The conflict and political uncertainty in Mexico deepen as the hegemonic group led by Morena and its allies shows an exclusionary, undisciplined, and incompetent tendency in exercising power. This political group, which lacks the majority support of the population, is pushing reforms and modifications without popular approval.
The confrontation and rush to consolidate control over the Judiciary, elections, and opposition have generated severe polarization in the country. Although both political options in dispute are considered harmful to Mexico, it is essential to understand that there are fundamental differences between them. While the line of the former president seems inherited from fascism, the stance of the President resembles communism, reflecting a conflict of ideological visions.
The former president has been labeled as a destructive force without strategic vision, seeking to impose his will at any cost. On the other hand, the President has shown a statism stance, betting on a benevolent yet dominant state. This dichotomy between two opposing political visions has generated internal tensions within the hegemonic group, which struggles to maintain its power and cohesion.
The prevailing lack of discipline and exclusion within this political group, which values loyalty over competition or efficiency, threaten its long-term stability. Despite controlling the Executive and Legislative, the lack of unity and strategic vision has led to a scenario where the government appears more as an opposing block confronting itself and its own contradictions.
The lack of popular support and the imposition of reforms unilaterally, without consensus or legitimacy, weaken the legitimacy and sustainability of the current ruling group. The competition between two key figures, the former president and the President, reflects a clash of egos and political projects that hinders the cohesion and effectiveness of the hegemonic group.
In summary, the struggle for power in Mexico intensifies between two antagonistic political visions, seeking to impose their agendas without solid democratic backing. The lack of internal cohesion, exclusion, and incompetence threaten the stability and future of this political group, endangering the governance of the country.
