Change of Direction

June 29, 2025

Luis Rubio

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle,” wrote George Orwell. He wasn’t talking about everyday life, but about the world of politics, where, he continued, “it is quite easy for the part to be perceived as greater than the whole, or for two objects to be in the same place simultaneously.” To illustrate the paradox, Orwell wrote that most well-read people in the 1930s believed it was necessary to respond to Nazi Germany’s rearmament, yet at the same time, those very same people opposed the idea of England preparing for a potential military confrontation.

In recent years, we Mexicans have had a radical change of direction right in front of our noses, without the majority of the population showing any sign of concern. The country that aspired to be wealthy and successful, that saw the modernity present in other parts of the world as a model to follow, ceased to exist —at least from the day President López Obrador canceled Mexico City’s new airport. That decision, which the former president illustrated with a book titled Who Rules Here? by his side, revealing his true objective, was the moment the country entered a downward spiral that, sooner or later, will demand its toll.

I quote Orwell’s essay on the nose because Mexico and Mexicans are living a similar paradox. The majority of the population —even many who would never vote for Morena— view President Sheinbaum’s administration favorably, while an overwhelming majority of analysts and observers from all areas —finance, politics, economics, public opinion, foreign governments, journalists—are deeply concerned about the trends emerging in the country’s economy and the fate of its institutions. The country is split between two contrasting visions that reflect both different ways of viewing the world and different perspectives on what each of these groups observes and anticipates for the future.

Hypothetically speaking, it is reasonable to assume that a combination of effective presidential leadership—especially in dealings with the U.S. president—and increased consumer capacity, stemming from AMLO’s social programs, are more than sufficient reasons for most people to feel satisfied, thus contributing to the president’s high popularity. On the other hand, it is equally valid to acknowledge the wide range of thoughtful analyses from experts in various social and scientific fields. The point is that two distinct realities are being lived, leading to opposing conclusions. Time will tell which was correct.

What no one can deny is that the country has been experiencing a sharp change of direction, much of which solidified through a series of reforms pushed by the former president in his last month in office and now implemented diligently by the current government—without regard for the implications not just for the country’s long-term future, but even for the course of this very presidential term.

I see at least three sets of changes that warrant careful attention. First, the abandonment of any objective —however imaginary— of improving quality of life or national development. Instead of aspiring to modernity, a goal pursued for decades, the only thing that now satisfies the population and current leaders is an increase in consumption capacity tied to loyalty to the ruling party. Second, the acceptance of discretionary powers (and its accompanying risk of arbitrariness) in governmental decisions due to the disappearance of institutions and checks and balances, alongside the adoption of ever more regulations and, above all, an increasingly prohibitionist culture. Lastly, the third group of changes stems from the “new” definition of democracy taking root in the country—one that assumes a single day’s vote grants a license to impose any decision on the entire citizenry. By the latter I mean: the government won an election, but this allowed it to take absolute control of the legislative branch and is now on its way to taking control of the judiciary —all with little concern or respect for the fact that not all citizens voted for that.

The strategy behind the change in direction is clear and concise: first capture existing institutions, take control of the bureaucratic structure, intimidate the media and non-governmental institutions, and appoint (through supposedly democratic elections) the judicial branch. The ulterior goal, as shown by the 2024 electoral process, is to win elections by overwhelming margins and ensure that even if future elections are lost, the structure of loyalty remains intact, maintaining the pre-established agenda.

The objective is clear. The only remaining questions are: where will the government revenue come from to sustain this clientelist structure? And how will loyalty be preserved if the economy falters? The clash of visions will persist as long as the status quo holds. When that changes, everything will be up in the air.