We are facing a very important moment for all of Latin America: Claudia Sheinbaum’s inauguration in Mexico following the largest election in Mexico’s history. That’s why we spoke with Celeste Tossolini, a political scientist at the National University of Córdoba. She is Argentine, lives in Mexico, and has been closely following and commenting on the political situation and public opinion with great dedication. She holds a master’s degree from CIDE. She is also a public affairs consultant in Mexico.
First of all, for those who glance at newspaper front pages or see a few news clippings without being deeply immersed in the situation, there has been a landslide victory for Morena, the party led by Andrés Manuel López Obrador. After six years in office, this victory breaks with a trend—one that had been evident in all Latin American elections—of ruling parties suffering defeats. And not only does it break with this trend of ruling parties’ defeats, but at the same time, it has achieved—or is very close to achieving—a qualified majority in Congress. How do you view the election, Celeste, from your perspective?
The truth is that when people say the Mexican Republic is experiencing remarkable times, they’re not lying. What has happened in Mexico is truly historic. We had the largest elections in history—concurrent elections that combined federal and local races. That’s the first point. The second important point about these elections is that, for the first time in the 200-year history of the Mexican Republic, we have a female president. The third important point is that this female president is the president who received the most votes in all of Mexico’s history.
And the fourth point—and no less significant—is that voter turnout in these elections, both among young people and across many sectors of society, was very high and very strong in a country where voting is not mandatory. And I think this is also because Claudia is not just Claudia herself, but she is accompanied by—as they say here—a generational turnover involving young women in mayoral offices and seats as deputies and senators. So, for me, those are all the important points of this election.
And another point, more from a regional perspective, is that we’re facing a transition from the administration of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, which is ending its term with an approval rating of approximately 60%, a stable macroeconomy, a microeconomy that’s functioning very well, a strong peso—a government that, like all governments in recent years, went through a pandemic and is still ending its term on this footing.
So, what really strikes me about Mexico is that I see it as an island in the region; what’s happening there is an exceptional case. I’ve seen quite a few analyses—especially from the south—that suggest Mexico is lagging behind, that it’s arriving late to a “pink tide” that we in Argentina have already experienced. This analysis hasn’t come only from Argentina but from other places as well—from various other countries. I don’t think so; I don’t believe Mexico is lagging behind, but rather that it is going through its own distinct Mexican process and is essentially in a situation where the key issue we’re facing is a crisis of representation—Mexico is showing us how representation is done. We see this precisely in Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s 60% approval rating, and we also see it in the percentage of the vote Claudia Sheinbaum has received, which is much higher than Manuel López Obrador’s.
It’s not limited to Andrés Manuel López Obrador; it extends to Claudia as well. And Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s success is political, yes, but it’s also about communication. And to me, that seems to be the key to Morena’s success in power: the close connection the president has fostered with the Mexican people through his communication. And Claudia Sheinbaum is already beginning to establish a new leadership style.
There’s a very interesting profile about Claudia that was published in Anfibia magazine, detailing her life. I would have thought that Argentina would have the first president of Jewish descent, but Mexico beat us to it. Claudia Sheinbaum has overcome several challenges to reach this position, and she is undoubtedly a very interesting figure to keep in mind in her own right, as you said. That said, it’s interesting to understand a bit about the broader context of the election. I mean, Mexico doesn’t have mandatory voting; in Argentina, for example, we do. In Chile, it used to be optional and is now mandatory. In Mexico, as I understand it, voting has always been optional, and this surely shapes each election differently. What are your thoughts on this?
Yes, exactly. I believe that the institutional system determines the political landscape in any country. As you rightly pointed out, in Argentina we have mandatory voting. And another thing that strikes me when comparing it to Argentina is that we have four-year terms, whereas here they’re six-year terms with no possibility of reelection, and we also have runoffs, whereas here there’s nothing like that. So, even though the institutional system is federal, it’s quite different—here, voting isn’t mandatory, and yet people still turned out to vote. So, to me, that seems twice as significant.
They do, in fact, have six-year terms with no possibility of reelection. That is the system in Mexico, and in these elections—as I mentioned at the beginning—there were multiple races; the federal elections were held alongside the local elections.
In the federal elections, voters elected the president, senators, and deputies, and in the local elections, they elected governors, mayors, municipal presidents, and local deputies. In other words, it was essentially an exceptional election in terms of the number of offices up for election.
When people say it was the largest election in Mexico’s history, it’s because the number of people who voted was greater than in the past—which makes sense, given that the population is growing—or because the election simultaneously included more offices than usual.
