El Pais.Mexico, November 8, 2022
By Carmen Morán Breña
[Spanish original follows the English translation]
A presidential vote every six years does not make a democracy. Not once every four or every three. [Mexico's president and senators in the Congress are elected for a "sexenio", a six-year term. Deputies in the lower house of Congress are elected for three-year terms. The next presidential and congressional election is in 2024]
The ballot box is not the only factor in determining the democratic health of a country. Trade unions worthy of the name are needed, as well as quality education and healthcare for all, and a State that has no parallel of a criminal one by its side, among many other things.
But citizens, naturally, tend to measure democracy, first of all, by the health of their elections, by everything that has to do with political parties and their performance. That is where Mexico is now, nothing less than immersed in a reform of the electoral system, which will affect the financing of the parties, the electoral institute, and the courts in charge of organizing, monitoring and, where appropriate, punishing abuses of the electoral process [Mexico has courts that are specifically and only for trying charges of electoral abuses]. Of course, without a doubt, everything is worthy of revision and improvement.
An electoral reform is not a matter to be determined by a single party, no matter how much of a majority it has [Morena, the Movement for National Regeneration, founded by now President Andrés Manuel López Obrador in 2014, has a large majority in both houses of Congess and in a majority of state legislatures and governor's offices]. [It is a matter] of a broad political and popular consensus that will perpetuate it over time, without shocks or questioning, until society makes new changes.
Ask the president of Chile, Gabriel Boric, what happens when something as universal as a Constitution turns out to be only to the liking of one party. Consensus, in politics as in the school playground, forces us to swallow some uncomfortable elements in order to advance the priority. They are tough and complex negotiations.
The reform proposed by the Government did not start badly. The opposition alliance Va por México [Go for Mexico], formed by the PAN [National Action Party, traditionally conservative], the PRI [Party of the Institutional Revolution, hegemonic from the 1930s to the 1990s and opportunistic in its politics] and the PRD [Party of the Democratic Revolution, formed from a range of leftist groups in 1988], agreed at the end of October to enter into negotiations with the majority party, Morena. Only the Citizen's Movement remained out of this agreement. It wouldn't be a mistake for them to explore all the possibilities for joining as well.
But things have gotten tangled up in the past few days. A recently released survey by the National Electoral Institute (INE) showed that Morena received the best results:
-93% of citizens support the proposal to allocate fewer public resources to political parties [in Mexico, the government provides all the income for the parties, ostensibly to eliminate private influences];
-87% support reducing the number of deputies and senators in the federal Congress;
-78% support that the councilors of the National Electoral Institute and election judges be elected by the direct vote of the citizens;
-74% agree to reduce the funding granted to the INE.
But Morena, the beneficiary in the poll, got angry. The INE, they said, had hidden the data collected because it wasn't good for the institute itself but for the Government and its initiative. The INE replied that the entire poll results had been published and were transparent. Published, but not publicized would be a better way to put it.
President López Obrador could have presented it with his best smile at his daily morning press conference. The head of the INE, Lorenzo Córdova, played down the importance of the survey, arguing that it had been done in early September, when the majority of the population barely knew about the reform.
The swords are already crossed. The president's relationship with the INE and Córdova throughout the [four years of his] six-year term [Dec. 1, 2018-Nov. 30, 2024] have not been good. That is a key piece of information because one might wonder if all of this reform is a response to a legitimate interest in improving things or is [the presdient's]...personal tantrum. Hopefully, it is the first.
The National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), a supposedly autonomous body [i.e., independent of oversight by any other government body or office], has joined this fight, not just openly but brazenly, by asking legislators for their support to eliminate the "privileges" of the INE and modify the current selection of the councilors. It also wants the facilitating of popular referendums. These are crucial demands of the presidential initiative. As the proposed legislation is already in Congress, where the citizens have representation, perhaps more external pressure wasn't needed. Maybe, yes. The CNDH will know its place.
In addition to what is mentioned above, the Government wants the plurinominal legislators to disappear. [They are] those for whom no one votes directly at the polls but who [are chosen by each party's leadership to be on a list] and gain [a number of seats in the Congress] proportional to the votes given for each party.
The Government also wants the advertising spaces of the political parties to be cut [the Government pays for the advertising], and the threshold of the percentage of citizen participation to be lowered for the result of a referendum to become binding (this is what the CNDH was referring to regarding facilitating popular referendums).
So, people have the material to think about to form their opinion. But it isn't good to forget that elections are not the only element to take into account in a democracy. To realize that there are ballot boxes without democracy [one only needs to] see union elections in Mexico [most unions have traditionally been controlled by individuals supported and controlled by the government]. Or, to give a recent example, those organized by Ortega in Nicaragua.
