What happened in Oaxaca with the recall election is more than just a scare for the governor. It’s a window into understanding why these direct democracy mechanisms often end up being a double-edged sword.

Look, the idea of putting whether an official should stay in office to a vote sounds democratic in theory. But in practice? It becomes something else. Only 30% of the citizens participated, and of that percentage, 40% voted for the recall. That’s not a clear mandate; it’s a punishment plebiscite.

And the most revealing part was who pushed all this. The Labor Party, which was officially an ally of the governor, used the recall as political revenge. It wasn’t an objective assessment of his performance but a score-settling disguised as participatory democracy.

This is exactly what happens when these mechanisms are abused. Recall elections are just as susceptible to populism as they are to internal political vendettas. The government uses them to legitimize itself, opponents use them to punish. Meanwhile, the citizens simply withdraw.

The numbers tell it all. In 2022, during the first recall exercise, abstention reached 83%. In Oaxaca, it was close to 70%. That’s not democratic participation; it’s political disillusionment.

The real alternative isn’t to hold more plebiscites. It’s to strengthen institutions. Congresses that exercise real political control, autonomous prosecutors’ offices that investigate, independent judicial powers that judge. That’s what creates effective democracy. The recall election, in the end, only weakens everything else.