Introduction
In Mexico and around the world, flaws in constitutional legal systems are generating a lack of legitimacy, and the worrying aspect is that there seem to be no alternatives to escape this situation, according to Carla Escoffié.
Carla Escoffié’s Background and Relevance
Carla Escoffié is a renowned lawyer, recognized for her involvement in human rights cases. Her book, “Anarquismo jurídico. Guía crítica sobre cómo el derecho opera en nuestra vida” (Legal Anarchy. A Critical Guide on How Law Works in Our Lives), published by Grijalbo, sheds light on these pressing issues.
The Current State of Mexico’s Judicial System
Escoffié asserts that Mexico has not undergone a judicial reform; instead, there has been a reform concerning the appointment of positions.
She argues that appointing judges through popular vote will not eradicate corruption within Mexico’s justice system. Escoffié emphasizes the impracticality of keeping track of numerous appointments for various individuals.
Constitutional Narratives and Reforms
The Mexican Constitution’s narrative has traditionally been rooted in the Revolution, though its interpretation varies. This flexibility allows successive governments to legitimize their decisions using convenient figures or approaches.
Escoffié points out that the Mexican Constitution, like others, is based on myths. In recent years, the dominant narrative has continued to be grounded in the Revolution.
Participation and Legitimacy
Escoffié believes that historical processes are driven by social mobilization. She argues against the notion that people are uninformed and should not participate in legal matters or the construction of the justice system.
She acknowledges the contradiction between the aristocratic vision of constitutional democracy, which distrusts the masses, and its democratic principle that places the people’s will to change political systems and make decisions.
Escoffié suggests that the real question is how to enable more direct participation beyond mere elections.
Opinion on Judge Appointments
Escoffié believes that the recent changes in Mexico have been a reform of position appointments rather than a genuine judicial or justice reform.
She argues that popular voting for judges will not eliminate corruption. Instead, she advocates for strengthening local courts to make justice more accessible and localized.
Key Questions and Answers
- Why is it crucial to reflect on topics like law, constitutions, and amparo judiciary at this time? Escoffié explains that we are witnessing a significant shift in how law is perceived globally, with constitutional legal systems facing legitimacy issues.
- What are the main contradictions in Mexico’s constitutional system? The aristocratic structure of the constitutional system clashes with democratic principles, making it difficult to find alternatives during crises.
- What is Escoffié’s view on the recent constitutional amendments? She argues that these changes have been more about position appointments rather than genuine judicial or justice reform.
- How does Escoffié propose to improve access to justice? She advocates for strengthening local courts and enabling more direct participation in the justice system.
