The AmericasBarometer is a regional survey carried out by the Latin American Public Opin- ion Project (LAPOP). LAPOP has deep roots in the Latin America and Caribbean region, via 2016/1 7 , 2016/1 7
public opinion research that dates back over four decades. Its headquarters are at Vander- , 2016/1 7 The AmericasBarometer is a regional survey carried out by the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP). bilt University, in the United States. The AmericasBarometer is possible due to the activities s LAPOP has deep roots in the Latin America and Caribbean region, via public opinion research that dates back and support of a consortium of institutions located across the Americas. To carry out each ca s over four decades. Its headquarters are at Vanderbilt University, in the United States. The AmericasBaromei ter
round of the survey, LAPOP partners with local individuals, firms, universities, development ic a organizations,is possib lande due others to the in ac 34tiv itcountriesies and supp in othert o Westernf a conso rHemisphere.tium of institu Thesetions l oceffortsated ac haveross the Americas. To r THE POLITICAL CULTURE OF three core purposes: to produce objective, non-partisan, and scientifically sound studies of e me r
public opinion; to build capacity and strengthen international relations; and to disseminate m important findings regarding citizens’ experiences with, assessments of, and commitment to A DEMOCRACY IN MEXICO A democratic forms of government. e assessments of, and commitment to democratic forms of government. he AND IN THE AMERICAS, 2016/17
Since 2004, the AmericasBarometer has received generous support from the United States t
Agency for International Development (USAID) and Vanderbilt University. Other institutions n t h Since 2004, the AmericasBarometer has received generous support from the United States Agency- for Interi na that have contributed to multiple rounds of the survey project include Ciudadanía,
tional Development (USAID) and Vanderbilt University. Other institutions that have contributed to multipy le Environics, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Tinker Foundation, and the United y i n rounds of the survey project include Ciudadanía, Environics, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Tinc ker
Nations Development Programme. The project has also benefited from grants from the U.S. c A Comparative Study of
National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Center for Research in Brazil (CNPq), and r a
r a Democracy and Governance the Openfro mSociety the U .Foundation.S. National Sc Collaborationsience Foundation with (NSF) university, the Nat partnersional Cen twhoer for sponsor Researc itemsh in B ronaz il (CNPq), and the the surveyOpen also Soc isustainety Fou nthedat iproject.on. Coll aInbo thisratio mostns wi trecenth unive round,rsity pa thosertners contributorswho sponsor includeditems on the survey also c o Dartmouth,sustai nFlorida the pr Internationaloject. In this m University,ost recent rtheoun Universityd, those co noftr Illinois,ibutors inthecluded Pontificia Dartm Universiouth, Flo-rida International m dad Católica de Chile, the Universidad Católica Andrés Bello in Venezuela, and several emo c Executive Summary centersA natd rVanderbiltés Bello in VUniversity.enezuela, and several centers at Vanderbilt University. e
D A Comparative Study
The 2016/17 AmericasBarometer was carried out via face-to-face interviews in 27 countries f The 2016/17 AmericasBarometer was carried out via face-to-face interviews in 27 countries across the Latin of Democracy and Governance across the Latin America and Caribbean region, and via the internet in Canada and the U.S. o Vidal Romero, Ph.D. America and Caribbean region, and via the internet in Canada and the U.S. All samples are designed to bee of D All samples are designed to be nationally representative of voting-age adults and electronic e RepoITAMrt Editors: devicesn aweretiona lusedly rep forrese datantati ventrye of v otinin allg-age countries. adults a Innd all,ele cmoretronic than devic 43,000es were individualsused for data were entr y in all countries. r tu r interviewedIn all, inmo thisre latestthan 43,000 round ofin dtheivid survey.uals we rThee in completeterviewed 2004-2016/17in this latest rAmericasBaromeound of the surve- y. The complete u Mollie J. Cohen, Ph.D. l
t Pablo Paras, Ph.D. ter dataset2004-2016/17 contains A responsesmericasBar ofrommeter over data se250,000t contain individualss responses across from o vtheer 250,000 region. ind Commonividuals across the region. l u NoaGeorgetownm Lupu, Ph.D University. - Data OPM
Common core modules, standardized techniques, and rigorous quality control procedures permit valid u core modules, standardized techniques, and rigorous quality control procedures permit C
C valid comparisonscomparisons acacrossross in dindividuals,ividuals, sub gsubgroups,roups, certa incertain subnat ionalsubnational areas, co uareas,ntries, supcountries,ra-regio ns, and time. l Elizabeth J. Zechmeister, Ph.D. supra-regions, and time. l Georgina Pizzolitto a
AmericasBarometer data and reports are available for free download from the project website: w-ww.Lapoic a p LAPOP Coordinator of Special Studies and Report Editor AmericasBarometerSurveys.org Da tdataasets fandrom reportsthe proje caret ca navailable also be a cforces sfreeed v idownloada “data repo sfromitorie sthe” an dproject subscr ibing institutions website: www.LapopSurveys.org Datasets from the project can also be accessed via “data li t Vanderbilt University
at universities across the Americas. Through such open access practices and these collaborations, LAPOP li ti c repositories” and subscribing institutions at universities across the Americas. Through such o o
works to contribute to the pursuit of excellence in public opinion research and ongoing discussions over hP ow open access practices and these collaborations, LAPOP works to contribute to the pursuit of Elizabeth J. Zechmeister, Ph.D. programs and policies related to democratic governance can improve the quality of life for individuals in the P excellence in public opinion research and ongoing discussions over how programs and e LAPOP Director and Series Editor policiesA merelatedricas atond democratic beyond. governance can improve the quality of life for individuals in h Vanderbilt University he the Americas and beyond. T T
United States Agency for
