Mexico is undergoing a constitutional and institutional crisis that is eroding its already fragile democracy. This is due to a recently approved constitutional reform that jeopardises checks and balances, the division of powers, the rule of law, judicial independence and democracy itself. (For more context of this reform, please read this article by Mariana De Lucio on the Blavatnik School of Government blog.)

These constitutional reforms have resulted in mass resignations among federal judges and even Supreme Court justices, who are stepping down from the judiciary. They will be replaced by candidates elected through popular votes, whose requirements to run for these positions are only holding a law degree with a minimum average of 8 out of 10 and providing five letters of recommendation.

This fight for protecting democracy has led to authorities, including the executive and legislative branches, disregarding judicial rulings and, in essence, the Constitution itself.

To discuss this situation further, we invited Lilia Monica Lopez Benitez, a current Counselor of Mexico's Federal Judiciary, with over 34 years of experience in the system. Her career includes roles as a federal district and circuit judge. During these challenging times, Lilia Monica has been a strong advocate against the erosion of democracy and for the protection of the separation of powers. As a woman, her leadership has inspired many Mexicans who are eager to help rebuild the democracy that has been weakened.

During the week this episode was recorded, Lilia Mónica, in an act of dignity and integrity, submitted her withdrawal to the Senate regarding her candidacy in the judges' elections. She stated:"I withdraw because, according to democratic and republican principles, the Judicial Reform has weakened the most sacred pact of the Union: to ensure the balance of powers and to protect human rights. This reform contravenes the principle of the law's progressivity and undermines the patriotic values of the common good and national interest."

When Lilia Mónica tried to present her withdrawal letter, she was denied entry to the Senate and subsequently escorted out by security, illustrating the unjust treatment and the restriction of freedom of speech judges face when they speak out.

[Mariana De Lucio] (0:00 - 2:44)

Just as a warning advice, we are Spanish speakers, which means that English is not our first language. So please bear with us with our English. Thank you.

Hello, everyone. This is Mariana, a former student from BSG who brings you today a passive topic for two main reasons. Firstly, because Mexico is facing one of the biggest challenges throughout its modern history.

And secondly, because international community has to pay attention. Democracy backsliding is a trend throughout the world. And unfortunately, Mexico is barely coping with it.

Democracy all around the world should be warned by the Mexican case. So whenever similar warning signs arise, then it's time to stand up for democracy. As an introduction, a few months ago, I wrote about the Mexican situation in the BSG blog, warning that a constitutional reform was proposed by former president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

Frustrated by the judiciary's checks and balances, Obrador launched a campaign against the judiciary. Jonathan Wolf, professor at the School of Government notes in the lure of fascism, that authoritarian leaders who believe they have a mandate for radical change become frustrated with institutional checks under power, portraying judges, for instance, as enemies of the people. The constitutional reform unfortunately recently passed by the Congress relies on electing judges by popular vote, which risks undermining judicial impartiality and independence as judges may cater to popular opinions rather than upholding the law.

The whole reform damages our democracy, but it also represents a move that could set a dangerous precedent for the region by emboldening leaders who sees checks and balances as obstacles. To explore this topic further, we have a very special guest today, Lilia Monica Lopez Benitez, a federal judge with 30 years of experience and currently a member of the Mexican Council of the Judicature. Her insights will shed light on the perilous idea of electing judges, navigating crisis and importance of effective female leadership during challenging times.

Without further ado, please join me in welcoming Lilia Monica Lopez Benitez.

[Lilia Mónica López Benítez] (2:45 - 3:35)

Thank you very much, Mariana, for this invitation. For me, it is more than important to connect with the students from around the world, especially those studying at Oxford, one of the most prestigious universities in the world. Indeed, I believe that today it is very important to talk about this misnamed judicial reform that was presented by the president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, which has plunged the country into a deep crisis of justice, especially at this historical moment when democracy is being lost, where the checks and balances provided by the judiciary are being eliminated so that the ruling party can have absolute control over all Mexican institutions.

[Mariana De Lucio] (3:36 - 4:03)

Thank you very much, Lilia Monica. Please tell us about yourself and your role. You have been working in the judicial system for over 30 years, starting from the bottom and rising to a permanent position.

In a country known for its machismo, gender inequality, and violence against women, what has your journey been like in achieving such a high role in a system that has often marginalized women? Is the judicial system today the same as the one you encountered when you began your career?

[Lilia Mónica López Benítez] (4:04 - 6:51)

In my personal case, I have navigated all the layers of the judicial power to become, today, a member of the Federal Judiciary Council. I began, and I think it's worth highlighting, in the lowest position in the judicial career, which is called judicial officer. This is a role where we assist litigators who propose the rulings or agreements that should respond to the request of the individuals seeking justice before the judges.

