In the 18th century, John Adams stated that “liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.” This idea resonates when reflecting on Mexico’s present and future, where the relationship between democracy and culture is intrinsic. However, when culture and education are deficient, democracy becomes a simulation. I think that abstentionism, far from mere apathy, can solidify as a form of political resistance against a system that fails to address citizens’ needs, at least in Mexico.
George Washington described government as “force,” not always guided by reason and often subject to whims rather than the will to benefit the people. The judicial election of June 1, 2025, an unprecedented experiment to elect judges, magistrates, and ministers of the Judicial Branch by popular vote, marked a milestone in Mexico. Yet, with only 13% participation according to the National Electoral Institute (INE), reduced to 4% after discounting null votes, the process revealed failures in political communication, public perception, and citizen participation. Of 98 million registered voters, only about 4 million voted, far from a success. This outcome reflects, as Washington suggested, a governmental exercise of force leading to irresponsible acts.
The judicial election not only exposed the challenges of legitimizing a complex process amid polarization but also opened the door to interpreting abstentionism as conscious political resistance. I defended “not voting” as a punishment for political leaders who fail to represent citizens. This isn’t about ordering abstention but proposing that, if dissatisfied with political proposals, not voting is a legitimate choice that shouldn’t be stigmatized. It is an exercise of freedom.
Mexican analyst Carlos A. Pérez Ricart argued that, despite opposing the judicial reform, he would vote to choose the “least bad” candidates. From a logical and philosophical perspective, this stance seems contradictory: participating in a process one disagrees with perpetuates democratic simulation. The election results reinforce this idea. Low participation suggests that, in a climate seeking radical change, citizens might opt out of future elections, exerting pressure for structural transformations.
The judicial election was presented by the Fourth Transformation (4T) and former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador as a step toward democratizing the Judicial Branch, perceived as elitist and corrupt. With slogans like “the people decide,” it aimed to project popular sovereignty. However, the 4% participation revealed a disconnect between this narrative and the citizenry. The lack of a pedagogical communication strategy to explain the importance of choosing among thousands of candidates on extensive ballots caused disinterest and confusion. Surveys showed that distrust in the government fueled abstentionism. The opposition played a merely symbolic role, and it was the citizens, with their political logic, who chose not to participate.
Although the INE regulated propaganda, social media platforms like X, TikTok, and WhatsApp became unregulated spaces where candidates promoted themselves and, in some cases, discredited each other. Allegations of candidates with ties to organized crime undermined the process, suggesting that, far from eradicating corruption, the system could become an arm of organized crime. Senate President Gerardo Fernández Noroña acknowledged these profiles but shifted responsibility to the INE, highlighting deficient governmental communication. This lack of clarity limited citizens’ ability to distinguish reliable information from propaganda, reinforcing perceptions of an opaque process.
Abstentionism, beyond apathy, can be seen as a conscious rejection of legitimizing a process perceived as manipulated or inaccessible. The low turnout sent a clear message: the “democratization” narrative failed to mobilize the people. This challenges the 4T’s core idea, which relies on a massive popular mandate. While the government compared the abstentionism to prior consultations, the opposition used the low turnout to question the process’s legitimacy, positioning abstentionism as a significant political actor.
Imagine Mexico in 2030, after several elections marked by low participation. The 2025 election set a precedent: citizens, disillusioned by complexity, political control, and lack of clear information, begin to view abstentionism as collective protest. Citizen movements, amplified by digital platforms, could organize campaigns like “I don’t vote, I demand” or “No transparency, no participation,” framing abstentionism as a call for structural reforms, such as greater electoral transparency. If citizens realize that controlling congresses aligns federal leadership, change will be citizen-driven.
In this fictional scenario, abstentionism reaches historic lows, with participation below 10%. The 4T, led by a new generation, faces a legitimacy crisis as its popular sovereignty narrative crumbles. The fragmented opposition fails to mobilize voters, as distrust encompasses both the government and traditional parties. The INE’s civic campaigns are seen as co-optation attempts, reinforcing vote rejection. Social movements emerge, demanding a new democratic model combining direct participation with stricter accountability mechanisms, like binding referendums or independent citizen councils.
For abstentionism to be a tool for change, it must align with organized movements that translate non-voting into clear demands, such as transparent citizen platforms. Gilbert K. Chesterton wrote that a person should vote with their whole being, not a fraction of it. Yet, in places like Sinaloa, Jalisco, or Guanajuato, where organized crime threatens government legitimacy, social disillusionment could spark a revolution. Pro-voting campaigns, often romantic and ineffective, must better expose political actors’ failures to remove them from power.
This isn’t about urging people not to vote but understanding that abstentionism can spark a true citizen revolution. Mexico, a mature yet politically immature country, must find its place in the world. Voting for unviable reforms only perpetuates mediocrity. Let us be adults and build a nation where not voting becomes a tool for change, not resignation.
