The theory behind it is impeccable: there is no need to wait for the end of a six-year term to condemn a president who has not done well or failed to achieve the ends for which he was elected by the people, nor his poor administration to be extended if he can be removed from office midway.
Its philosophical backing is also irrefutable: representative democracy is weak and has cracks that allow corruption, and it is far removed from the true content of the concept.
Democracy is the power of the people, the sovereign, the only one who has the power to set but also remove their rulers. It is real participatory democracy.
From a legal point of view it is safe: it has all the institutional backing for its realization. The three competing powers gave their assent: the legislature, the judiciary, the executive and also, with their logical reticence, the judicial and electoral institutions concerned.
With these attributes and guarantees, there is no doubt that the revocation of a mandate is an exercise in participatory democracy, through which citizens exercise their right to change an official due to a loss of confidence in his or her performance.
The application of this right, transformed into a legal obligation, is interpreted as empowering the citizen in his capacity as an active entity in society.
However, these judgments or this vision of a conventional participatory democracy are not unanimous among the numerous political factors that feel part of the process but at the same time are affected or not favored, such as: B. the four opposition parties: National Action, Institutional Revolutionaries, Democratic Revolutionaries and Civic Movement.
Its leaders, staunch opponents of constitutional reform that advocated revoking mandates and now enacting the referendum, define it as a biased government tool to mobilize loyal forces ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
Consequently, they opted for a strategy that hasn’t brought them many results so far: shifting their influence within a judiciary that the government says remains a hotbed of corruption, to minimize popular involvement and increase the credibility of the consultation undermine.
This way of thinking seems surreal, even though the leaders of these parties are convinced otherwise. The truth is that to date none of these groups has a charismatic figure who could rock the ruling party at a national election rally.
Realistically, without passion, some critics within the government itself said recently that the only force that can put an end to the Fourth Transformation government is the official parties themselves, due to internal contradictions, albeit with little smoke for now fleeing to the surface.
The opposition scorns the consultation, insults it, while the National Electoral Institute and the court spend all gunpowder to prevent it.
What they have caused is stoking a fire that could consume them both if the Congress of the Republic approves the constitutional reform that López Obrador will present immediately after the consultation. Let’s wait until then.
mem/lma