When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.


Mexico's Election, Between Fear And Disgust

There are three candidates but really just two choices in Sunday's presidential election in Mexico: Move forward? Or try to recreate the past?

A young man cheers to presidential candidate Manuel Lopez Obrador at a rally in Mexico on June 27
A young man cheers to presidential candidate Manuel Lopez Obrador at a rally in Mexico on June 27
Luis Rubio


MEXICO CITY — Mexico's upcoming general elections bring to mind the words of David Konzevik, an economist from the other end of the Americas. "Anyone who thinks things can't get worse," the Argentine intellectual famously quipped, "doesn't know the history of Argentina."

Indeed, in 1913, Argentina had the world's 10th highest per capita GDP. Today it ranks 57th. The reason is decades of bad economic policies ostensibly aimed at solving problems of corruption, welfare and poverty. Instead of advancing, the country has regressed, and Argentines have stumbled from one crisis to another over a century. So when people here say, "things couldn't get any worse," I think about Argentina and say to myself that yes, things actually can get much worse — and fast. Just ask people in oil-rich Venezuela who are living in a state of misery and desperation amid the worst social and political crisis of their country's history.

Sunday's elections are a crossroads for Mexico, and as voters contemplate their choices, there are three distinct dynamics at play. First, this is a dispute between the future and the past. Second, it's a referendum of sorts on the outgoing Enrique Peña Nieto administration, and its perception as massively corrupt. And third, the contest hinges on the various candidates themselves, with their respective virtues and flaws.

In the most basic sense, this is an election about two distinct visions and platforms, represented on the one hand by conservative Ricardo Anaya and the government-backed José Antonio Meade, and on the other by Andrés Manuel López Obrador, or AMLO, as he's known.

The first two candidates, each with his specific characteristics and abilities, share future-oriented ideas about overhauling the country by following the example of more successful countries. AMLO, in contrast, touts a return to Mexico's origins — back to before it tried to modernize, when the government imposed its vision on society, the president was all-powerful, and things just worked better, or so the candidate believes.

This is a dispute between the future and the past.

AMLO​"s proposition is based on the principle that things were fine before the 1980s, when governments began the liberal reforms that, in his opinion, ruined the country's natural development. His model is certainly appealing. But it doesn't resolve the country's current problems of poverty, inequality and lack of growth.

Regardless of how viable the candidates' various proposals really are, this election is about two radically divergent ways of reading the world, about broad directions rather than specific policies. The fundamental question being posed is this: Should Mexico advance, or return to the past?

A key factor in how people answer that question is the outgoing Peña Nieto administration, essentially for its shortcomings but even more for its distance from the daily reality of ordinary people. Its electoral propaganda — which basically tells Mexicans to stop complaining — and countrywide tours have shown an utter inability to grasp people's anger over corruption and the government's apparent indifference to the lives of everyday citizens.

In this sense, anger with Peña Nieto is competing with fears of a return to the past with AMLO. Disgust with the president is real. Meade's fate, therefore, depends on being seen as his own man. Anaya's fate depends on being able to convince people he really can run a government. And each needs to distinguish himself from the other while showing voters that they're both forward-thinking.

The individual strengths of the candidates also matter. Anaya has been a successful legislator and is heading a coalition of political forces that might have seemed inconceivable a short while back. His stamina and grit have taken him to where he is. López Obrador, who has been in politics for decades, was a successful mayor of Mexico City and has remained relevant for his personal integrity and honesty, but also by raising pertinent issues like poverty and inequality. Meade, who has been a senior official for decades, is more familiar than anyone with the workings of bureaucracy, and has a clear and structured vision of challenges facing the country.

We Mexicans must now choose between radically divergent visions of government and personalities with differing histories and skills. Will our decision and choice resolve our problems? Or will we follow the example of Argentina and keep digging ourselves a deeper and deeper hole?

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


What's Spoiling The Kids: The Big Tech v. Bad Parenting Debate

Without an extended family network, modern parents have sought to raise happy kids in a "hostile" world. It's a tall order, when youngsters absorb the fears (and devices) around them like a sponge.

Image of a kid wearing a blue striped sweater, using an ipad.

Children exposed to technology at a very young age are prominent today.

Julián de Zubiría Samper


BOGOTÁ — A 2021 report from the United States (the Youth Risk Behavior Survey) found that 42% of the country's high-school students persistently felt sad and 22% had thought about suicide. In other words, almost half of the country's young people are living in despair and a fifth of them have thought about killing themselves.

Such chilling figures are unprecedented in history. Many have suggested that this might be the result of the COVID-19 pandemic, but sadly, we can see depression has deeper causes, and the pandemic merely illustrated its complexity.

I have written before on possible links between severe depression and the time young people spend on social media. But this is just one aspect of the problem. Today, young people suffer frequent and intense emotional crises, and not just for all the hours spent staring at a screen. Another, possibly more important cause may lie in changes to the family composition and authority patterns at home.

Firstly: Families today have fewer members, who communicate less among themselves.

Young people marry at a later age, have fewer children and many opt for personal projects and pets instead of having children. Families are more diverse and flexible. In many countries, the number of children per woman is close to or less than one (Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong among others).

In Colombia, women have on average 1.9 children, compared to 7.6 in 1970. Worldwide, women aged 15 to 49 years have on average 2.4 children, or half the average figure for 1970. The changes are much more pronounced in cities and among middle and upper-income groups.

Of further concern today is the decline in communication time at home, notably between parents and children. This is difficult to quantify, but reasons may include fewer household members, pervasive use of screens, mothers going to work, microwave ovens that have eliminated family cooking and meals and, thanks to new technologies, an increase in time spent on work, even at home. Our society is addicted to work and devotes little time to minors.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest