Mexico’s political history can also be read as the story of a long struggle against the hereditary privileges of power.
From Independence to the Mexican Revolution, through the major democratic reforms of the twentieth century and the profound political changes of the twenty-first century, the Mexican people have repeatedly fought against the temptation to turn public office into family property or into instruments for the reproduction of permanent political groups.
For that reason, the discussion now beginning to emerge in Guerrero regarding the 2027 gubernatorial succession cannot be reduced to a dispute over names, polls, or party structures.
It is, in reality, a deeper debate about the very nature of democracy and about the commitment that transformative political forces must maintain to the principles that gave rise to them.
Morena was born as an alternative to the old political practices that characterized the Mexican regime for decades.
Its growth and consolidation can largely be explained by its promise to build a new public ethic based on citizen participation, honesty, and the rejection of group privileges.
That promise cannot be relativized when it becomes inconvenient for certain political interests.
In Guerrero, there is an evident reality: the current governor, Evelyn Salgado Pineda, came to office through a political movement led by her father, Félix Salgado Macedonio.
To deny that fact would be to ignore the recent history of the state.
However, it is one thing to recognize the political influence of a leader and quite another to accept as normal the possibility of an immediate succession between members of the same family.
Modern democracy was built precisely to prevent power from being transmitted through blood ties.
Hereditary monarchies belong to another stage of history; constitutional republics rest on a different principle: equal opportunity to access power through public support rather than through membership in a particular family or political lineage.
No one can question Félix Salgado Macedonio’s political right to participate in public life. Like any citizen, he possesses freedoms and rights that must be respected. What can legitimately be debated is whether it is beneficial for Guerrero and for Morena for state government to remain under the direct influence of the same family circle through consecutive administrations.
The question is not legal; it is political and ethical.
The issue is not limited to nepotism in its strict sense. There is another equally concerning dimension: political bossism, or caciquismo.
Throughout Mexican history, political bosses have represented forms of territorial and political control that survive beyond formal offices. These are structures that concentrate decision-making, influence candidate selection, and subordinate public life to the will of a small group.
What is most concerning is that this phenomenon recognizes neither ideological nor territorial boundaries. Cases in Atizapán de Zaragoza, Metepec, and Huixquilucan, where family groups linked to the PAN have managed to build schemes of political continuity extending through different offices and administrations, demonstrate that the problem transcends party labels and political colors.
Democracy loses vitality when access to power begins to depend more on surnames than on open competition among projects and leaders. This is an ethical and political principle that President Claudia Sheinbaum understands and embraces through exemplary legislative action.
Mexico’s democratic transformation has sought precisely to dismantle these practices. Therefore, it is paradoxical that some sectors now attempt to justify mechanisms that, in other times, would have been denounced as expressions of the old political culture.
Guerrero faces enormous challenges in economic development, security, infrastructure, and social welfare. Addressing them requires opening space to new generations, new ideas, and new leadership. No political force can afford to confuse continuity of a project with family continuity.
Morena’s strength does not lie in a single person or family. It lies in the millions of citizens who placed their trust in a national transformation project. When a movement becomes dependent on specific surnames, it begins to drift away from its original vocation as a collective instrument of change.
For that reason, the discussion surrounding the 2027 candidacy must be approached with maturity and historical perspective. It is not about discrediting anyone or denying political careers built over many years; it is about defending a fundamental principle: in a democracy, public offices do not belong to families—they belong to the people.
Guerrero has the opportunity to send a powerful message to the country. To demonstrate that political transformation also means generational renewal, open competition, and institutional strengthening; that democratic legitimacy is built through the free participation of multiple leaders and not through the concentration of power within increasingly smaller circles.
The true strength of a political movement is measured by its ability to renew itself. When an organization can only find answers in the same names as always, it risks confusing leadership with dependency and representation with control.
Mexican democracy has traveled a long road to leave behind political inheritance and political bossism. It would be a serious mistake to allow those practices to return under new rhetoric or new party labels. The transformation Mexico needs cannot become the permanent administration of a single group; it must continue to be, as established in Article 39 of the Constitution, the sovereign expression of a free people that determines its own destiny without tutelage, without privileges, and without political inheritance.
Guerrero deserves a future. And the future, by definition, always requires renewal.
Source: mexico.quadratin
