ABSTRACT
Though the preceding two articles on intergovernmental relations provide instructive insights, they share a crucial limitation that reflects a widespread tendency: the assumption that Mexico can be treated comparatively – without strong qualifications – as a ‘consolidated’ liberal democratic state in the sense that is valid for the US and Canada. Tom Keating does not need to deal with this question because of his focus on a comparison of Canada and the US. The discussion of Mexican–Canadian relations, on the other hand, for rather different reasons does not adequately address the profound significance of the fact that as a form of society or social formation Mexico is qualitatively different, with profound implications for the nature of its politics. Nevertheless, in focusing on security issues, Athanasios Hristoulas can justifiably focus on intergovernmental relations relatively independently of the question of deeper differences. The precariousness of the assumption that Mexico is just another ‘formal democracy’ was implied by Obama’s appointment of Carlos Pascual – an expert on ‘failed states’ – as the new ambassador to Mexico. As all concerned hastened to clarify, this appointment did not mean that Mexico was actually considered to be a failed state, a term more applicable to some post-Communist regimes.