InternationalLAPO P Development (USAID/Mexico) The Political Culture of Democracy in Mexico and the Americas Paseo deVan lade Reformarbilt Uni 305,ver Cuauhtemocsity MexicoP CityMB 0505, 230 Appleton Place MexicoNashville, TN 37203-5723, US Tel.: 52-55-50802000www.LapopSurveys.org
The Political Culture of Democracy in Mexico and in the Americas, 2016/17: A Comparative Study of Democracy and Governance Executive Summary
By:
Vidal Romero, Ph.D. ITAM
Pablo Parás, Ph.D. Data Opinión Pública y Mercados
Georgina Pizzolitto LAPOP Coordinator of Special Studies and Report Editor Vanderbilt University
Elizabeth J. Zechmeister, Ph.D. LAPOP Director and Series Editor Vanderbilt University
February 2018
This study is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this study are the sole responsibility of the authors and LAPOP and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Introduction ...... 5
1. Support for Electoral Democracy in the Americas...... 5
2. Democratic Orientations in the Americas ...... 9
3. The Negative Effects of Insecurity: The Perceived Need to Move to a Different Neighborhood ...... 14
4. Institutional and Interpersonal Trust in Mexico ...... 15
5. Perceptions of Freedoms and Basic Rights of Citizens in Mexico ...... 18
6. Corruption in Mexico ...... 20
7. The Digital Gap: The Social Determinants of Internet and Social Networks Use in Mexico ...... 23
Page | 3
Executive Summary
Introduction
Democracy is on the defense in the Americas and around the world. In a number of places across the Americas, countries have been coping with security and economic crises, and scandals emanating from governments and parties. Among the mass public, skepticism is brewing over democracy’s ability to succeed in delivering on citizens’ expectations and improving the quality of their daily lives. The 2016/17 AmericasBarometer taps into this simmering frustration and allows it to be studied in comparative perspective across population subgroups, countries, and time. It also documents some notable signs of resilience. In this same vein, the survey reveals important nuances in challenges to democratic governance across a heterogeneous region. In this way, the AmericasBarometer provides a refined tool with which to make the types of diagnoses and distinctions that are so important to designing and implementing effective policy.
A core focus of the AmericasBarometer is citizens’ evaluations of “democratic governance.” Democratic governance refers to a system of politics and policy in which citizens’ direct, indirect, and representative participation is privileged and enabled via basic freedoms, with the goal of ensuring that states are held accountable for their actions. As the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (2013)1 has defined it, “Democratic governance is governance that takes place in the context of a democratic political system, which is representative of the will and interests of the people and is infused with the principles of participation, inclusion, and accountability” (p. 37). The appeal of democratic governance is derived from its potential to improve the quality of citizens’ lives by facilitating efforts to decrease corruption, increase economic development (and decrease poverty), and build strong communities. The legitimacy of democratic governance hinges, at least in part, on how well it delivers on these expectations (Booth and Seligson 2009)2. For this reason, taking stock of its successes and short-comings requires assessing citizens’ varied experiences and evaluations under democratic governance.
This report summarizes the main findings of the 2016/17 AmericasBarometer survey in México. LAPOP has carried out the AmericasBarometer in México since 2004. The 2016/17 survey was conducted by DATA-OPM between January and March 2017, and 1,563 people were interviewed as part of the nationally representative survey.
1. Support for Electoral Democracy in the Americas
This chapter considers support for the abstract concept of democracy and two of its most fundamental components: elections and parties. There is a significant decline in the extent to which the public agrees that democracy, despite its flaws, is better than any other form of government. In the Latin America and Caribbean region, support for democracy decreased by almost 9 percentage points between 2014 and 2016/17. Overall, in an average country in the
1 USAID. 2013. USAID Strategy on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance. Washington, D.C. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pdacx557.pdf (Accessed on July 29, 2017). 2 Booth, John A., and Mitchell A. Seligson. 2009. The Legitimacy Puzzle in Latin America: Political Support and Democracy in Eight Nations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Page | 5 The Political Culture of Democracy in Mexico, 2016/17
region, as many as two out of five people do not express support for democracy in the abstract. As shown in Figure 1, although most citizens in México have supported democracy since 2004, the percentage that supports democracy has declined to its lowest level in 2017 (49.4%). Less than half of the citizens support democracy as the best form of government in México, which places the country in the lower range of support for democracy compared to the rest of the countries in the region.
Figure 1. Support for Democracy in México and in the Americas
In addition to support for democracy in theory, acceptance of democracy as “the only game in town” is key to the stability and persistence of democratic governance. This means, in short, that citizens in democratic societies should not support the shutdown of legislative bodies by the executive branch. Support for executive coups in México is much lower than support for military coups.3 As shown in Figure 2, the levels of support for an executive closure of Congress has remained stable in the AmericasBarometer 2016/17 for México (17.0%). México ranks among the countries with lowest support for executive coups in 2016/17.
3 The 2016/17 AmericasBarometer includes two items that tap participants’ hypothetical willingness to support a military takeover of the government: in the face of a lot of crime and a lot of corruption. Support for military coups under high crime is 47.5% in México, which places the country among the highest ranks in the region. Support for military coups under high corruption is a little higher (49.9%), higher than the average for the region.
