Latin America remains the area where semi-presidentialism has yet to take hold. As per a previous post, Peru has a history of semi-presidentialism, though of a highly presidentialised president-parliamentary form. Also, Argentina has a head of government, but there is no collective cabinet responsibility. Finally, Guyana comes very close to being semi-presidential, though there is no separate direct election of the president.
In Central America, there are no examples of semi-presidentialism. However, in recent years Mexico has been actively debating introducing semi-presidentialism.
Since 2000 and the first genuine alternation in power, there have been calls to reform the country’s presidential system. The contested election result in 2006 also saw a debate about how the system should be reformed.
Some quite high profile political scientists have been asked to comment on the pros and cons of semi-presidentialism. For example, there is an interview with Adam Przeworski in an Mexican newspaper, as well as an article by Alfred Stepan.
Currently, a state committee, the CENCA (Comisión Ejecutiva de Negociación y Construcción de Acuerdos) is considering ways of reforming the Mexican system generally and its working themes includes one on a reform of the system of government. This committee provides information showing that a number of key parties are actively in favour of semi-presidentialism and that others are in favour of institutional reforms that may be compatible with semi-presidentialism.
The association of particular parties with semi-presidentialism may mean that it becomes politically unacceptable. However, it is clear that there is an explicit debate about the introduction of semi-presidentialism in Mexico and that there are attempts to provide information about the pros and cons not only of this system, but also of other systems as well. See, for example, a detailed briefing document on semi-presidentialism produced by a review associated with the Mexican Senate.