There are two factors. First, voter turnout was higher, and second, the election itself was large-scale because it included all 32 states. This practice of holding concurrent elections is very new to the Mexican political system. It was first implemented in 2018, but did not include all 32 states. In this election, officials were elected in all 32 federal entities. That’s why it was the largest election in history, but it was also the election with the highest voter turnout. It has two key characteristics.
Claudia Sheinbaum led the field and may even have come close to 60%. Her main opponent was Xochiitl Galvez, an independent figure very close to the Partido de Acción Nacional. The opposition coalition Va por México is made up of the Partido de Acción Nacional (PAN), a center-right party; the PRI, a party with a long history and more than 70 years in government in Mexico; and the PRD, a left-wing split from the PRI from which Morena also emerged. In other words, it is quite a colorful alliance on the Mexican opposition side, and it managed to win approximately 27 or 28%.
What is your assessment of this opposition’s outlook? How do you see the opposition organizing itself during this campaign? What does the vote this opposition received represent? Was it below their expectations? Was it above their expectations? What can we say about them?
In particular, I believe Mexico is experiencing a somewhat inverse process on the left compared with the outsider phenomenon seen across the region. We see traditional parties losing elections throughout Latin America.
Basically, what’s happening in Mexico is that we have an outsider on the left, I would say. I interpret Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s leadership as having been punished by the traditional parties; even so, he took office, and his movement has now essentially achieved a very strong election result in renewing its mandate. What’s happening here in Mexico is somewhat the reverse: the traditional political class continues to lose elections, just as it does throughout the region, but here this is happening through the left. So, the PAM-PRI-PRD alliance that formed showed that even bringing all the traditional parties together was not enough to match Morena’s vote or the victory Morena is achieving. Thus, the traditional political forces continue to be the ones punished. I do not view Morena as a traditional political force, precisely because of the history of Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s rise to power.
It’s somewhat interesting to look at Xochitl Galvez’s case, because her campaign started off with a lot of fanfare and a certain degree of spectacle, but it seemed to lose steam as the electoral battle unfolded. It was as if she couldn’t find her niche. I’ve been following the analyses of colleagues who have a deeper understanding of and follow the Mexican election more closely, and they placed a lot of emphasis on this. It seems that Xochitl couldn’t quite figure out what kind of message she wanted to convey. That is, whether she was going to position herself as someone who said, “Everything Morena has done is fine, but we’re going to do it even better”—which was something she tried to do at times—or whether, at the same time, she was going to say, “No, no, they’re spending too much of our state money, and what we’re actually going to do is something else.” And since there’s a sort of confusion or complication when it comes to conveying a coherent message regarding how to position themselves against Morena, what can you tell us about this, Celeste?
Yes, I think Morena succeeded in this election by shifting the focus to all of its issues. The Mexican campaign began a year ago. Back in Argentina, we still didn’t have a president and were just days away from having to hold elections, while here the campaign had already begun a year earlier. And what was evident was precisely a strategy—that is, this was my interpretation—of initially positioning the candidates.
It started with the internal party primary. Here in Mexico, there are no open, simultaneous, and mandatory primaries, as there are in Argentina. That institutional process doesn’t exist, but Morena decided to implement it as a party. So, the opposition starts the election campaign three steps behind, because Morena says: “Well, I have these six candidates,” and by doing so, it begins to position its candidates. Morena’s candidates—for the presidency as well as for various other positions, such as governorships and heads of government—were selected through public opinion polls conducted by several consulting firms. So, whoever had the highest approval rating became the candidate.
Claudia won the poll nationwide, across Mexico, and Clara came in second in Mexico City, behind Omar Harfuch. And what essentially makes Clara the candidate for Mexico City is the gender quota, because Morena also established—in these internal elections—that while we have a quota for the legislature, we don’t have one for the executive branch. Morena nevertheless established a quota for the executive branch as well. So, they said: “Seven governorships will be elected, and four of those will be held by women.”
I think the opposition is starting the campaign with its reputation completely in tatters. First, because it’s starting late—Morena has gotten a head start on candidate positioning. And second, because, precisely as you also mentioned, Lucas, Morena has been very effective at communicating what the opposition was doing to the Mexican public—including, I believe, young people, not just older people but the youth as well.
Remember that the opposition coalition that emerged is essentially a contradiction in terms. I mean, the PAN joined forces with the PRI and the PRD—it’s basically a coalition that doesn’t add up.