Page | 6 Executive Summary
Peru 37.8% 17.4% Haiti 30.0% 20 17.0% 17.0% Paraguay 28.7% Bolivia 24.8% 14.1% Guatemala 24.4% Chile 23.0% 15 Panama 22.8% Canada 22.0% Ecuador 21.6% Nicaragua 19.9% Honduras 19.7%
10 Brazil 19.5% Dominican Republic 19.1% Costa Rica 18.9% Jamaica 18.4% Mexico 17.0% 5 United States 16.6% El Salvador 16.1% Colombia 15.3% Venezuela 13.0% Argentina 11.3%
Support congressional shutdown(%) 0 Uruguay 8.7% 2010 2012 2014 2017 0 10 20 30 40
Year Support congressional shutdown(%)
95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, México 2010-2017; GM_v.07172017
Figure 2. Support for Executive Coups in México and in the Americas
Electoral democracy relies on citizen participation through elections: voters select their representatives and voice their preferences at the ballot box. Public trust and participation in these institutions are therefore important for understanding citizen support for democracy as it functions in the real world and, as well, serve as a signal of citizens’ commitment to democracy (a foundational part of democratic consolidation).
Citizens legitimate electoral democracy by trusting in elections as a mechanism to select leaders and by participating in elections. On average, trust in elections is low in the Americas. As shown in Figure 3, México is in a low range compared to other countries in the region, with about two-third of respondents reporting trust in elections, a drop of more than 2 percentage points compared to the 2014 round and more than 20 percentage points compared to 2012.
Page | 7 The Political Culture of Democracy in Mexico, 2016/17
Uruguay 73.3% Canada 67.0% 44.4% 50 Costa Rica 56.5% Nicaragua 51.5% United States 49.8% Ecuador 49.3% 40 Bolivia 45.2% Chile 44.2% 28.4% Argentina 42.4% 30 26.2% Venezuela 41.4% Peru 41.0%
Panama 38.2% El Salvador 38.0% 20 Dominican Republic 34.8% Guatemala 34.7% Honduras 34.3% Jamaica 31.8% Trust elections (%) 10 Paraguay 31.6% Mexico 26.2% Colombia 24.0% Brazil 23.4% 0 Haiti 18.5% 2012 2014 2017 0 20 40 60 80 Trust elections (%) Year
95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, México 2012-2017; GM_v.07172017
Figure 3. Trust in Elections in México and in the Americas
Parties also serve an important role for citizens. By organizing politics on policy lines, parties enable voters to identify a “team” that aligns with their preferences. At their best, then, parties facilitate citizen participation in the democratic process and ensure high quality representation. México has an intermediate level of confidence in political parties (13.8%) compared to the countries in the region. Figure 4 shows that confidence in political parties has declined sharply in México since 2004: while 32.5% trusted parties in 2004, only 13.8% report trusting parties in the 2016/17 round. Indeed, the levels of trust in political parties in the AmericasBarometer of 2016/17 are the lowest that have been recorded since the study began in México. Between 2014 and 2016, confidence in political parties in México declined by nearly five percentage points. Whereas on average trust in elections did not decline for the LAC region as a whole between 2014 and 2016/17, trust in parties did. Thus, on this latter measure (parties), the decrease in trust mirrors a regional trend, while on the former (elections), Mexico stands out as distinct from the region’s cross-time trend.
Page | 8 Executive Summary
Nicaragua 35.1% 40 Canada 31.7% 32.5%34.4% Uruguay 26.7% 32.5% Venezuela 23.3% 29.0% Honduras 22.8% Jamaica 22.5% 30 Dominican Republic 20.4% 24.7% Costa Rica 20.1% Ecuador 20.0% El Salvador 19.1%
Argentina 17.2%
18.0% 20 Bolivia 16.3% Paraguay 15.5% 13.8% Guatemala 14.6% Mexico 13.8% United States 13.5% 10 Haiti 13.5% Panama 13.3% Colombia 10.0%
Trust political parties(%) Brazil 9.0% Chile 8.5% 0 Peru 7.5%
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2017 0 10 20 30 40
Year Trust political parties (%)
95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, México 2014-2017; GM_v.07172017
Figure 4. Trust in Political Parties in México and in the Americas
2. Democratic Orientations in the Americas
Over the years, LAPOP has hypothesized and found that democracy rests on firmer grounds to the extent that the following joint conditions are met: the public perceives the political system to be legitimate and it supports the right to participate for those who may hold diverging political views. Legitimacy and tolerance are, therefore, core elements of democratic culture. These attitudes combine to make unique profiles of democratic orientations.
Figure 5 compares levels of the system support index and its five components in México since 2004. The index and individual component variables are scores that from 0 to 100, where higher values indicate more positive attitudes toward the system. Support for the political system has reached its lowest level in México in 2017 (45.5). This is due to a decline in several components of this system support index in 2017: respect for institutions, level of normative support for the system, confidence that basic rights are protected, and pride in the political system of México.