It is important to mention that when I started very young in this institution, there were hardly any female judges, just a few, practically countable on one hand. It's crucial to emphasize that our system is federal, and in this sense, the federal judiciary has a presence all over the 32 states of the republic. At that time, women judges numbered around 10, and they were mostly concentrated in Mexico City, the capital.

I experienced a time when it was difficult to hire women because, at that time, the system forced us to take care of our children and attend to household matters which was not appealing to male judges. On many occasions, when I applied for jobs, judges would tell me, I don't like to work with women. Nevertheless, I always had the determination to keep advancing in the judicial career, and I carved my path to move up through all levels of the judicial career, including becoming a district judge and circuit judge.

My current role as a council member comes from an affirmative action initiative that has only recently been implemented in the Mexican judiciary. Perhaps about five years ago, we aimed to empower women to break those glass ceilings and become heads of jurisdictional bodies. However, we still see that our institution has approximately 26% women serving as district judge and circuit judges, meaning there is still much to be done to achieve gender parity.

Of course, the path for us has not been easy, as besides our judicial duties, we must fight against gender stereotypes, against the machismo that is still prevalent in our country, Mexico, and especially against the machismo that dominates our institution because men don't know when to relinquish power.

[Mariana De Lucio] (6:52 - 7:05)

Thank you for your response. How do you see the new constitutional amendment impacting the advancement of gender equality within the judicial system? I mean, will it uphold the progress that has been made, or do you foresee any potential setbacks?

I believe this constitutional reform is like a bulldozer that crushes the dreams and the tortuous path that women have followed to reach decision-making positions. It undoubtedly impacts the issue of gender perspective because this reform does not include any type of affirmative action for us women. Moreover, considering the disproportionality that exists between women and men in our institution, we observe that with this unfortunate ruffle you mentioned before, and that we witnessed a few days ago in the country, women and men were treated equally for leaving their positions in 2025 and 2027, half and half.

This oversight will undoubtedly result in new setbacks that will be challenging to reverse. And it is likely that older generation like mine will not witness this necessary change in our reality. Well, hopefully my generation will witness it.

So Lilia Monica, what's really this reform about? The judicial reform is based on a false narrative that was fueled by the previous president of Mexico. He believed that all judges in Mexico were corrupt, that we serve political and economic power, but did not serve anything to the population.

This is based on false premises because judges do not engage in activities aimed at satisfying the needs of any specific group, rather we make decision basis on cases where there is a dispute between parties and we must act with impartiality and independence, fundamental guarantees in the development of our role. When one examines the initial statement of reason that led to do the reform, we can see false claims, such as the assertion that the Judiciary Council where I currently work, don't sanction judges. This is a lie because we have a disciplinary commission which I currently chair, where we analyze all misbehaviors from administrative perspective, not only of judges, but of everyone working in the institution according to the principles that govern us to prevent corruption and uphold judicial independence.

If necessary, we initiate procedures that can result in sanctions. Also, we have various oversight controls that are applied throughout our professional activities and we are constantly evaluated. Basically, there is a whole system that aims to safeguard effective public servants in the judiciary.

Based on this false premise, it was decided that all federal and local judges have to leave the institution, meaning we are being dismissed from our position to bring in new people elected by popular vote. We just had a change in government. Now, for the first time, a woman leads the country who has also ignored the demands of the judicial workforce and the judges.

With this new reform to become a district judge, it is sufficient for candidates to have completed a law degree, achieved an average GPA of eight out of 10, and obtained five letters of recommendation from their neighbors eligible for the ballot and voted on by the people. Furthermore, it is claimed that citizens vote to change the judiciary at the polls on June 2nd, which is a lie. What we voted on the past election was who will lead our Mexico and who will accompany this first woman president in various roles.

Basically, we voted for our representatives and the president. In other words, we are starting from erroneous foundations to believe that popular vote will be a panacea for changing the judicial system. The reality is that this reform does not address systemic issues that harm justice.

It doesn't consider the entire judicial system, which includes not only judges, but also police, prosecutors, and litigating lawyers. If we truly want a reform that serves the country, we must bring all stakeholders and legal operators together to dialogue and determine what needs to be done to provide better service to society. However, this reform has become a reality today, which seems like a bad joke.

Thank you for that insight.

On another note, the governing party in Mexico has justified the reform by claiming that electing judges through the ballot box enhances democracy and reflects the will of the Mexican people, especially since the ruling party won a majority. However, as Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatti note in How Democracies Die, democracies can decline democratically. It seems ironic to argue that voting for judges may not be truly democratic.

From your perspective, why shouldn't judges be elected and what is the essential role of a judge in a democracy? And furthermore, do you believe it is genuinely democratic to vote for judges?

Judges should not be elected because we are not and will not be representatives of the citizens. We will not represent one group or another because doing so will create commitments that will undermine a fundamental principle of judging, which is impartiality. That is precisely why true democracies establish checks and balances where each power performs a unique and exclusive function.