What happened during that process was that Morena began its primary campaign, and the opposition didn’t have a candidate. So, there was talk that Xochitl would be the candidate for Mexico City. She even stood a good chance of winning in Mexico City. That’s when Andrés Manuel López Obrador, being the strategist that he is, began putting Xochitl in the spotlight and attacking her—which is why the opposition started turning its attention to her. Suddenly, overnight, Xochitl appeared as a candidate. At that point, Morena not only set the agenda; it also effectively determined the opposition’s candidacy. All of this began this way and continued in the same vein: Xóchitl didn’t know which way to go—one day she was a progressive, the next she was a Catholic—so we didn’t know which voters she was trying to reach. A communications campaign that was truly very poorly organized and strategically flawed, from start to finish. There’s a completely off-base interpretation. Wherever she positioned herself, there was a communication error. One day she was on the right, the next day on the left; one day she was friends with so-and-so, and the next day she was feuding with them.
It was truly a catastrophic campaign in terms of communication. At the same time, Morena ran a very polished campaign. Claudia was improving; I think that at first everyone compared her to Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and as you well know, when there’s such a strong, populist leader, it leaves a huge void. Andrés Manuel López Obrador is truly admirable; he is one of the strategists and communicators of this era. I even think he was the most-watched YouTuber last year, thanks to his morning press conferences. So, I think Claudia also faced a communication challenge there, but today we see a successful Claudia who has already overcome that challenge. She basically has her own strategy and her own brand, which is different from AMLO’s, but which is also proving very effective in terms of communication.
At the same time, there’s a third candidate who I think we shouldn’t overlook: Máynez, the candidate from Movimiento Ciudadano.
Jorge Máynez, who—in case you didn’t know—has gone viral in the weeks leading up to the election because he is the candidate for Movimiento Ciudadano, the third party in contention among the three alliances that ran in the Mexican election. Movimiento Ciudadano is identified with the color orange; it’s a party that originally split off from the PRI as well and that, through various debates, political actions, and communication efforts, managed to position itself better than initially expected, right?
Exactly. I think that if there is a viable opposition that can be formed now in preparation for the upcoming midterm elections—and also with a long-term perspective—it is Movimiento Ciudadano.
Movimiento Ciudadano has run a very effective campaign in political communication, especially online. As we know, Movimiento Ciudadano governs two states, Nuevo León and Jalisco, and that is where Movimiento Ciudadano’s leadership is based. I believe that from Monterrey, Nuevo León, Samuel García and his wife, Mariana, have strongly promoted everything related to digital political communication and the use of TikTok. That has basically helped Máynez run a very strong campaign in communication terms: he was initially projected to receive 5% of the vote but ended up with much more. So that is another point to consider: an opposition made up of completely weakened traditional parties and a third opposition candidate who is doing fairly well in third place, even though he did not catch the leading candidate. I think it is a phenomenon.
Mexico is, in terms of pockets of progressivism, a very unique phenomenon, but at the same time, what’s happening there isn’t very different from what’s happening in the rest of Latin America: people are turning their backs on traditional political parties.
We had a choice that included these three parties—or rather, these three coalitions. In the words of the renowned Mexican analyst Viri Ríos, it’s a contest of unpopularity. In that sense, do you think there’s simply a high level of trust in Morena, or do people just not trust the others as much?
No, I don’t agree with that concept; I think Morena has been able to effectively represent the population. Yes, I think there are disillusioned voters—obviously, you can’t govern without having some—but I don’t think they make up the vast majority of the vote.
I believe the vast majority voted for Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s successful administration and out of an expectation that the areas left unfinished would be taken further. And when I say “areas left unfinished,” I’m referring specifically to environmental and energy issues, particularly the water crisis. Second, security; and third, gender. Security also includes migration. So, those three points will be very important for Dr. Claudia Sheinbaum.
I don’t think this was about choosing the “lesser evil.” I participated as an international observer in the elections, so I was monitoring the polling stations on Election Day. I really enjoy talking to people, so I started interviewing them—obviously, without hindering the democratic process.
People had traveled an hour to get to the polling station and say, “I’m here to vote because this person represents me.” They saw me from Argentina and saw other colleagues from other places; Mexico is setting an example for the world. We’re proud to be Mexican, and I believe that Andrés Manuel López Obrador has, in fact, fostered that sentiment among the population—that for the first time, the people… There’s a saying—and here I’m going to bring up Bolivia, which has nothing to do with it, but it really resonates with me when thinking about this process—where Evo, at one point, gave a speech in Bolivia and said that Bolivia before Evo wasn’t really Bolivia and that no one was proud to be Bolivian. And I think something very similar is happening among the people with Andrés Manuel López Obrador. And I think Claudia provides a boost—obviously, Andrés Manuel López Obrador leaves a void in some areas, but Claudia provides a boost in others and creates a different agenda, and she’s really now establishing a leadership that’s having a powerful impact on the people. I interviewed many women on election day, and it really was historic that in Mexico there were two women running for president—and, of course, how could they not come out to vote?