Page | 9 The Political Culture of Democracy in Mexico, 2016/17
System Support Respect for Political Institutions Pride in Political System
2004 58.4 2004 63.2 2004 57.1
2006 60.8 2006 69.1 2006 60.3 2008 58.9 2008 66.0 2008 59.6
2010 56.8 2010 66.0 2010 54.6
2012 55.9 2012 63.2 2012 55.2
2014 52.0 2014 60.7 2014 49.3
2017 45.5 2017 53.8 2017 42.8
Courts Guarantee Fair Trial Basic Rights are Protected Should support the Political System
2004 53.1 2004 53.7 2004 64.1
2006 52.1 2006 53.7 2006 68.5
2008 50.0 2008 53.0 2008 64.4
2010 46.7 2010 47.9 2010 68.0
2012 47.3 2012 51.2 2012 62.1
2014 41.9 2014 44.7 2014 63.3
2017 36.5 2017 37.5 2017 56.6
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 Average Average Average
95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, México 2004-2017; v.GM_v.07172017
Figure 5. System Support and Its Components in México, 2004-2017
As shown in Figure 6, México ranks at an intermediate level in terms of its mean degrees of support for the political system when compared to the other countries in the region.
Page | 10 Executive Summary
Guyana 65.5 Nicaragua 62.8 Canada 62.3 Costa Rica 62.2
Grenada 58.2 St. Kitts & Nevis 57.4 Uruguay 56.6 Antigua & Barbuda 56.3 Ecuador 55.3 St. Vincent & the Grenadines 55.0
United States 53.7 Guatemala 53.6
El Salvador 51.2 Argentina 49.9 Panama 49.9 Bolivia 49.7
Dominican Republic 49.0 Jamaica 48.4
Honduras 47.9 Colombia 47.6 Mexico 45.5 St. Lucia 44.9 Peru 43.9
Dominica 43.9 Chile 42.7 Paraguay 42.4 Venezuela 39.9 Haiti 37.7 Brazil 34.1
0 20 40 60 80 System Support
95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, 2016/17; v.GM_v.07172017 Figure 6. System Support in the Americas, 2016/17
High levels of support for the political system do not guarantee the quality and survival of liberal democratic institutions. Liberal democracy also requires citizens to accept the principles of open democratic competition and tolerance of dissent. Political tolerance in Mexico increased significantly to 54.3 degrees after a period of stability between 2010 and 2014 (see Figure 7). However, political tolerance for the country remains below the levels observed between 2004 and 2006. The increase in political tolerance among Mexicans is due to significant increases in all components of this index, which constitute measures of approval of the right to protest, vote, give speeches and be a political candidate.
Page | 11 The Political Culture of Democracy in Mexico, 2016/17
Tolerance Right to Peaceful Demonstrations Right to Make Speeches
2004 61.8 2004 56.2 2004 57.5 2006 62.9 2006 52.8
2008 59.9 2008 46.9
2006 56.2 2010 60.6 2010 40.5
2012 55.7 2012 43.2 2008 52.6 2014 54.8 2014 40.6 2017 66.3 2017 47.1
2010 49.2 Right to Vote Right to Run for Office
2004 57.0 2004 54.7 2012 48.3 2006 57.7 2006 51.6
2008 56.7 2008 46.7 2014 47.1 2010 54.6 2010 41.1 2012 52.3 2012 41.9 2017 54.3 2014 53.2 2014 40.2 2017 60.7 2017 42.8
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 Average Average Average
95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, México 2004-2017; v.GM_v.07172017
Figure 7. Political Tolerance and Its Components in Mexico, 2004-2017
Although Mexico experienced a significant increase in political tolerance between 2014 and 2017, the country is positioned among the countries of the region with the lowest levels of political tolerance. As shown in Figure 8 and compared to other countries, Mexico ranks at an intermediate level in terms of its mean degrees of tolerance.
Page | 12 Executive Summary
Canada 69.8 United States 69.2 Jamaica 60.2 St. Kitts & Nevis 59.0
Brazil 57.4 Uruguay 56.7 Dominican Republic 56.4 Guyana 56.1 Venezuela 55.2 Dominica 54.4
Costa Rica 54.3 Mexico 54.3 Haiti 54.0 Paraguay 53.5 Grenada 53.3 Nicaragua 53.1
Panama 52.8 Chile 51.2
St. Vincent & the Grenadines 51.1 Honduras 50.9 Guatemala 50.7 St. Lucia 50.6
Bolivia 49.4 Ecuador 49.4 Argentina 49.3 Antigua & Barbuda 48.6
El Salvador 47.7 Peru 47.6
Colombia 45.4
0 20 40 60 80 Tolerance
95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, 2016/17; v.GM_v.07172017 Figure 8. Political Tolerance in the Americas, 2016/17
Page | 13 The Political Culture of Democracy in Mexico, 2016/17
3. The Negative Effects of Insecurity: The Perceived Need to Move to a Different Neighborhood
The 2017 AmericasBarometer in Mexico includes an important group of variables on security. The questions cover topics such as crime victimization, perceptions of insecurity and changes in respondents’ attitudes due to fear of crime. Figure 8 shows citizens perception of insecurity in the neighborhood. We observed a general upward trend from 2004 (40.8 points) to 2017 (48.1 points), although it decreases in 2017 after reaching a peak in 2014 (51.6 points).
51.6 45.2 48.1 50 43.9 43.5 40.8 39.9 40
30
20
10
0
Perception Neighborhood of Insecurity 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2017
Year
95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, Mexico 2004-2017; v.07172017
Figure 9. Perception of neighborhood insecurity, Mexico 2004-2017
The proportion of Mexicans who felt the need to move out of their neighborhood for fear of crime was 18.7% in 2017. This is not a trivial number given that it represents over 22 million people. This number is greater than the total population of the State of Mexico; and more than twice the number of residents of Mexico City. The percentage of Mexicans that felt the need to move to a different neighborhood out of fear of crime increased in 2017 with respect 2014 by five percentage points.
