Sheinbaum Is Showing How Mexican Socialism Can Be Done Differently

-Analysis-

MEXICO CITY — Two very different moments characterize Mexico’s modern history: that of former president, the popular and populist, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO); and that of his successor, the more sober Claudia Sheinbaum.

Although they both come from the socialist National Regeneration Movement (Morena), their stories are clearly different. The movement López Obrador led was, to cite the sociologist Fernando Escalante, “a major offensive by the political class against the state.” It was rooted in leftist currents of the once-dominant Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI).

The Morena of Sheinbaum’s presidency, however, originates in a Left that emerged with the student activism of the 1980s, merging in time with leftist parties as United Socialist Party of Mexico (PSUM), a coalition including the Communists. And while her government follows López Obrado’s historic triumph of 2018 — and strives to follow his project — its is different. And it will have different consequences.

Non-negotiable Mexican identity

Both currents agree on one thing: What the multifaceted artist Román Revueltas describes as the “pedestal of a robust, non-negotiable Mexican identity.”

Faithful to his roots in the PRI, whose 70-year rule combined public welfare with state capitalism, López Obrador reinforced presidential powers to restore government as the chief instigator of social change. His project was clearly inspired by the revolutionary nationalism of the early 20th century, which helped shape the early PRI. In time, the PRI would become respectful of republican forms while imposing political stability.

That required steady economic growth, which PRI governments had, most of the time. López Obrador cherished the same developmental model, but essentially to preserve his brand of clientelism. His system also needed growth, to pay for his army of subsidized voters. Where he differed from PRI’s traditions was in his disdain for formalities and institutions.

His predecessors were careful with their rhetoric and showed regard for the institutions (while quietly draining them of power). Yet López Obrador concentrated his own power — as opposed to that of the presidency. His government also set about dismantling what he called “neoliberalism,” or the economic reforms that had pulled Mexico from its abyss after the 1980s and led indirectly to political liberalization in the 1990s.

Significant differences

In her first months as president, Sheinbaum has followed her predecessor’s path but with significant differences. First and foremost, her personality: history and training are as distant from the old PRI as Mexicans have ever seen. While previous opposition governments from the National Action Party (PAN) followed the “old” system, Sheinbaum’s expressions of reverence for her predecessor López Obrador were, for a start, unprecedented in our political culture.

Second, unlike her predecessor, not only does she understand the importance of economic growth to combat poverty and inequality (central to her party’s project), but she is also determined to find ways of accelerating growth. Her strategy (in terms of budget, rhetoric and and institutional action) may seem at odds with this objective, but I think she is sincere; her dealing with U.S. President Donald Trump is a sign of this seriousness.

Sheinbaum is a socialist by conviction, and not, like López Obrador, of convenience.

Third, her security strategy has effectively recognized the enormous deficit left by López Obrador — as well as the he brutal cost of the “hugs not bullets” strategy, which ended up spurring the consolidation of organized crime in parts of the country and sectors of the economy.

Finally, she has been explicit in her conviction that the government has the responsibility not only to guide Mexico’s development, but also to regulate it and be the central factor in that process through public companies. In other words, she is a socialist by conviction — one who believes in the public sector — and not, like López Obrador, of convenience.

But not irreconcilable

These two visions are not irreconcilable, but they are very different. Both prioritize government over the market and public enterprise over private investment. Both have an anti-American streak, while recognizing the need to get on and make trade agreements with North America work for Mexico. In that sense at least, both are profoundly Mexican.

With Trump back in power, Mexico will have to decisively define itself.

As Revueltas says, “Mexico doesn’t really like the West. Nor does it love modernity. It does, however, find solace in the constant evocation of a mythical past, necessarily local and necessarily indigenous.” Mexicans are inculcated with an “outdated sense of victimhood,” he writes, that is “instilled early in schools and seasoned with the corresponding resentment, has given rise to a strange repudiation of our northern neighbors.”

López Obrador was able to govern without compromise. Today, with Trump back in power, Mexico will have to decisively define itself: Will it move toward the future or toward the past? The president will have to choose.