¿Es una reforma electoral o un berrinche presidential? El Pais - México, Por Carmen Morán Breña
Una votación presidencial cada seis años no hace democracia. Tampoco una vez cada cuatro ni cada tres. Las urnas no son el único factor para determinar la salud democrática de un país. Se necesitan unos sindicatos dignos de ese nombre, una educación y sanidad de calidad para todos y un Estado que no tenga otro paralelo y criminal a su lado, entre otras muchas cosas. Pero la ciudadanía, naturalmente, suele medir la democracia, en primer lugar, por la salud de sus elecciones, por todo lo que tiene que ver con los partidos políticos y su desempeño. En esas está ahora México, nada menos que inmerso en una reforma del sistema electoral, que incidirá en la financiación de los partidos y del organismo y los tribunales encargados de organizar, vigilar y, en su caso, sancionar el proceso. Todo es digno de revisión y mejora, sin duda. Con seriedad, desde luego.
Una reforma electoral no es cosa de un solo partido, por más mayoría que tenga, sino de un consenso amplio que la perpetúe en el tiempo sin sobresaltos ni cuestionamientos hasta que la sociedad marque nuevos cambios. Que le pregunten al presidente de Chile, Gabriel Boric, qué ocurre cuando algo tan de todos como una Constitución resulta ser solo del gusto de un partido. Los consensos, en política como en el patio escolar, obligan a tragarse algún sapo incómodo con tal de avanzar en lo prioritario. Son una negociación, dura y compleja.
Esta reforma planteada por el Gobierno no empezó mal. La alianza opositora Va por México, formada por el PAN, PRI y PRD, aceptó a finales de octubre entrar a negociar con el partido mayoritario, Morena, el del presidente Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Solo Movimiento Ciudadano quedó fuera de ese propósito. No harían mal en explorar todas las posibilidades para que se sume también.
Pero la cosa se ha enredado en los últimos días. Una encuesta del Instituto nacional Electoral (INE), recientemente conocida, mostraba los mejores datos para el partido oficialista, Morena: el 93% de ciudadanos apoya la propuesta de destinar menos recursos públicos a los partidos políticos; el 87% avala disminuir el número de diputaciones y senadurías a nivel federal; el 78% apoya que los consejeros y los magistrados electorales sean electos por el voto directo de la ciudadanía; el 74% acepta reducir los recursos que se le otorgan al INE.
Pero ese mismo partido, el beneficiado en los sondeos, se enfadó. El INE, dijeron, había ocultado los datos recabados porque no eran buenos para el propio instituto, sino para el Gobierno y su iniciativa. Y el INE respondió que ahí estaba toda la encuesta publicada y transparente. Publicada, pero no difundida, vendría a ser el resumen. El presidente López Obrador se encargó de exhibirla con su mejor sonrisa en la Mañanera y el responsable del INE, Lorenzo Córdova, restó importancia al sondeo porque se había hecho a principios de septiembre, cuando la mayoría de la población apenas sabía de la reforma, argumentó. Las espadas ya estaban en alto. No ha sido buena la relación del presidente con el INE ni con Córdova en todo el sexenio. Ese es un dato clave porque cabría preguntarse si toda esta reforma responde a un interés legítimo por mejorar las cosas o a un berrinche personal. Es de esperar que a lo primero.
A esa pelea se ha sumado, más que abierta, descaradamente, la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos (CNDH), organismo supuestamente autónomo, que pidió a los legisladores su apoyo para eliminar los “privilegios” del INE y modificar la designación actual de los consejeros, así como facilitar las consultas populares, demandas cruciales de la iniciativa presidencial. Si el asunto ya está en el Congreso, donde tienen representación los ciudadanos, quizá no hacía falta más ayuda externa. Quizá sí. La CNDH sabrá cuál es su sitio.
Quiere el Gobierno, además de lo citado arriba, que desaparezcan los legisladores plurinominales, esos a los que no vota nadie en las urnas y que encuentran una representación proporcional a la obtenida por cada partido; que se recorten los espacios publicitarios de las formaciones políticas; y que se baje el umbral de participación ciudadana a partir del cual el resultado de una consulta se convierte en vinculante (a eso se refería la CNDH con facilitar las consultas populares).
Ahí tienen material sobre el que ir pensando para formar su opinión. Pero no es bueno olvidar que las elecciones no son el único elemento a tener en cuenta en una democracia. Que hay urnas sin que haya democracia, vean si no los comicios sindicales en México. O, por poner un ejemplo reciente, los que organiza Ortega en Nicaragua.