Judicial reform in Mexico: challenges and risks for the rule of law.

The current situation of justice in Mexico has become a hot topic, marked by controversy over the judicial reform pushed by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO). The judges of the Supreme Court of Justice face a crossroads: resign from their positions and retain their pensions, or risk competing for their positions in elections where the odds of keeping these benefits are slim. This proposal, which may seem like a legitimate offer, is actually a subtle pressure tool that has the potential to significantly alter the country's judicial system. The radical reform being discussed seeks not only to modify the way judges are elected but also to dismantle structures that have ensured some degree of judicial independence until now. AMLO, in the final days of his mandate, is determined to leave his mark on Mexican politics, pushing changes that could blur the lines between political and judicial power. This project, presented as a step towards a more participatory democracy, carries significant risks for the stability of the rule of law in Mexico. From the perspective of investors and citizens, concern is palpable. The reform could lead to an increase in arbitrariness and a lack of government oversight. While the Mexican judicial system was not perfect, the proposed changes seem to open the door to an even more volatile environment. The recent drop of the peso against the dollar is a clear indicator that the economic climate is deteriorating, which could generate greater uncertainty in the country. One of the most controversial aspects of the reform is the reduction of the requirements and experience needed to become a judge. This, along with the imposition of deadlines for resolving cases, could translate into hasty and poorly grounded decisions, leaving citizens even more exposed to potential abuses. The concern that pressure groups or even organized crime could influence the selection of judges is a risk that should not be underestimated. AMLO's vision, which seems to reject any form of bureaucracy that could challenge his authority, has led to a disdain for institutions that have acted as checks on his power. The Supreme Court has been a bastion of resistance to his initiatives, and it is understandable that the president seeks to dismantle this obstacle. However, this quest for absolute control could have disastrous consequences for governance in the country. The process of selecting new judges also poses a monumental challenge for Claudia Sheinbaum's administration, who will take command amid this storm. The task of choosing over 850 new judges from thousands of candidates could paralyze the judicial system, affecting both businesses and ordinary citizens. The indefinite strike of judicial employees is just a glimpse of the problems ahead. While there are valid reasons for judicial reform, such as the perception of inefficiency in the system, the way it is being carried out lacks a constructive and collaborative approach. Citizens' trust in the legal apparatus is fundamental, and any change that undermines it could result in greater distrust and social discontent. The popularity of the idea of electing magistrates should not blind policymakers, who must consider the long-term implications of these decisions. Concerns about judicial reform are not only internal; they have also caught the attention of business partners and foreign governments, especially those of the United States and Canada. The review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in 2026 presents an additional challenge for Sheinbaum, who will have to balance the demands of her trade allies with internal interests. In this context, the U.S. ambassador to Mexico has warned about the risks that the reform may pose to the state of democracy in the country. The president's reaction to these criticisms has been defensive, accusing those who express legitimate concerns about Mexico's judicial future of interventionism. The current situation poses a dilemma: how can a country seeking to fully integrate into the North American economy simultaneously carry out reforms that could erode its judicial system? In conclusion, the path that Mexico chooses regarding its judicial system will have profound repercussions for its future. Sheinbaum's administration faces a monumental challenge: finding a balance between the reform that many consider necessary and the protection of a rule of law that guarantees justice and stability. The decisions made in the coming months will be crucial in defining the country's course in the years to come. Undoubtedly, Mexico's fate will be shaped by its leaders' ability to navigate this complex situation without sacrificing essential democratic principles.