So, I don’t think disillusionment is taking hold and specifically benefiting Morena, because Morena stands against the traditional political class. There will also be votes from people disillusioned with previous administrations, which obviously haven’t responded to the Mexican people, haven’t known how to communicate effectively, and haven’t been able to run an effective collective campaign—but I think that’s the general trend.
As far as I’m concerned, the vote disenchanted with Morena is now going to Movimiento Ciudadano, because those voters don’t like how Andrés Manuel López Obrador has governed—mainly on issues of violence, migration, and the environment. These are the most critical issues for the group that doesn’t feel represented and is turning directly to Movimiento Ciudadano. That’s my take on it.
I was looking at some data analysis on which sectors have voted for Morena, and it shows young people and large segments of the population—in other words, basically all age groups have voted for Morena, as well as all social classes, which is also quite novel. So, I’m not sure if I’d interpret this in terms of the concept Viri Ríos was proposing.
Who were the candidates in Mexico City, and what was the outcome regarding this so-called Plan C? What did Morena’s Plan C consist of?
Basically, Plan C is the path proposed by Andrés Manuel López Obrador to pass a set of reforms. There are 20 reforms, if I’m not mistaken. And the most relevant one, in my view, is the reform of the judiciary.
During his last year in office, Andrés Manuel López Obrador has frequently attacked the judiciary. Here in Mexico, unlike in Argentina, there are many autonomous bodies, and these autonomous bodies have emerged during AMLO’s administration as very strong centers of opposition. One of these is the judiciary. And precisely the most far-reaching reform that Andrés Manuel López Obrador wants to implement—which I personally find quite controversial and which has sparked a great deal of debate among academic circles, especially among lawyers—is that he essentially wants judges, justices, and magistrates to be elected by popular vote, thereby challenging the privileges enjoyed by the judiciary, which—much as we also see in Argentina—has become very distant from the people. And well, now what has basically happened is that they’ve secured a qualified majority in the Chamber of Deputies.
And then, regarding the situation in Mexico City—specifically the Mexico City election—Morena’s internal poll showed that the two candidates who stood out the most were Omar Harfuch and Clara Brugada. Clara Brugada was the second-most preferred candidate in the polls conducted by the party, but due to the gender quota—since there were seven gubernatorial races, including the race for head of government of Mexico City—the slot for Mexico City went to a woman. So it was Clara, who was second on that list.
Clara ran a campaign in Mexico City; I’d say she fell far short—she could have garnered many more votes—because, basically, Mexico City is the stronghold of the Mexican left. You could interpret it differently, of course, but the left has always won here; the right has never won. On the other hand, there was a campaign by Santiago Taboada, the PAN candidate, which was very strong in terms of communications—lots of media attacks and very well organized. So that threw the city’s outcome into doubt. In the final days, the discussion went something like this: “We don’t stand a chance in the presidential race; Claudia is going to win the presidency—we just don’t know by how much.” People were talking about a 10- to 20-point margin; no one imagined it would be 30—that shocked everyone. But, on the other hand, the city was within single digits in all the polls. So, yes, the city was the one in doubt, the one causing the most anxiety.
And what happened on election night was that Mexico City’s system crashed. So, reports of the system being hacked began to spread, but it turned out that after the election, Clara won the city—though not by as wide a margin as Claudia—and I think that’s precisely due to the digital political campaigns run by both candidates and all the effort Santiago Taboada has dedicated to digital strategy and communication.
And Clara Brugada also surely had to pay a price for problems that arose in the administration in recent months. I understand that the water issue was significant.
Yes, exactly. There’s also the issue with the subway collapse, which happened during Claudia’s administration—it was built by Marcelo Ebrard, but it collapsed under Claudia’s watch, and I think Clara Brugada is paying the price for it. Then there’s the water issue, as well as a lot of criticism regarding pollution and how it’s being managed in Mexico City.
I believe that if the world is in a climate crisis, Mexico is on the front line of that crisis—Mexico faces every possible environmental problem. There are earthquakes, environmental pollution, and a water crisis. So, Clara will face a major governance challenge during her term in Mexico City, with the right wing led by Santiago Taboada—which, although it lost the election, I believe has emerged significantly strengthened.
