The PAN [National Action Party] and the PRD [Party of the Democratic Revolution] have put on the table of public discussion an issue that has become a fetish: electoral reform. Since 1977 when the LFOPPE [Federal Law of Political Organizations and Electoral Processes] was enshrined as the one of the milestones for dismantling the [70-year] hegemony of the PRI [Party of the Revolutionary Institution], we have attributed to such legal orders a magic power to transform reality. So much so that from the law of Reyes Heroles [named for influential Mexican politician Jesús Reyes Heroles] up to now, five different electoral codes have been passed, of which almost every one has had a long list of amendments. One wonders if all those changes have actually been necessary, or if it is not a frivolity of our politicians, for whom electoral reform replaces legislative work on much harder issues, such as the famous structural reforms.
The most naive, or idealistic, of our politicians seriously revere the fetish, but the most cynical--of which there are many--see in the formula of electoral reform something less than a rhetorical device, [they see] an easy exit from their work commitment. From their point of view, the subject has all the attractions: first, it lends itself to grand bargains that justify many breakfasts, dinners, lunches and visits to bars in which our politicians meet to discuss the projected arrangements. Negotiating an electoral reform tests their personal skills, their ability to articulate and persuade, their sense of humor, because the jokes are always there, and the negotiation makes them believe they are true statesmen. The huge additional advantage of electoral reform for professional politicians is that it doesn't require a lot of preparation; technical details are in the hands of their aides. Grand calculations, however, are delivered to the chiefs--speculations about imagined results that may never materialize, but while they serve as occupational therapy, they are almost a toy. Yes, definitely, a very expensive toy.
Our politicians love electoral reforms because it is a matter that they control, that they examine and discuss among themselves. Something very different from what happens with other reforms, such as taxation or telecommunications, which involve interest groups, such as business leaders for what is to be negotiated, others that have to be persuaded, and legislators and parties that want to be convinced. Anyway, faced with the demands of individuals or with representatives of the President, even the most docile deputies and senators will say that it's much more pleasant to work with each other than having to listen to the stubborn demands or requests that steal time from their breakfasts, lunches, dinners and visits to the bar, in which, for the sake of the country, they become such good friends even if they belong to opposing parties.
Discussions announced regarding electoral reform have many aspects: but first and foremost in the sights is the IFE [Federal Election Institute], our democracy's crown jewel that has caused so much irritation to the political forces during its short history, which does not exceed a quarter century. The institute responsible for organizing and administering federal elections has in many cases slowed the irascible behavior of political actors. The IFE has wanted to subject them to the rules that they were given--since, ultimately, the IFE is a work of the political parties--and when the politicians have violated the rules, the Institute has sanctioned them (although it must be admitted that it hasn't always done so). The IFE was created as an organ of the Mexican State, but unfortunately, it has become a representative partisan body that is subject to the balance of political forces ... .
The PAN's and the PRD's proposal to replace the IFE with a national electoral institute reveals the inability of the opposition to gain strength in the states and to resist pressure from local power structures that, regardless of democratization, remain intact. Opposition parties seek to compensate for this weakness by re-centralizing electoral authority with the support of federal power. The proposed INE [National Electoral Institute] could assert the rights of citizens at the local level, which is now firmly controlled by the governors, who have kidnapped state election authorities.
The proposal evokes the 1946 electoral law, the first modern legislation on the subject of elections and parties, one of whose main objectives was precisely to centralize the organization and administration of elections to put an end to the abuses of governors and mayors, who until then were responsible for these procedures. The purpose of this law, among others, was to regularize and stabilize elections, but only the federal government, with all the political clout of the Executive Branch could impose on the Gonzalo N. Santos's [Governor of San Luis Potosí, 1943-1949] of this world. Half a century later we decentralized electoral responsibility, because we thought that it was one of the conditions of democratization. Then the abuses of the powerful local bosses returned and now, to stop them we again resort to the fetish. Politicians are rubbing their hands with satisfaction and are already thinking of the breakfasts, lunches, dinners and bars where they are going to play. Spanish original
*Soledad Loaeza is professor-researcher of political science and international relations at the Center of International Studies at the College of Mexico. Her principle avenues of investigation are the democratization process in Mexico, the National Action Party (PAN), and Mexican social transformations in the 20th century.