Mexicos

Voting is fundamental to democracy, but here in the U.S. people don’t vote very much. In December, Miami held a runoff election for mayor, and all of 37,000 voters turned out. This was 2,000 fewer people than voted in comparable off-cycle elections in Apizaco, a small city in the mountains of central Mexico. It was no blip: The median turnout in U.S. city elections is 26% of the voting age population. In Mexico, by contrast, turnout rarely dips below 50%, and unglamorous small-town elections attract higher numbers, often more than 70% of the citizenry.

Nevertheless, the United States disdains Mexico as a pale shadow of its own democracy. Mexican elections are written off as corrupt, violent and unrepresentative. This was part-true for much of the last century, when versions of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional ruled without interruption for 71 years. Mexicans were “oriented” to vote by party managers, fined if they didn’t, violently dissuaded from voting for dissidents, disenfranchised with stuffed ballot boxes. Impressive turnouts were coerced. Even today, decades after the arrival of a competitive democracy, the violence persists. Thirty-four candidates were murdered in the 2024 elections.

Yet Mexicans also vote in impressive numbers because they have always cared profoundly about representative politics, and particularly at a local level. Many of those large turnouts in authoritarian Mexico were crowds of everyday people struggling to elect legitimate authorities in the teeth of a rigged system. Those struggles meant that sometimes they won.

Historical outcomes are revealing. More than 200 years of elections in Mexico have given results significantly more diverse and representative than those of the United States. In 2024 Mexicans elected the first female president in North American history, climate scientist Claudia Sheinbaum. In 1829 Mexicans elected the first Black president in North American history, mule driver Vicente Guerrero. In 1856 they elected lawyer Benito Juárez as the only Indigenous president in North American history.

The United States was born committed to rule by freely elected representatives. “We the people” is a good start to a piece of political writing and a good start to a country. When the French sociologist Aléxis de Tocqueville visited New England in the 1820s he was struck by how the citizens of small towns argued out their differences and came up with solutions together. The federal republic was a scaling up of those habits. The sum of those people’s beliefs, institutions and bloody-mindedness, Tocqueville wrote, was democracy in America.

The peoples of the United Mexican States, founded in 1824 after gaining independence from Spain, shared those ambitions. Mexico was likewise a federal republic, its rulers elected, its powers divided among executive, legislature and judiciary. As in the U.S., the female half of the population was excluded. But Mexico’s founders were ahead of ours in one sine qua non of genuine democracy: racial equality. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton claimed that “to all general purposes we have uniformly been one people; each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection.” That was a self-evident untruth, because Black and Indigenous peoples were not included.

In Mexico, people of color had some standing from the founding onward. Mexican history has its own wrenching tragedies of race: the slavery of West Africans, the ethnocides of the North, the systematic impoverishment of peoples like the Maya of Chiapas, a eugenic hunger for white migration. But from the colonial outset Black people were acknowledged to be fully human, their enslavers’ abuses punished, their lynching unknown. Many Indigenous peoples preserved their language, lands and governments over centuries. Asians joined them; the first Japanese ambassador arrived in 1614. Mexico was the world’s first great melting pot.

So the founders of the United Mexican States made no formal distinction among the multitudes they contained. Their leaders in the War of Independence abolished slavery. Their post-independence congress mandated “the equality of civil rights to all free inhabitants of the empire, whatever their origin.” The 1824 Constitution extended the vote to every adult male. All would be free, all equal under law and all voters with a stake in the outcome.

In 1917 Mexicans passed the most progressive constitution in the world following their own revolution. It mandated an eight-hour working day, a minimum wage, equal salaries for men and women, and paid maternity leave. While women didn’t get the vote until the 1950s, they exercised notable power behind the scenes; even the most conservative parties had female organizers and supporters. Progressive social policies inspired leaders across the hemisphere, including Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Three core beliefs inspire Mexicans to vote. They believe that face-to-face freedom, embedded in the power and autonomy of the municipio libre, the free county, is sacrosanct. And they believe that to preserve communal freedom, whether from federal abuse or oligarchs, requires two things, sufragio efectivo y no reelección; in historian John Womack’s translation, “a real vote and no boss rule.”

Historically enough Mexicans — of all political stripes, from conservatives to anarchists — cared about those three beliefs to fight in elections tooth and nail.

Alongside the belief that voting is a duty comes clear-eyed rejection of boss rule. While Mexican Mayor Daleys are historically ubiquitous — they sparked the Mexican Revolution — there are none of the national dynasties that beset U.S. politics. The great dictator Porfirio Díaz left his ambitious nephew struggling to make army captain for eighteen years. Dynastic power befits monarchies, not democracies, and Mexicans know it.

Neither do Mexican politicians enjoy the unfettered power of their American counterparts to buy elections. Parties are publicly funded, under a system designed to promote fairness. Each party gets a certain amount from the state: 30% of that amount is the same for all, the remaining 70% proportional to their success in the previous elections. Private donations are transparent, regulated and capped at a very low level, on paper at least. The system unduly favors incumbents, and illegal, off-books funding is rife. Yet the need for sizable contributions to be covert keeps election results out of the hands of the likes of Elon Musk. A national watchdog and a diverse and competent press ensure it.

