Proceso: John M. Ackerman
Mexico City - It is not in the interests of the politicians to change the current corrupt system of distribution of electoral posts, favors and privileges. They are only looking to inject a new dose of public legitimacy to overcome the crisis of confidence generated by both the dirty elections of 2012 and by recent scandals. As happened after the elections of 1988, 1994 and 2006, the primary intent of the new promises and electoral reforms is to erase traces of past impunity rather than to fundamentally transform the system.
Any effort to move forward on this issue would have to begin with clear accountability for the 2012 elections. Not only must the embezzlement in Tabasco be investigated, but also the rivers of money that probably flowed from the coffers of the State of Mexico, Hidalgo, Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Coahuila and other states governed by the PRI to ensure the victory of Enrique Peña Nieto. Of course, it's also necessary to get to the bottom of the affairs at Monex and Soriana.
With regard to electoral reform, we must go beyond addressing legal loopholes and adjusting bureaucratic structures to take definitive measures that might allow for the recovery of citizen confidence in elections. Today electoral processes are sets of negotiations between party elites and the powers that be. He wins who seals the most compromising pacts and violates the election rules most blatantly.
It's necessary to make a 180-degree turn so campaigns and elections are transformed into processes of genuine debate, expression and citizen participation. This would put a stop to the media abuses, make campaign spending limits effective, eliminate the bias and passivity of electoral bodies and empower citizens to defend the authenticity of the vote.
The first challenge is to avoid getting lost in endless debates about purely bureaucratic issues. For example, for years directors of the IFE [Federal Election Institute] and its organic intellectuals have insisted that they should move the sanctioning and control powers of the IFE to other agencies, such as the Electoral Tribunal of the Judiciary of the Federation (TEPJF) or the Supreme Audit of the Federation (ASF). This is to "protect" the IFE from political turmoil and work overload, which supposedly damages its effectiveness and credibility.
For a long time, the possibility of creating a single national electoral institute has been discussed in order to organize both federal and local elections. Proponents of this proposal argue that this body would allow significant savings and would also break the control of the governors over the elections in their respective states.
Both proposals are questionable and do not address the underlying problem. Instead of lightening the workload of the allegedly exploited electoral councilors, they should be given more powers and required that these highly paid officials properly fulfill their constitutional responsibilities. And instead of delivering all elections in the country to a national advisory group of proven bias, measures would have to be taken to ensure the independence and citizen control of all the electoral bodies in the country.
A key reform, for example, would implement new mechanisms for the selection of directors and election judges. A draw from a pool of citizen candidates who have already passed several stages of review by civil society itself could minimize the influence of political parties on the new officials. (See my review here: Use Lottery to Choose Heads of Oversight Agencies.) Another strategic reform would be creation of a new "Citizen Dissatisfaction Court" on the General Law for Appeal of Electoral Matters, namely that the society could challenge directly the performance of the IFE and of political parties before the Electoral Tribunal. In this way, citizens would cease being passive transmitters of votes in order to become central players in the defense of the authenticity of the entire electoral process.
But the most important reform would be expansion of the obligations for radio and television. Instead of just issuing calls in the form of "suggested guidelines" for news coverage of political campaigns, the IFE would have to strictly monitor all aspects of transmissions and have the power to punish violations of the principle of equity. Following the Italian model, the sanctions should apply regardless of whether or not there was a contract or formal grant to any candidate.
Similarly, it would be advisable to amend Article 70 of the Federal Code of Electoral Institutions and Procedures (COFIPE) to ensure the organization of at least six debates between the presidential candidates, with compulsory attendance for all candidates, and to be broadcast nationally. Additionally, it could also institutionalize "deliberative conferences" in which citizens themselves would have the opportunity to publicly debate the most important issues on the national agenda and discuss the candidates' positions. Other proposals would be to include exceeding campaign [spending] limits as grounds for annulment of the presidential election, as well as broadening the legal obligations of electoral advisers, both federal and local, to inhibit and punish vote buying and voter coercion.
Reform proposals abound. What is lacking is political will. Today in Mexico popular sovereignty is still a dream. We demand a new country in which this and other dreams come true. Spanish original
Excerpt originally published in Proceso magazine on June 1, 2013. Complete article is available on John M. Ackerman's blog.
*John M. Ackerman, U.S. born and trained scholar (Ph.D. in political sociology, University of California, Santa Cruz), is also a Mexican citizen. He is a researcher in the Institute of Judicial Research of the National Autonomous University of Mexico [UNAM] and editorial director of the Mexican Law Review. A columnist for La Jornada newspaper and Proceso magazine, Dr. Ackerman maintains a blog of his articles in Spanish, as well as some in English. Twitter: @JohnMAckerman