. That also sets a revolutionary tone because then these people who were already candidates, educated in a certain way or prepared—prepared is the word—under a different logic of practicing law, will potentially reach these positions, and then, little by little, we will be able to build a more just judiciary,
For students, it's very complex. Last year, one of the main electoral forces that Claudia Sheinbaum had was young people. There's always been an attempt, I call it juveniarism, which is like belittling young people, to say that young people are apathetic, that young people aren't politicized, and last year that myth was shattered.
This process is different due to its complexity. So yes, and I must say it plainly, there is a certain apathy and misinformation about what will happen on June 1st. I mean, the truth is, we have to be honest. Some people don't even know what will happen on June 1st. That's why I've tried to talk throughout this talk about this being a process of collectivist work.
I was worried at first, but now I'm excited that the election is getting closer. I was able to see the ballots, and now the INE has also released a voting simulation where you'll be able to see who to vote for, who will be on the ballots. So, little by little, mechanisms have been put in place to bring people closer to the process. A little late? Yes, but I'll come back to the same thing. It's the first. It's the first, and that's very important to mention. It's perfectible, yes, and it's a process that will take many years to raise awareness among people so that they go out and vote for their judges, just as they go out and vote for their president. Because I'll come back to the same thing: the judiciary has always stood aside, and the judiciary is very, very powerful.
L: I'm very excited that we're going to talk again after the elections to see what happened and to analyze the results.
M: I truly hope, with all the enthusiasm I've been conveying to you today, that this reform to the Judiciary can also be a legacy to humanity and that other countries will also choose to replicate something similar to what we're experiencing in Mexico, which is unprecedented.
Share this post