Who’s to blame for democratic backsliding: populists, presidents or dominant executives?

Perspective Chapter: The Crisis of Democracy in Mexico – Chronicling the Dismantling of Democratic Institutions

“…Based on the theoretical approaches presented above by Diamond and Gerschewski, we are undoubtedly facing a democratic regression in Mexico in view of the continuous dismantling of institutional checks and balances, evidenced by the reforms proposed to eliminate the INE and the INAI, for example, the systematic disqualification of the media and the judiciary, the use of official means (daily morning conference) to attack the neoliberal opposition that is the cause of all the country's ills. Coinciding with the diagnoses of The Economist magazine, the decline of democracy in Mexico is evident, and it is not, as Gerschewski warns, an erosion but a mainly endogenous phenomenon that subtly socializes the transformation of the democratic regime into an authoritarian one using the leading role of the populist leader who personifies the messiah who frees the people from their exploitation by the "conservative" elites Benasaglio and Kellam [20]. The leadership of President López Obrador has favored him to maintain his charisma and his narrative to concentrate power and discredit any dissidence and opposition to his will.…”

“…Benasaglio and Kellam [20] provide a penetrating analysis of the role of leaders and executives, especially those steeped in populist ideology, in facilitating and perpetuating democratic regression. Populist ideology, which frequently pivots around a narrative of "the people" against "the elites" and favors a concentration of power in a charismatic leader, creates a breeding ground for democratic deterioration.…”

“…Likewise, President López Obrador has resorted to populism to legitimize this democratic dismantling. Alluding to a dynamic of confrontation between the "good people" and the "fifis" (the elites), it has favored a concentration of power, seeking to weaken democratic safeguards such as autonomous bodies and the Supreme Court, under the argument of protecting the well-being of the town, following what was pointed out by Benasaglio and Kellam [20].…”