In the region, Mexico is not badly positioned at the moment. Compared with other countries, the percentage of Mexicans who felt the need to move to a different neighborhood due to fear of crime is just above the regional average, below countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.
Page | 14 Executive Summary
El Salvador 21.1% 18.7%
20 Guatemala 19.7% 15.2%
13.2% Honduras 19.5% 15
Panama 19.4%
10 Mexico 18.7%
5 Costa Rica 15.4%
Nicaragua 15.0% Has felt need to to move a different neighborhood for fearcrime of 0 2012 2014 2017 0 5 10 15 20 25
Year 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, México 2004-2017; GM_v.07172017
Figure 10. Has felt the need to move to another neighborhood for fear of crime
4. Institutional and Interpersonal Trust in Mexico
Trust is a specific condition to the subject of reference or interaction; that is, an individual can trust some subjects and distrust others. It is also a matter of degree. The levels of institutional trust in Mexico vary significantly across institutions. Figure 11 shows the average levels of trust in various institutions on a 0-100 scale of institutional trust. The armed forces are among the more trusted institutions in Mexico, followed by the media, the local government and the congress – although the latest are below the 50 points. Below, with levels of trust of about 35 points are the judiciary and elections, and the last three places in descending order and with grades less than 30 points are occupied by the police, the executive and political parties.
Page | 15 The Political Culture of Democracy in Mexico, 2016/17
Armed Forces
2017 64.8
Media
2017 49.2
Trust in Local Government
2017 47.5
Congress
2017 44.3
Courts Guarantee Fair Trial
2017 36.5
Elections
2017 34.8
National Police
2017 31.4
Excecutive
2017 27.1
Political Parties
2017 23.3
0 20 40 60 80 Average 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, Mexico 2017; GM v.07172017 Figure 11. Level of Trust in Institutions, Mexico 2017
To measure the level of institutional trust, the AmericasBarometer has eight different indicators that provide a robust measurement of this concept. The indicators are: trust in the justice system, armed forces, national congress, police, Catholic Church, political parties, federal government and local government. These eight indicators were combined in a simple additive index normalized to a scale from 0 to 100 where higher values indicate higher reported levels of trust.
Page | 16 Executive Summary
60 50.8 53.0 52.8 49.4 50.8 50 45.4 40.7 40
30
20
Institutional Trust Index Trust Institutional 10
0 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2017
Year
95 % Intervalo de confianza (Efecto de diseño incorporado) Fuente: © Barómetro de las Américas por LAPOP, Mexico 2017; GM_v.07172017
Figure 12. Institutional Trust Index, Mexico 2004-2017
The average level of interpersonal trust in Mexico has remained stable between 2004 and 2014 with values between 56 and 60 points. However, in 2017, interpersonal trust drops from 59.3 to 53.3 points, reaching the lowest level for the country since 2004. In the region, Mexico ranks among the countries with the lowest levels of interpersonal trust, placing only above Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, and Haiti.
Antigua & Barbuda 69.4 59.0 59.3 Canada 68.9 58.1 57.7 60 56.5 56.8 St. Kitts & Nevis 67.2 53.3 Uruguay 66.4 Costa Rica 65.8 Guyana 64.5 Argentina 64.0 50 Honduras 63.3 Paraguay 63.0 United States 62.9 Grenada 62.3 40 Nicaragua 60.4 El Salvador 60.2 Chile 59.9
Colombia 59.7 30 Guatemala 59.4 St. Vincent & the Grenadines 58.9 Dominican Republic 56.5 St. Lucia 56.3 20 Dominica 55.8 Ecuador 55.2 Panama 54.1 Jamaica 53.6
Interpersonal Trust 10 Mexico 53.3 Venezuela 52.9 Peru 48.3 Bolivia 47.5 Brazil 46.7 0 Haiti 40.7
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2017 0 20 40 60 80 Year Interpersonal Trust
95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, Mexico 2004-2017; GM_v.07172017
Figure 13. Interpersonal Trust in Mexico and in the Americas
Page | 17 The Political Culture of Democracy in Mexico, 2016/17
5. Perceptions of Freedoms and Basic Rights of Citizens in Mexico
Basic liberties, such as freedom of the media, expression, and fundamental human rights, are critical to the public’s engagement and inclusion in the democratic political system. Restrictions in basic liberties may undermine motivations to participate in politics and erode individuals’ support for the incumbent administration and the democratic system more generally.
Figure 14 shows Mexicans perceptions regarding the protection of basic rights. The highest level is observed in the year 2004, which reflects an average of 53.7 points, as of that moment Mexicans perception that basic rights are protected shows a constant decrease (with the exception of 2012). In 2017, reaches 37.5 points, its lowest level. In the region, Mexico ranks among the countries with the lowest levels of perception that basic rights are protected.
