Skip to footer

Mexico's high-stakes presidential vote: 4 questions answered

Oil-rich Mexico offers some of the best tourist destinations on the planet, strong trade relations with the United States, and a young and increasingly educated population. But it is mired in a deadly drug war that threatens its citizens, its democracy, and its ability to promote a safe climate for international investors. Citizen inequality remains high as growth has lagged, and institutions are weak. Mexicans head to the polls July 1 to elect a new president, and their next leader will have to tackle these complex questions if the country is to reach its potential.

Henry Romero/REUTERS
Thousands of supporters of leftist presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador gather at Zocalo Square for his last campaign rally in Mexico City June 27. Lopez Obrador, a former mayor of Mexico City who narrowly lost the 2006 election to Felipe Calderon, is the closest rival to frontrunner Enrique Pena Nieto.

Can the violence be curbed?

Security is the nation’s most visible problem and will be the next president’s greatest challenge. Violence not only threatens the safety of Mexican citizens, but also government effectiveness, the way the world perceives Mexico, and how much investors are willing to invest there. Despite a military-led effort by President Felipe Calderón, heartily backed in morale and muscle by the United States, drug violence has surged, resulting in 50,000 deaths under Mr. Calderón’s administration.

Mexico needs to put more resources into revamping its judicial system and creating a trustworthy police apparatus that is not only more effective at investigating crimes but is one that society trusts. “As long as prosecutions are ineffective, slow, and corrupt, it affects so many areas of life in Mexico,” says Eric Olson, a Mexico expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

1 of 4
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.