In 1800 John Adams, America’s sitting President, lost the election to Thomas Jefferson. Adams was almost certain that Jefferson ’s ideas and leadership would ruin the country and wreck the great experiment in democracy, but he stepped aside peacefully and rode into retirement. He knew that real democracy meant that the voters must be allowed to make mistakes, no matter how serious.

Mexico ’s democracy is actually just about as young as America ’s in 1800, having only been truly created with the election of current President Vicente Fox in 2000, which overturned 71 years of one-party rule. And now Mr. Fox seems to be facing the same temptation Adams faced way back then: to stand back and let the Mexican people elect a disastrous leader, or to use his power in government to crush a political rival’s chance to challenge him to a vote.

Adams, who was devoted to establishing an effective rule of law in order to build a better democracy, chose to step aside. Might Adams have reacted differently, though, if he knew that Jefferson had committed a significant crime? I suspect he would have done all he could to ensure that justice was served. Would the recently enfranchised American citizens have believed him, or would they have seen his claims as a politically motivated grab for power? Just this situation is unfolding in Mexico right now, where President Vincente Fox’s decision to enforce the rule of law has landed him in a political hotbed.

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is the current mayor of Mexico City . He is a left-wing socialist, perhaps even a Marxist, who thinks Mexico should return to state-supported industry, farm subsidies, renegotiation (ie, default) of external debt, and re-emphasis on an oil-dependent economy. Obrador is wildly popular with many Mexicans because of his lavish government social programs and cash payments to the elderly in Mexico City , which he pushed through at the expense of a shat­tered city budget. Obrador’s ideas are nearly identical to policies which bankrupted Mexico twenty years ago, and Mr. Fox has a right to view his potential Presidency with dismay.

The real story here, however, begins in 2001, a few months after Lopez Obrador took office and long before he became a leading presidential candidate. A local judge filed a complaint after the mayor and his subordinates ignored four court orders to cease construction of a hospital access road across disputed private lands.

This incident prompted the Mexican congress to consider whether to remove the mayor’s political immunity so that he could be tried in a criminal court. The question was first posed to a four-member congressional commit­tee, which took over ten months to reach the decision to recom­mend that the full Congress strip Lopez Obrador of his immunity from prosecution, which it did on April 7th. The com­mittee reflected the political dynamics of Congress, with one member from Lopez Obrador’s party, one from Fox’s, and two from the PRI, which supplied Mexico’s presidents until Fox’s upset in 2000. Lopez Obrador’s case will now be put before a federal judge, who will likely make the decision whether to issue an arrest warrant by the end of the month.

Under Mexican law, a politician facing criminal charges cannot run for office. Although Lopez Obrador has loudly decried the charges against him as political maneuvering to keep him from running for office, President Fox has vehemently denied such allegations and refused to intervene in the process, saying “It is a matter for the legislative and judicial powers, they have to dialogue amongst themselves”. Fox has also argued that such judicial and legislative action is essential to transforming Mexico into a country where the rule of law holds real authority, insisting that “There cannot be, nor must there be, exceptions.”

While many legal scholars believe that the decision was a fair one, some legal analysts still question Fox’s integrity, noting that in the past more serious infractions, from drug-smuggling to embezzlement, have been ignored by the Mexican court system. But past delinquency is no excuse for giving a free pass to a high-ranking politician. The Mexican Congress should be applauded for finally beginning to hold politicians accountable for abuses of power. Lopez Obrador, who may soon have the power to influence the entire country, is a very important person with whom to start.

Perhaps most dangerously of all, some analysts have casually dismissed the charges against Lopez Obrador, insisting that contempt of court does not amount to a crime. Though contempt of court is a serious issue, the issue at stake is far more grave: by flouting the court’s orders, Lopez Obrador illegally seized the private property of the citizens whose lands were in question. President Hugo Chavez, Venezuela ’s leader, showed similar contempt for private property rights as he systematically dissolved his country’s democracy. Blatant disre­gard for citizens’ private property is a very serious matter, and one that must be resolved in a man who may become president of a democratic nation.