Mexico City alone has 9 million inhabitants. Within Mexico City there are some 16 boroughs, some of which have populations of 800,000, 700,000, or 600,000. In other words, they are larger than the largest municipalities in the Greater Buenos Aires suburbs, in Buenos Aires Province. To give a sense of the scale of the office of head of government, we are talking about 9 million people. When we talk about the boroughs, they are comparable in size to very large municipalities in Argentina. That is, an enormous and very important political contest is being fought there within Mexican politics. What are the main elements to consider when analyzing Mexico City’s political map?
I believe the main borough—the one with the most votes—is the one Clara Brugada previously governed. Clara Brugada was mayor of Iztapalapa. And that’s where a large portion of Mexico City’s voters is concentrated—I don’t recall the exact number, but it’s a significant portion.
Clara Brugada’s tenure in Iztapalapa was very well received; there, she launched one of the projects that has been recognized internationally by the UN—the Utopías project. And her government plan is, in part, to extend the vision embodied in that Utopías project to the rest of the city. On the other hand, Santiago Taboada had previously served as mayor of Benito Juárez.
For those unfamiliar with Mexico City, Benito Juárez is akin to Belgrano or Palermo—an area whose residents have very high purchasing power.
Precisely, we could describe Iztapalapa as a peripheral area—one Clara Brugada literally brought light to, providing street lighting and transportation that it did not have, and implementing the Utopías project, which is essentially a profound social transformation initiative with major social and primarily urban impacts. It is like a model of a modern city—that is how I interpret it from a public policy perspective—because it is integrated and conceived through socio-urban city models with gender, environmental, and social perspectives. On the other hand, as I was saying, there is Benito Juárez under Santiago Taboada. The main achievement of his administration, which he stressed repeatedly during the campaign, was public safety: Benito Juárez is the safest borough in Mexico City.
Did Morena make gains at the state level across Mexico?
Yes, exactly. In 2018, what’s happening with the Mexican political map is that it’s gradually turning red. If you look at what’s happened historically, ever since Morena emerged, in 2018 they won Chiapas, Veracruz, and other southern states. And in these elections, what happened was that the states where Movimiento Ciudadano won—such as Jalisco—remained in their hands. Morena made gains in Yucatán. That’s the most significant shift I’ve seen.
There were some allegations and disputes—especially in the state of Jalisco, where there were quite a few disputes—but it’s one of the most important municipalities in the country. However, the major shift I see is the advance into Yucatán.
How did you get into political science, Mexico, and consulting? You’re very young—you’re 25—and it’s really interesting that you’ve managed to build such a solid foundation so quickly.
Actually, I’m not from Córdoba City—though those listening may have already realized I’m from Córdoba—but I’m from the town of Bell Ville in the interior, and I went to study political science at the National University of Córdoba. At the time, I wanted to change the world, and I thought—and still believe—that politics is the primary tool for transforming a structurally unequal world that prevails across the entire continent.
Later, after studying at the National University of Córdoba—which was a very enriching experience for me—I decided to continue my studies. I wanted to keep studying; I didn’t feel I was sufficiently educated yet. I really liked Latin America, so I wanted to get out of Argentina for a little while, and that’s how I ended up applying for a master’s program in Mexico—one that was, at the time, ranked as the best master’s program in political science in the region. My greatest aspiration was to attend CIDE, the Center for Economic Research and Teaching. I also hoped to give what I had been doing a more international perspective. I arrived in Mexico on a CONAHCYT scholarship—a full-time scholarship to devote myself purely and exclusively to academia.
Having a scholarship to devote yourself solely to studying is rewarding—it’s really wonderful. Then I began to branch out, especially when the Argentine elections took place; I started covering the entire process Argentina was going through in the media, because everyone here wanted to know what was happening. That’s how I began to branch out into the media and consulting—also from within academia itself, from CIDE—and with the desire to contribute to politics from another angle as well. I’ve always loved everything surrounding politics, and that’s why I’m now working in the world of consulting and the media.
If you had to give us Argentines—who are here and want to understand a little more about Mexico—some recommendations, what would you suggest we read? It’s a truly vast country, with nearly three times the population of Argentina and a very long history. What would you recommend we look for to help us understand a little more about Mexico?
I have a great book that helped me understand the Mexican nation very well. It was written by a researcher at my institute, CIDE, and is titled “Cien años de espías y drogas” by Carlos A. Pérez Ricart. It helped me understand what it means to be in a country that is intertwined with the United States in every sense.
For those who want to stay up to date on everything Celeste Tosolini is analyzing, you can follow her on X @celestossolini and on TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@celestossolini.
