Introduction
The Mexican judicial system is not broken; it’s designed to resist change, and this resistance isn’t coincidental. It stems from an institutional architecture that favors opacity, discretion, and simulation.
Recent Judicial Reform
A recent judicial reform aimed to modernize the system. However, while new organs like the Tribunal de Disciplina Judicial (Tribunal of Judicial Discipline) and the Órgano de Administración Judicial (Judicial Administration Organ) are being created, old vices are merely being rebranded.
The supposed electoral legitimacy of judges and magistrates has become a facade, concealing a real power vacuum, technical incompetence, and dangerous politicization that threatens to dismantle judicial independence.
Exodus of Technical Personnel
The mass exodus of technical personnel is not a mere coincidence or simple resignation; it’s a symptom of a system crumbling from within. Advisors and specialists are fleeing a toxic environment where political pressure and lack of autonomy are the norm.
The quality of justice is at stake, along with public trust. The institutional fragility of the Judicial Power isn’t measured by the number of laws but by its inability to ensure impartial justice.
Weak Internal Control Mechanisms
Today, internal control mechanisms are weak, disciplinary processes opaque, and the judicial career remains marked by nepotism. The Judicial Power’s Auditor’s Office, which should serve as a technical counterbalance, operates without real autonomy or deep oversight capacity.
Normalization of Simulation
Most concerning is the judicial culture that normalizes simulation. Formalities are followed while substance is avoided. The weak are punished, allies are protected, and statistics are manipulated. This logic perpetuates impunity and erodes public trust.
Comparative Analysis
Other countries have faced this dilemma with audacious reforms. For instance, in Switzerland, disciplinary judges are appointed by Parliament under clear and predictable rules. In contrast, Mexico’s appointments remain opaque negotiations between judicial and political elites.
The Path Forward
The solution isn’t more cosmetic reforms. The system needs to be redesigned based on principles of transparency, citizen participation, and external evaluation. The judiciary cannot remain a closed feud; it must open itself to public scrutiny and accountability with verifiable indicators.
