Why the FT has got Mexico's new government wrong: eight misleading arguments debunked

A response to Michael Stott's September 25th article. https://www.ft.com/content/c28020e0-d4ef-4c58-b7b8-7b63521b36e5

Michael Stott's article offers a narrow and biased reading of Mexico's recent political and economic shifts under President López Obrador and his successor, Claudia Sheinbaum. His analysis overlooks the broader context of Mexico's transformation and misrepresents its consequences. Below are eight points where the piece falls significantly short.

1. Mischaracterization of NAFTA:

Stott's claim that US and Canadian investment in Mexico was primarily about fostering democracy and economic growth for Mexico's benefit is misleading. NAFTA was not a charitable project. It created a more integrated North American market that gave the US and Canada access to cheaper labor and manufacturing capacity. Mexico's participation served the economic interests of its northern neighbors, allowing them to offshore production while maintaining regional proximity and supply-chain stability.

2. Misinterpretation of Mexico's economic and political reforms:

The article credits Ernesto Zedillo with laying the groundwork for democracy while glossing over the complexities of his presidency. Zedillo came to power under exceptional circumstances (following the assassination of his predecessor), inheriting a turbulent political environment. His policies brought a degree of stability but were shaped entirely by the neoliberal consensus of the 1990s. Economic growth came with severe distributional failures: prosperity concentrated in northern industrial regions while large swaths of the country remained impoverished. Focusing on GDP growth without accounting for who captured those gains is not serious analysis.

3. Simplistic comparison of Sheinbaum and AMLO:

Stott portrays Sheinbaum as a carbon copy of López Obrador, which ignores meaningful differences in leadership style and policy emphasis. Sheinbaum shares a commitment to social transformation, but her approach reflects a distinct perspective shaped by Mexico's evolving political landscape. Her critique of three and a half decades of neoliberalism addresses real failures, including job displacement and widening inequality, that millions of Mexicans lived through under NAFTA.

4. Misrepresentation of military and judicial reforms:

The article criticizes judicial reform and the military's expanded economic role without engaging with the historical reasons for either. Mexico's judiciary has long been captured by special interests; electing judges is a genuinely debated mechanism for breaking that capture. The military's expanded role is a response to severe public security failures in which the civilian police proved structurally unable to contain organized crime. These policies are controversial, but they emerge from conditions that demand unconventional responses.

5. Overemphasis on relations with foreign actors:

Stott treats Sheinbaum's invitation to Vladimir Putin as diplomatically significant, when in fact Mexico's foreign policy has been consistently non-interventionist and extends invitations to all nations with which it maintains diplomatic relations. Singling out Russia while ignoring the dozens of other invitations distorts the picture and misrepresents Mexico's longstanding foreign policy tradition.

6. Dismissal of the democratic mandate:

The article frames López Obrador's and Sheinbaum's policies as threats to democracy while brushing aside the fact that both were elected with large mandates from a population seeking change. Their elections reflect deep public dissatisfaction with the corruption and inequality that accumulated under prior administrations. That is not tyranny; that is electoral democracy working as intended.

7. Economic misrepresentation:

Stott reads peso depreciation as a signal of declining investor confidence. This ignores Mexico's record-high foreign reserves and continued foreign direct investment in key sectors. The depreciation more plausibly reflects transitional uncertainty than any structural economic weakness.

8. Misreading of US-Mexico relations:

The article interprets Washington's measured response as tacit endorsement of Sheinbaum's policies. In reality, the US is managing a relationship of considerable strategic complexity, including regional migration flows and supply-chain integration. The bilateral relationship cannot be reduced to a binary of intervention versus inaction.

Overall, Stott's piece lacks the analytical depth Mexico's current moment requires. His framing of democratic evolution is reductive and fails to account for the historical, economic, and social conditions that have shaped the country's trajectory. The appropriate lens is not Cold War democracy versus tyranny; it is a serious engagement with the legitimate grievances and structural contradictions driving Mexico's ongoing transformation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Was NAFTA designed primarily to benefit Mexico?

No. NAFTA served the strategic and economic interests of all three signatories. It gave the US and Canada access to cheaper labor and regional manufacturing capacity; Mexico's participation was necessary for supply-chain integration, not a gesture of benevolence toward Mexican development.

Does Sheinbaum's election represent a threat to Mexican democracy?

The evidence points the other way. Sheinbaum won a clear democratic mandate from voters seeking an alternative to three decades of neoliberal policy that concentrated wealth and failed to address systemic corruption and inequality.

What explains the Mexican peso's depreciation under the new government?

Transitional uncertainty is the more credible explanation. Mexico maintains record-high foreign reserves and continues to attract foreign investment in key sectors, which argues against structural economic deterioration.