The government of Layda Sansores San Román in the state of Campeche has achieved something uncommon in recent years: the reconcentration of political power almost without resistance. However, this control has not translated into development, governance, or institutional strengthening. On the contrary, it has left a more polarized state, with weakened checks and balances and a public life marked by constant conflict.
Two academic analyses agree on this diagnosis, although they start from different perspectives. Political scientist Juan Pablo Galicia Nahuatt observes the exercise of power and political strategy, while sociologist and researcher Luis Ramírez Carrillo explains the structural conditions that allow for this style of governance. Together, both perspectives paint a worrying picture for local democracy.
For Juan Pablo Galicia, the main legacy of Layda Sansores’s government lies not in economic or social indicators, but in the consolidation of political control. The state executive now has a greater capacity to impose decisions, discipline actors, and neutralize the opposition.
This strengthening, he warns, is not synonymous with a more effective state, but rather with a more authoritarian one. Conflict has replaced governance: confronting the media, institutions, politicians, business leaders, and social sectors has become a strategy for dominating the public agenda.
Luis Ramírez Carrillo provides the context that explains why this model works in Campeche. It is a small state with a fragile economy, a high dependence on public spending, and few alternatives outside the government. In this environment, the power of the executive branch is magnified. “Small town, big monarch,” the researcher summarizes.
Both specialists agree that Morena did not dismantle the old Campeche political system. It recycled it. The PRI’s corporate structures—local bosses, patronage networks, and territorial control—were co-opted and put at the service of a new political project.
The centralization of power, the subordination of institutions, and the weakening of checks and balances are reminiscent of practices prior to the democratic transition of 2000. The difference is the rhetoric: now they speak of transformation, even though the methods remain the same.
“We’re talking about a Mexico that, in the early 2000s, began to open up and distribute power, allocating different levels of authority among various bodies—the autonomous constitutional bodies. And now we’re in a stage where, little by little, everything that was distributed among autonomous bodies has been returned to the executive branch, not only at the federal level but also at the state level,” Galicia explained.
Campeche currently lacks actors capable of balancing state power. There isn’t a strong business sector, the press depends heavily on government advertising, and civil society is weak.
“The dependence on the public sector in Campeche is very strong. The main investor, ultimately, is Pemex, or the state government. That’s where the money is. Businesspeople know this, and everything revolves around opportunities in the public sector,” said researcher Ramírez Carrillo.
Meanwhile, Galicia Nahuatt warns that this has generated a silent but serious phenomenon: self-censorship. Media outlets and journalists avoid uncomfortable topics to avoid losing resources or facing legal repercussions.
Ramírez Carrillo adds that, in a small state, criticism carries more weight. A report or a column has an immediate and direct impact, provoking harsher responses from those in power. The result is a climate of fear and silence that impoverishes public discourse.
Another point of agreement is the instrumental use of the discourse of gender violence. Layda Sansores presents herself as a victim in the face of media criticism, but confronts feminist collectives and social movements when they question her administration.
Both analysts point out that this is not a comprehensive gender policy, but rather a selective discursive resource, effective in mobilizing her political base, but contradictory in practice.
Beyond political control and media visibility, the results of governance are limited. Federal social programs, visually striking projects, and the consolidation of Morena as the dominant force have not resolved the state’s structural problems.
Ramírez Carrillo warns that the model is unsustainable. Campeche faces a profound economic crisis, the decline of Pemex, and an almost total dependence on public spending. Authoritarianism does not correct these flaws; it exacerbates them.
Source: lasillarota