Sheinbaum spent $18 million winning her presidential election. In losing New York City’s mayoral election, Andrew Cuomo spent three times as much. A single oligarch, Michael Bloomberg, chipped in $13 million. Mexican elections are sometimes bought and sold, but never with the obscene unconcern prevalent in the U.S. since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

Republics that endure rely on egalitarian beliefs, hard-nosed pragmatism, unwritten rules of decency and written rules of institutions — and unrelenting struggle against all who break those rules. Democracy relies on people of all races being recognized as fully human and guaranteed access to the ballot. It then relies on those people turning up to vote whenever given the chance. Mexicans have repeatedly demonstrated how deeply they know that across their history, against sometimes heavy odds. Their government documents come stamped with the revolutionary slogan sufragio efectivo y no reelección, a real vote and no boss rule, as a reminder. We could use one ourselves.

Paul Gillingham, a professor of history at Northwestern University, is the author of “Mexico: A 500-Year History.”

Feb. 2 (UPI) — A network of environmental organizations warned about environmental and social risks two megatourism projects promoted by Royal Caribbean could generate on the island of Cozumel and in the coastal town of Mahahual, and urged federal authorities to deny environmental permits for both.

The projects, known as Royal Beach Club in Cozumel and Perfect Day in Mahahual are under review by the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources after the company submitted its Environmental Impact Statements between December and January.

According to the organizations, both projects are based on a large-scale tourism model intended to concentrate massive flows of visitors over very short periods.

For Mahahual, a community of fewer than 3,000 residents, Royal Caribbean plans to receive more than 21,000 tourists per day, which the groups say would place disproportionate environmental pressure on fragile coastal ecosystems.

The warning came from Grupo Gema del Mayab, Selvame MX, Territorios Diversos para la Vida, the Mexican Civil Council for Sustainable Forestry, the Citizen Collective of Cozumel Island, the Salvemos Mahahual Collective, Alianza para la Defensa Ambiental A.C., Defendiendo el Derecho a un Medio Ambiente Sano A.C., Futuros Indígenas and Greenpeace México A.C.

The organizations argue that the Perfect Day megaproject poses a direct threat to the mangroves of Mahahual, considered key to coastal protection and ecological balance, as well as to species such as the jaguar and to sea turtle nesting areas.

They also warn of potential impacts on the Mexican Caribbean reef and restrictions on public access to beaches.

One of the issues described as “highly concerning” is that the company is allegedly promoting both projects as if they already had environmental authorizations, even though the administrative procedures have not been completed.

On Thursday, a District Court in Quintana Roo granted a provisional suspension as part of a lawsuit filed by Defendiendo el Derecho a un Medio Ambiente Sano A.C. against actions by municipal and state authorities that approved land-use changes on more than 264 acres in Mahahual for the Perfect Day project.

The organizations argue that the experience in northern Quintana Roo — in areas such as Cancun — shows that intensive tourism has caused irreversible environmental damage, de facto privatization of the coastline and economic benefits concentrated in a few actors, while local communities bear the social and ecological costs.

They stress that the projects cannot be evaluated in isolation, as the Yucatan Peninsula faces cumulative pressures stemming from accelerated urban growth, other large infrastructure projects and the effects of climate change.

The groups called on the secretariat to guarantee a “strict and transparent” environmental evaluation process, with effective participation by local communities and application of the precautionary principle established under Mexican law. They also requested that no project be authorized if it puts the natural heritage of the Mexican Caribbean and the Maya Forest at risk.

“The Maya Forest is not an amusement park,” the organizations said, insisting that the region must be prioritized for the country’s environmental and cultural conservation.

Jan. 27 (UPI) — Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Tuesday that oil shipments to Cuba have been suspended, reflecting a decision made by Petróleos Mexicanos within the framework of its contractual relationship with the island.

During her morning news conference at the National Palace, Sheinbaum was asked about press reports indicating that Pemex had canceled a crude shipment bound for Cuba scheduled for January.

The president did not deny the suspension, but stressed that it is up to the state-owned company to decide when and how shipments are carried out.

“It is a sovereign decision, and it is made at the time deemed necessary,” she said when questioned about the published information.

Sheinbaum said decisions related to energy supplies to Cuba are part of Pemex’s operational and contractual assessments. She emphasized that Mexico’s policy toward the island is neither new nor exclusive to her administration.

She noted that previous governments maintained different types of energy ties with Cuba, even amid political disagreements.

“From the first blockade of Cuba, Mexico was the only country that voted against it, and since then it has maintained communication and different types of relations with the island,” she said.

The president also framed the bilateral relationship within a historical tradition of Mexican foreign policy, which has maintained ties with Cuba since the early years of the economic embargo imposed by the United States.

“Beyond positions toward whichever Cuban government is in power, the relationship is with the peoples, and that is a fundamental principle of Mexican foreign policy,” Sheinbaum said.

In that context, Sheinbaum said the economic blockade has generated supply problems on the island and that Mexico has maintained a policy of solidarity with the Cuban people over time.

She added that any future decision on resuming shipments will be communicated in a timely manner by the relevant authorities.

Asked whether Mexico could play an intermediary role between Cuba and the United States in the event of bilateral tensions, the president said such initiatives can only move forward if both parties request them, and reiterated that Mexico will continue to promote dialogue and the peaceful resolution of international differences.

Mexico consolidated its position in 2025 as Cuba’s main oil supplier, covering approximately 44% of the island’s crude imports and displacing Venezuela, with an average of more than 12,000 barrels per day.

With Venezuela’s exit as a key supplier following the capture of President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3 by U.S. military forces, Mexico assumed a central role in supplying the island’s energy needs.

As a result, in Cuba the decision by Mexico could have a significant impact on its already fragile energy situation, by reducing one of the external sources that had helped ease the island’s fuel deficit.

The measure could translate into increased blackouts, transportation restrictions and disruptions to key sectors such as industry and services, in a context marked by a shortage of foreign currency and difficulties accessing alternative suppliers on the international market due to the blockade that has affected the island for decades.