Background and Context
On August 8 of the previous year, I wrote an article in this very space titled “The Judicial Reform: Unwanted Scenarios”. At that time, I pointed out that the reform was misguided because, while it’s true that the Judicial Power faced significant challenges, it was being dismantled unnecessarily. This was creating “practically a new one, which will be born with the original sin of electing ministers, magistrates, and judges through popular vote, with all the complexities this implies, but most importantly, with perverse incentives that will eventually turn the Judicial Power into one characterized by capture, both at the local and federal levels, to a much greater degree than is currently pointed out. This is simply because elected officials will strive to be consistent, not in adopting objective judicial criteria, but in adopting judicial criteria that are politically sellable.” I still hold this view, but I am now much more concerned than I was a year ago.
INE’s Shortcomings
We now know that the National Electoral Institute (INE) failed to perform its duty appropriately in organizing the process. Mexicans who decide to vote on Sunday will do so at a much reduced number of designated polling places. Moreover, the credibility of the process is at risk because the vote counting will not be handled by citizens in their role as polling officials, nor will it take place at the same location where votes are cast. Furthermore, results will take several days to be known.
Additional Concerns
If this wasn’t enough to cause concern, there’s also the poorly executed operation that has been ongoing for a few weeks now, not only to artificially mobilize millions of Mexicans to vote on Sunday, including the controversial “acarreo” (bringing voters), but worse, to influence the voting intent through “acordeones” (musical chords) that preemptively indicate to the mobilized (acarreados) whom they should vote for.
Even under this scenario of acarreo, participation estimates are alarmingly low, around 15% in an optimistic scenario, though the final figure is likely to be lower than this threshold.
“The Economist” and “Financial Times” Perspectives
Just over a week ago, the British weekly “The Economist” and just yesterday, the esteemed British daily “Financial Times” commented on the judicial election. Both highlighted the number of judicial positions to be elected and described it as a unique worldwide experiment. “Financial Times” even dared to call it “Kafkaesque.” Both publications agree on the risks of judges and magistrates being captured by organized crime, as well as the undeniable capture of all newly elected judicial officials by the Executive Power, primarily. This will annul the independence of the Judicial Power from the moment the elected judges, magistrates, and ministers begin their functions on Sunday.
The media mentioned warn of the loss of institutional experience that this process will cause and anticipate that from now on, it will be unlikely for governments emanating from the 4T to lose a case litigated in the Judicial Power. Unfortunately for our country, this new scenario will inevitably translate into a very costly learning curve, reflected in a high percentage of cases or files that will be resolved long after if the Judicial Power reform hadn’t implied the removal of hundreds of experienced judges.
Potential Impact
“The change in paradigm in the way a significant portion of cases will be resolved, pressuring new judges to base their decisions on criteria that do not negatively affect their popularity or provoke anger in the highest spheres of the Executive Power, will create an undesirable scenario for a nation aspiring to develop more rapidly. We will all bear the consequences.”
Key Questions and Answers
- What is the main concern about the judicial election? The primary worry is that it will lead to the capture of judges and magistrates by organized crime and political influence, undermining the independence of the Judicial Power.
- How will this affect the voting process? The INE’s inability to organize the process effectively, coupled with questionable mobilization tactics, threatens voter turnout and the credibility of the election.
- What are the potential consequences for the country? The shift in judicial decision-making criteria may result in slower progress towards higher development levels, imposing a costly learning curve and prolonged resolution of cases.
