By Juan Larrosa, May 13, 2025
Many of the ideals that sustain our contemporary democracies have their roots in classical cultures. In particular, Plato proposed the notion of the ideal city: a community of 5,040 citizens in which people could know one another, participate in government, and equitably share labor. Building on this idea, the American scholar James Carey developed the geographic model of democracy, translated into a political communication model he referred to as foot and tongue—that is, a model based on walking (mobility) and speaking (dialogue).
In this ideal city, any person aspiring to power could walk across, converse with its inhabitants, share their reasons for wanting to govern, and engage in face-to-face public debate. That ideal democracy was, in essence, a democracy of encounter.
Plato’s model is unfPlato’s in contemporary societies. Our cities and countries are large and complex. Political campaigns move candidates across vast territories through ground strategies. Radio and television are used to transmit their voices and images to millions. Digital platforms have added to this with greater interactivity. Despite these mediations, the democratic principle remains: that people should be able to know those who seek power, understand their motivations and proposals, and cast an informed and reasoned vote.
In the case of the judicial election, however, that principle dissolves. Candidates cannot connect with the general population for many reasons—structural, institutional, and related to knowledge production, some of which I explained in a previous article. More worryingly, the average citizen has no real way of knowing all those running for judicial positions.
In a presidential election, an average voter can spend a few hours learning about the candidates’ biographcandidates’posals and develop a basic understanding of their options. But in the judicial election, this task becomes practically impossible. Many candidates lack publicly accessible information, and the number of contenders is so large that no citizen can study the full range of options independently.
From this perspective, I admit to being pessimistic: We face an impossible election—one that demands from citizens a level of knowledge they simply cannot attain. And if we cannot be informed, we cannot decide freely or consciously.
Once the election is over, this process must be fundamentally rethought. We need a radical redesign of how this new public procedure is organized in Mexico if we are to sustain a meaningful democracy.
This text was originally read on the NTR Radio newscast on May 26, 2025, hosted by journalist Sergio René de Dios Corona.