Canada 60.1 Guyana 59.0 60 Nicaragua 57.9 53.7 53.7 53.0 Ecuador 53.1 51.2 Grenada 52.1 Costa Rica 52.0 47.9 50 Antigua & Barbuda 51.2 44.7 United States 49.1 St. Kitts & Nevis 48.4 St. Vincent & the Grenadines 48.0 37.5 Uruguay 46.5 40 Bolivia 45.4 Guatemala 44.3 El Salvador 42.6
Dominica 42.4 30 Panama 41.9 Colombia 41.1 St. Lucia 40.8 Jamaica 39.2 20 Honduras 38.9 Dominican Republic 38.9 Peru 38.4 Argentina 38.2 Mexico 37.5 10 Chile 36.8 Paraguay 36.1
Basic Rights are Protected are Basic Rights Venezuela 33.4 Haiti 29.5 0 Brazil 27.0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2017 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Year Basic Rights are Protected
95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, Mexico 2004-2017; GM_v.07172017
Figure 14. Basic Rights are Protected
As can be seen in Figure 15, 57.6% of Mexicans believe that there is very little press freedom, 24.6% believe that the level of freedom of the press is sufficient and 17.8% believe that there is too much. The percentage of Mexicans that believe that there is little freedom of expression is 62.0% in 2017, while almost a quarter of the population thinks that there is enough freedom to express opinions. Freedom to express political opinions is particularly important in a democracy. Around 10% of Mexicans feel that there is little freedom to express political views without fear in 2017. Also, 20% of the population thinks that there is enough freedom to express political opinions. México is among the countries with the greatest percentage of citizens perceiving very little freedom of political expression.
Page | 18 Executive Summary
17.8% 13.6%
24.4% Too Little Too Little 24.6% 57.6% 62.0% Sufficient Sufficient Too Much Too Much
Level of Freedom of the Press Today Level of Freedom of Expression Today
9.5%
20.4% Too Little 70.0% Sufficient Too Much
Level of Freedom to Express Political Opinions without Fear
Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, México 2017; v.GM_v.07172017
Figure 15. Basic Rights are Protected, Mexico 2017
While concerns about deficiencies in levels of freedom of the press and of expression are elevated in the Americas, data from the 2016/17 AmericasBarometer reveal that concerns about human rights are even more pronounced. Mexico is among the countries with the lowest percentage of citizens who believe there is sufficient protection of human rights in the country, with 71% saying that there is very little protection for this type of rights in 2017.
Page | 19 The Political Culture of Democracy in Mexico, 2016/17
Canada 19% 72% 9% United States 37% 56% 7% Uruguay 45% 45% 10% Costa Rica 49% 41% 11% C hile 55% 34% 10% Argentina 57% 29% 14% Nicaragua 57% 33% 10% Ecuador 63% 30% 7% Paraguay 65% 20% 15% Panama 65% 22% 12% Guatemala 68% 21% 11% Brazil 69% 14% 17% Dominican R epublic 70% 19% 11% Mexico 71% 22% 7% El Salvador 72% 21% 7% Peru 74% 18% 8% Bolivia 75% 18% 7% Colombia 77% 19% 5% Honduras 77% 16% 7% Venezuela 77% 15% 8% Jamaica 78% 14% 7% Haiti 79% 14% 6%
Level of Protection of Human R ights Today
Very Little Sufficient Too Much
Source: AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, 2016/17 (Lib4)
Figure 16. Assessments of Protection of Human Rights, 2016/17
6. Corruption in Mexico
The AmericasBarometer surveys have employed over time a series of questions that measure corruption victimization, focusing specifically on bribery because this is the form that is most common for average citizens. In Mexico, corruption victimization increased to 29.8% in 2017. In the region, Mexico ranks among the countries with the higher levels of corruption victimization, just below Bolivia (40.4%), Haiti (35.8%) and Paraguay (31.0%), and is slightly above Peru (29.6%) and Venezuela (29.6%).
Page | 20 Executive Summary
Bolivia 40.4% 37.2% Haiti 35.8% Paraguay 31.0% 40 35.1% 32.1% Mexico 29.8% 30.3% Peru 29.6% 31.2% Venezuela 28.6% 29.8% Ecuador 27.8% 27.8% Honduras 27.5% 30 Guatemala 25.1% Dominican Republic 23.1% Nicaragua 20.1% Colombia 17.4% Argentina 16.1%
Panama 13.6% 20 Guyana 13.3% Brazil 11.2% Jamaica 10.0% El Salvador 9.8% Costa Rica 9.2% Dominica 8.9% 10 Chile 7.3% Antigua & Barbuda 6.6% Uruguay 6.3% Corruption Victimization Corruption St. Lucia 6.0% St. Kitts & Nevis 5.3% St. Vincent & the Grenadines 4.7% 0 Grenada 3.7%
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2017 0 10 20 30 40 50 Year Corruption Victimization
95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, México 2004-2017; GM_v.07172017
Figure 17. Corruption victimization in Mexico and in the Americas
Several studies have suggested individuals can see corruption as necessary to grease bureaucratic wheels, particularly when regulatory agencies are inefficient (Méon and Weill 2010; Dreher and Gassebner 2011). In such circumstances, the worry is that citizens might begin to consider corruption a natural part of politics. Thus the questions become whether Mexicans believe that bribery is an acceptable practice and, in particular, whether those who engage in it are more likely to justify it. The percentage of Mexicans who think bribes can be justified – 22% (Figure 18) – is similar (only 7 percentage points lower) to the number of people who were asked for bribes.
Figure 18 also shows the degree to which citizens justify corruption in a comparative perspective. As can be seen, Mexico is among the countries with the highest proportion of citizens that justify paying bribes but has a proportion that is close to the region average.