Occasionally, we may connect at certain points, but the reality is that judges don't owe allegiance to an electorate. We owe our duties to the constitution, to international treaties, and to the law, which we must respect and keep in mind during our functions. For this reason, judges should not participate in elections and we will have to run campaigns promising the electorate to resolve matters in a specific way, which will definitely limit our impartiality.

Therefore, the role of a judge in a democracy is to ensure that the constitution is upheld to warranty that international human rights treaties signed are respected, and to verify that these rights are observed with absolute respect and commitment to constitutional provisions. Thus, thinking that a democracy based on public voting and a political career for judges will maintain this balance of power is misguided, as the authors of this interesting book say, democracies can die democratically.

Then, how do you perceive your role now, especially in a polarized society where even the clearest, data-backed, and rigorous arguments struggle to convince segments of the population that this reform possess a threat to democracy, the separation of powers and the rule of law?

It is very complicated to define what role I should play now. For the time being, I believe my role is to continue in resistance. It is important for you to know that since this vote began, this call for change, so to speak, in the judicial system through the popular election of judges.

I have tried to be a critical voice in every sense to enforce society. The Mexican population about the risk that this change in the judicial government system will bring to our democracy and the true administration of justice. From this standpoint, I have been vocal.

I have participated in various marches and demonstrations that both the judicial workforce and the community of judges have organized. We are raising our voices to alert others about this massacre that this decision to dismiss judges has become, treating it like a game of chance as it was in the lottery. Society is indeed very polarized.

During the six years of the previous president's government, all we have heard is that judges are corrupt. This idea has generated social hatred toward the judiciary, which is very dangerous in a democracy. As a judge, I feel obligated to keep fighting, to keep raising my voice, and to not allow the situation we are experiencing.

I am fully aware that we are fighting against that bulldozer that's demolishing us, destroying us not only as the judiciary, but also as a society. There is no other option but to continue fighting for democracy to keep contributing to the separation of powers. I no longer know if my role will be within the judiciary or through civil society organization, but the truth is that my voice will not be silenced, and I will continue to insist and fight for the restoration of the balance of powers in this country so that society has a justice system that truly safeguards human rights and provides impartial, independent, and autonomous justice free from political power in Mexico.

That was truly inspiring. Thank you. Lilia Monica, judges, including yourself, have faced attacks from both society and the government, often being labeled as corrupt without any evidence, simply for fulfilling your constitutional duties to provide checks and balances and protect the constitution.

Could you elaborate on the dangers of such attacks posed to any democracy? And furthermore, additionally, do you see any effective ways to address this misinformation?

One of the things that has been most criticized by the ruling party is that judges have not been transparent and have not known how to communicate with society. However, I think it's important to highlight that judges are not public figures in the same sense as politicians. Those of us who judge are in a courtroom or tribunal every day for many hours, analyzing our cases, conducting proceedings, attending to the parties, and resolving each case with rulings.

From this perspective, it might seem that we have no obligation to sell to society what we do daily. Perhaps it has been a mistake on the part of the judiciary not to communicate the importance of our work, to fail to raise awareness about the significance of judicial functions and its impact on each person's life. We do not only resolve criminal matters.

We also run pensions, handle cases involving students with issues at universities, address custody of the children, manage legal successions, and enforce contracts. Our role is very varied, and in Mexico, federal judges also resolve amparo cases, which is a crucial institution not only for justice in Mexico, but has also been adopted by several countries in Latin America. Amparo cases are basically a legal remedy that protects individuals from violations of their constitutional rights by authorities.

It allows citizens to challenge laws, acts, or omissions that they believe infringe upon their rights, providing a mean to seek justice and uphold constitutional guarantees. From this perspective, it is very likely that we are coming to communicate this too late. However, I believe that it will be an effective way to inform correctly because what society has received daily is total and absolute misinformation across all sectors, amplified by the large microphone of the presidents.

For this reason, I think one of the basic points will be this communication that we have been generating for the past few months to make the general population aware of the importance of judges' roles in the lives of all people.

In that sense, you have demonstrated remarkable bravery by standing firm against those who threaten our rule of law through your judicial decisions and leadership. You have resisted political pressures and the temptations to secure a position by accepting this reform, refusing to allow the judiciary to be undermined. What motivates you to uphold these principles?

Isn't it easier to compromise and sell out your values?

I want to start from a premise that has always accompanied me. First and foremost, values and dignity are above all else. Honesty, of course, has also been a guiding principle in my life.

From this perspective, commitment to myself, to justice and to my country does not allow me to engage in such a dirty game as we are witnessing. In no way will I accept to remain in an institution that does not provide the legal security we seek through just giving this destruction of my institution and the Mexican justice system. My principles and values compel me to defend with all my strength everything that I believe in.

