It is no small feat given how difficult it is to know how to play the role of former president with dignity, even less so when compared to others who have done really badly (egthe clown that Fox, the aspiring actor, ended up becoming socialite (which has been Peña Nieto). And not to mention the toothache that, most likely, López Obrador will be.
Zedillo had to manage the worst economic crisis that Mexico had ever experienced (1994-1995) after the Great Depression and before the Covid pandemic. He was also the president of the definitive reforms in judicial (1994) and electoral (1996) matters, which ended up promoting the transition to democracy. In his midterm election (1997) the PRI lost, for the first time, the majority in the Chamber of Deputies and the leadership of the government of the Federal District. When his six-year term began, there were only 2 opposition governors (both from the PAN); when he finished, there were 12 (7 from the PAN and 5 from the PRD). And in the 2000 election, he finally recognized the defeat of the PRI and handed the presidential sash to an opposition candidate.
He can be criticized for many things (e.g., the “December mistake”; his handling of the conflict in Chiapas, the massacres in Acteal or Aguas Blancas; the Fobaproa; the Afores; the privatizations in infrastructure, energy or mines) but to be honest, in good faith, his commitment to the democratization of the Mexican political system cannot be denied. Faced with the attack that López Obrador’s judicial reform represents against that democratic legacy (and there is a very broad consensus in this sense in the legal profession, among national and foreign experts, even among specialists in democratic regression) the former president is right to come out and defend it. And to do so, moreover, with such clarity, conviction and forcefulness.
The response of Obradorism is no less regrettable for being predictable. Sheinbaum said that Zedillo is a “representative of the old regime” and has no “moral authority”; López Obrador, that “it is laughable, he makes a fool of himself.” Neither of them even tried to refute his arguments, both limited themselves to discrediting him personally and fanning the flames of grievance against a past as generic as it is simplified. Their spokesmen and supporters in the media, as we also know, were quick to follow suit.