Page | 21 The Political Culture of Democracy in Mexico, 2016/17
Haiti 38.5% 26.6% 27.2% Dominican Republic 29.8% 30 Ecuador 27.6% Jamaica 26.7% 21.9% 22.0% Honduras 25.8% 25 20.9% Panama 25.6% 19.1% Nicaragua 23.6% 20 Mexico 22.0% Costa Rica 20.7% Bolivia 20.2%
15 Paraguay 18.7% Colombia 18.3% Venezuela 18.1% 10 Peru 17.6% Guatemala 17.4% Chile 16.7% 5 El Salvador 11.9% Brazil 11.0% Paying a Bribe is Justified Argentina 10.4% 0 Uruguay 10.1%
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2017 0 10 20 30 40
Year Paying a Bribe is Justified
95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, México 2004-2017; GM_v.07172017
Figure 18. Bribe Justification in Mexico and in the Americas
In 2017, the vast majority of Mexicans considers corruption a common practice among public officials as they believe that more than half of politicians are involved in corruption. A little less than 80% believe that more than half (or all) of public officials are involved in acts of corruption, 16.1% think that only half, and less than 7% that are less than half or none corrupt government agents (Figure 19).
In the Latin American context, Mexico ranks in second place, with a level of perceived corruption of 77.9 points (in a 0 to 100 scale). In first place is Brazil with 79.5 points and in third place Panama with 76.7 points. The discrepancy between perceived levels of corruption and reported corruption rates is a common pattern in corruption studies because measures of corruption victimization tap the day-to-day corruption people observe and endure while questions about corruption in government often also track large-scale corruption such as national scandals that respondents do not have personal experience with. Respondents may also have different tolerances for what kinds of activities are considered corrupt.
Page | 22 Executive Summary
Brazil 79.5 40 Mexico 77.9 Panama 76.7 Venezuela 75.8 Peru 75.1 Colombia 74.3 30 Chile 72.7 Paraguay 71.9 Guatemala 71.4
Argentina 70.0
41.8% 20 Bolivia 69.6 35.4% Dominican Republic 66.7 Honduras 66.6 Haiti 66.5 10 Ecuador 65.3 16.1% El Salvador 64.9 Jamaica 60.8
Perception of corruption Perception of 5.8% Costa Rica 59.5 0.9% 0 Nicaragua 58.0 Uruguay 53.2 NoneLess than Half of More than All half Politicians half 0 20 40 60 80 Amount of Corruption among Politicians Perception of corruption
95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, México 2004-2017; GM_v.07172017
Figure 19. Perception of Corruption in Mexico and in the Americas
7. The Digital Gap: The Social Determinants of Internet and Social Networks Use in Mexico
In recent years, the study of social networks has focused on its political impact. That is, if the "likes" on Facebook, or the "retweets" or "favs" on Twitter have an impact on the electoral behavior and attitudes towards certain political phenomena. The frequency of Internet use in Mexico has increased notably since 2008 – year in which for the first time the AmericasBarometer measured the extent of internet use in Mexico. As shown in figure 20, a decade ago seven out of ten Mexicans declared that they never use Internet, while ten years later, less than four out of ten reported this same behavior. Ten years ago 17% of Mexicans used internet daily or a few times a week, today 48% of Mexicans use the internet weekly. In short, the change has been remarkable.
Page | 23 The Political Culture of Democracy in Mexico, 2016/17
2017 33% 15% 4% 12% 35%
2014 21% 13% 8% 11% 47%
2012 11% 12% 7% 11% 59%
2010 13% 13% 6% 10% 57%
2008 8% 9% 4% 10% 69%
Internet Usage Daily A few times a week A few times a month Rarely Never
Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, Mexico 2008-2017; GM_v.07172017
Figure 20. Frequency of Internet use in Mexico, 2008-2017
The way in which Mexicans communicate and access information has also changed drastically. In the year 2017, 46.2% of Mexicans reported to have a profile on Facebook and 54% use WhatsApp to communicate. Only 38% of the Mexicans said they had a conventional or landline telephone, which suggests that, in effect, the way through which Mexicans communicate and access information have varied considerably, moving to a more connected-mobile word. Within the so-called social networks there are also preferences in their use. The most popular social network in Mexico is WhatsApp with 54% of the Mexicans reporting using this social network. In second place is Facebook (46% of Mexicans) and in third place is Twitter with 11% of Mexican reporting to have an account.
Those who access the Internet more frequently and report the use of social networks are generally young, people with higher levels of education, who have higher levels of wealth, do not have or only have two children and who reside in urban areas. The digital divide seems to be exacerbated when analyzing variables related to available resources, such as schooling and wealth.