I fully understand that this public exposure will be the final chapter of my career in judiciary. However, I will never sell myself out, nor would I accept a position at the cost of the principles that govern my life. When I chose to dedicate myself to the judiciary, to become a district judge and circuit one afterwards, I did so out of personal conviction.

Because I believe in the role of judges as a determining factor for fostering better social coexistence. If I can no longer perform this role as I have for the past 30 years, then I am no longer interested. That doesn't mean I will stop fighting.

I will continue to do so from other avenues.

I previously wrote that Mexico's strategic position in the Americas makes this situation particularly concerning. As a major trading partner of the US and a key player in Latin America, Mexico's actions set a precedent. In a region with many fragile democracies, weakening judicial independence in Mexico could inspire similar moves elsewhere paving the way for autocratic governance.

Unfortunately, Colombia has recently begun considering a similar reform. What message would you like to share with the world that is listening to? Do you have any warnings?

Is such a reform desirable to any country?

Mexico has been a reference point for Latin America. I believe we have made significant contributions to justice. Our flagship institution, the Amparo trial, has become a benchmark, as I mentioned earlier, for many countries with similar justice system.

Beyond that, Mexico has been at the forefront of best practices in Ibero-America. We have set an example in the Supreme Court of Justice of the nation, which has published numerous guidelines for administering justice from different perspectives shared across Spanish-speaking countries, especially through the Ibero-American Judicial Summit, where I represent the Federal Judiciary Council of Mexico. Just days ago, I attended a meeting of the Quality and Justice Commission, part of this summit.

And while I was there, I reflected on the irony of discussing the quality of justice when we are experiencing a significant affront to justice in Mexico. In a conversation with a fellow judge from Colombia, he mentioned how the situation is big with his country due to the bad example Mexico is setting for the world. In these fragile democracies in Latin America, the orchestration of this change in the administration of justice can have very serious consequences.

What I would tell these countries and their judges is that we must defend justice, the administration of justice, as the judicial system in general in our countries with all our strength. We cannot allow them to be weakened. We cannot permit unqualified individuals to take charge, and we cannot let those individuals cater to the regimen of the current ruling power in our country's presidencies.

We must raise our voices. We need to defend justice from all angles. Let us not remain silent.

Our democracies will depend on the quality of justice in each of our countries. I don't know if this advance or idea will resonate, but I truly believe we must be strong, empathetic, and continue to fight.

Thank you for your advice to the rest of the world. In another note, many young women and men who aspire to be leaders like you may be listening, individuals who care deeply about democracy, justice, the rule of law, and human rights. We all want to create a better world that is well-led, governed, and served, but it can be frustrating to navigate the current system.

What final thoughts do you have for us? Is it worth fighting for, and why?

Just like you, I was young once and had doubts about my path, but I also had convictions that have accompanied me throughout my life. I believe that thinking about a better world, not only for you, but for the future generations, is something we must focus on. You have the privilege of being at one of the best universities in the world, receiving knowledge from leading authorities in the fields in which you are currently perfecting yourselves, and I believe that you are committed, not just personally, but socially to the world.

What I will say to you is never stop dreaming. Keep moving forward with your convictions. Grieve from wherever you find yourselves professionally.

We must carry out this idea of justice, the importance it has in a democracy and its role in society for good coexistence. Never waver in your ideals. Let them be your starting and ending points.

You should continue learning, creating, and if necessary, fighting for what you believe in. The day your voice is no longer heard will be the day we know this world is lost.

You actually said it right, that the day your voice is no longer heard will be the day we know this world is lost, which is quite ironic because during this weekend, one judge, federal judge, who was protesting outside the Formula Uno was encapsulated by more than 100 police officers because she was protesting. I guess her freedom of speech was very uncomfortable for the current government, which is absolutely frustrating and absolutely unacceptable in a democracy. Anyhow, Lilia Monica, it has been truly inspiring to listen to you, to hear about your ideals and motivations, and to learn from your extensive knowledge on these critical issues.

The world will be watching Mexico closely, and I personally commit myself towards working to reconstruct what has been compromised by this reform. Thank you so much for sharing your insights and for providing us with guidance to see where to move ourselves. Thank you.

Dear Mariana, first of all, thank you very much for the invitation. I believe that all these reflections invite us to strengthen our states. The law is not only a fundamental part of the democracy, but also plays a crucial role in fostering good coexistence and restoring the social fabric when necessary.

We must continue working in Mexico, raising our voices, but also thinking about how we are going to rebuild justice in this country. Thank you very much once again for listening to us, for allowing me to share my thoughts with you, and especially for you, the youth who represent for me a great responsibility to keep working for Mexico, to keep fighting for what I believe in, and to keep fighting until the very last moment. Thank you, you so much.