Most recently, in 2002 and 2003, Mexico received a score of 4, due to an improvement in its civil liberties score, which dropped from a 3 to a 2. (Freedom house) This classification corresponds reasonably well to the general scholarly consensus on how the Mexican regime should be labelled throughout recent history. While the numerical evidence of democratic consolidation is present, there is still room for Mexico to continue deepening it.
When discussing Mexico's political society as it is defined by Linz and Stepan, we can see that political actors have competed for their legitimate right to control public power and the state apparatus. The working competition is clearly demonstrated by the election of 2000, as the long-term party in power was beaten in the free and fair election. Mexico also encompasses a civil society that allows its people to manifest various social movements and is a part of the International Trade Union Confederation. Linz and Stephan also note that the government must be "effectively subjected to a rule of law that protects individual freedoms and associational life" Thus, Mexico's state of law is the main obstacle prohibiting it from completely forming into a consolidated democracy. Linz and Stepan also assert that a county's state of law is crucial for the consolidation of democracy and that freely elected governments can, but do not necessarily, create such a law. Ergo, Mexico, a freely elected government, can lack this qualification and while simultaneously being a democracy, but it cannot be considered fully consolidated yet due to the presence of an ineffectively subjected rule of law.
The Mexican Constitution outlines the structure of a democratic government for Mexico, but, unfortunately, what is stated on paper is not executed in reality. Linz and Stepan outline a working definition of democracy as the analysis of a state's behavior, attitude, and constitutionality.