Page | 24 Executive Summary
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40 Percentage 20 Percentage 53.8% 33.4% 35.2% 20 46.2% 15.4% 4.2% 11.8% 0 0 DailyA few times A few times Rarely Never a week a month Yes No
Internet Usage Has Facebook Account
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 88.7% 40
Percentage Percentage 54.1% 20 20 45.9% 11.3% 0 0 Yes No Yes No
Has Twitter Account Uses Whatsapp
Source: © AmericasBarometer, LAPOP, Mexico 2017; GM_v.07172017
Figure 21. Frequency of Internet and Social Networks use in Mexico, 2017
Page | 25 The AmericasBarometer is a regional survey carried out by the Latin American Public Opin- ion Project (LAPOP). LAPOP has deep roots in the Latin America and Caribbean region, via 2016/1 7 , 2016/1 7
public opinion research that dates back over four decades. Its headquarters are at Vander- , 2016/1 7 The AmericasBarometer is a regional survey carried out by the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP). bilt University, in the United States. The AmericasBarometer is possible due to the activities s LAPOP has deep roots in the Latin America and Caribbean region, via public opinion research that dates back and support of a consortium of institutions located across the Americas. To carry out each ca s over four decades. Its headquarters are at Vanderbilt University, in the United States. The AmericasBaromei ter
round of the survey, LAPOP partners with local individuals, firms, universities, development ic a organizations,is possib lande due others to the in ac 34tiv itcountriesies and supp in othert o Westernf a conso rHemisphere.tium of institu Thesetions l oceffortsated ac haveross the Americas. To r THE POLITICAL CULTURE OF three core purposes: to produce objective, non-partisan, and scientifically sound studies of e me r
public opinion; to build capacity and strengthen international relations; and to disseminate m important findings regarding citizens’ experiences with, assessments of, and commitment to A DEMOCRACY IN MEXICO A democratic forms of government. e assessments of, and commitment to democratic forms of government. he AND IN THE AMERICAS, 2016/17
Since 2004, the AmericasBarometer has received generous support from the United States t
Agency for International Development (USAID) and Vanderbilt University. Other institutions n t h Since 2004, the AmericasBarometer has received generous support from the United States Agency- for Interi na that have contributed to multiple rounds of the survey project include Ciudadanía,
tional Development (USAID) and Vanderbilt University. Other institutions that have contributed to multipy le Environics, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Tinker Foundation, and the United y i n rounds of the survey project include Ciudadanía, Environics, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Tinc ker
Nations Development Programme. The project has also benefited from grants from the U.S. c A Comparative Study of
National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Center for Research in Brazil (CNPq), and r a
r a Democracy and Governance the Openfro mSociety the U .Foundation.S. National Sc Collaborationsience Foundation with (NSF) university, the Nat partnersional Cen twhoer for sponsor Researc itemsh in B ronaz il (CNPq), and the the surveyOpen also Soc isustainety Fou nthedat iproject.on. Coll aInbo thisratio mostns wi trecenth unive round,rsity pa thosertners contributorswho sponsor includeditems on the survey also c o Dartmouth,sustai nFlorida the pr Internationaloject. In this m University,ost recent rtheoun Universityd, those co noftr Illinois,ibutors inthecluded Pontificia Dartm Universiouth, Flo-rida International m dad Católica de Chile, the Universidad Católica Andrés Bello in Venezuela, and several emo c Executive Summary centersA natd rVanderbiltés Bello in VUniversity.enezuela, and several centers at Vanderbilt University. e
D A Comparative Study
The 2016/17 AmericasBarometer was carried out via face-to-face interviews in 27 countries f The 2016/17 AmericasBarometer was carried out via face-to-face interviews in 27 countries across the Latin of Democracy and Governance across the Latin America and Caribbean region, and via the internet in Canada and the U.S. o Vidal Romero, Ph.D. America and Caribbean region, and via the internet in Canada and the U.S. All samples are designed to bee of D All samples are designed to be nationally representative of voting-age adults and electronic e RepoITAMrt Editors: devicesn aweretiona lusedly rep forrese datantati ventrye of v otinin allg-age countries. adults a Innd all,ele cmoretronic than devic 43,000es were individualsused for data were entr y in all countries. r tu r interviewedIn all, inmo thisre latestthan 43,000 round ofin dtheivid survey.uals we rThee in completeterviewed 2004-2016/17in this latest rAmericasBaromeound of the surve- y. The complete u Mollie J. Cohen, Ph.D. l
t Pablo Paras, Ph.D. ter dataset2004-2016/17 contains A responsesmericasBar ofrommeter over data se250,000t contain individualss responses across from o vtheer 250,000 region. ind Commonividuals across the region. l u NoaGeorgetownm Lupu, Ph.D University. - Data OPM
Common core modules, standardized techniques, and rigorous quality control procedures permit valid u core modules, standardized techniques, and rigorous quality control procedures permit C
C valid comparisonscomparisons acacrossross in dindividuals,ividuals, sub gsubgroups,roups, certa incertain subnat ionalsubnational areas, co uareas,ntries, supcountries,ra-regio ns, and time. l Elizabeth J. Zechmeister, Ph.D. supra-regions, and time. l Georgina Pizzolitto a
AmericasBarometer data and reports are available for free download from the project website: w-ww.Lapoic a p LAPOP Coordinator of Special Studies and Report Editor AmericasBarometerSurveys.org Da tdataasets fandrom reportsthe proje caret ca navailable also be a cforces sfreeed v idownloada “data repo sfromitorie sthe” an dproject subscr ibing institutions website: www.LapopSurveys.org Datasets from the project can also be accessed via “data li t Vanderbilt University
at universities across the Americas. Through such open access practices and these collaborations, LAPOP li ti c repositories” and subscribing institutions at universities across the Americas. Through such o o
works to contribute to the pursuit of excellence in public opinion research and ongoing discussions over hP ow open access practices and these collaborations, LAPOP works to contribute to the pursuit of Elizabeth J. Zechmeister, Ph.D. programs and policies related to democratic governance can improve the quality of life for individuals in the P excellence in public opinion research and ongoing discussions over how programs and e LAPOP Director and Series Editor policiesA merelatedricas atond democratic beyond. governance can improve the quality of life for individuals in h Vanderbilt University he the Americas and beyond. T T
United States Agency for
InternationalLAPO P Development (USAID/Mexico) The Political Culture of Democracy in Mexico and the Americas Paseo deVan lade Reformarbilt Uni 305,ver Cuauhtemocsity MexicoP CityMB 0505, 230 Appleton Place MexicoNashville, TN 37203-5723, US Tel.: 52-55-50802000www.LapopSurveys.org