Introduction
We are just days away from witnessing drastic changes in the way justice is administered and managed in Mexico, starting June 1st. Amid numerous doubts and questions about the conditions set for electing judges and ministers through popular vote, we find ourselves at a turning point that prioritized political sexennial projects over the care and strengthening of our justice system, which safeguards and ensures our democracy.
The Risks of Politicizing the Judiciary
Beyond the debate of whether to vote or not, it’s crucial to understand that electing judges and magistrates should not be resolved through public elections. Placing the Judicial Power in the public arena poses significant risks, especially considering historical vulnerabilities that have sought to maintain autonomy, independence, and freedom for judicial members to impart justice to citizens. Today, these safeguards have been disregarded, and we face the collapse of structures that once upheld state power.
The careers of judicial members should not be measured by votes; instead, their professionalism, merit, experience, and long-term specialization should guarantee that those responsible for legitimate processes are the most qualified, not based on popularity or election results but on their capabilities and experience. Relying on passions and favors in matters of justice is playing on a field where everything is conditional, and impartiality becomes impossible.
The Need for Judicial Reform
Undoubtedly, there are many criticisms of our justice system. No one denies the existence of corruption, impunity, backlogs, and deficiencies that require addressing or reform. However, any judicial reform must preserve the rule of law, autonomy, impartiality, and freedom. Believing that direct elections by the people will select the best individuals to manage, administer, and impart justice is mistaken. Furthermore, there’s no way to ensure that criminal interests and collusion are absent in candidate selection, as all interests can be represented once the process is opened to the public sphere.
Regardless of the outcomes, this new process will demand our positive engagement to improve our justice system from the local level. It presents an opportunity for genuine reforms that enable a more effective, efficient, professional, and transparent justice system. By understanding local needs, objectives, and goals, we can build a stronger foundation for dignified, expedited, and high-quality justice.
Key Questions and Answers
- What are the main concerns about electing judges through popular vote? The primary concerns include the risk of politicizing the judiciary, undermining its autonomy and independence, and prioritizing political projects over the care and strengthening of the justice system.
- Why is relying on passions and favors in matters of justice problematic? This approach jeopardizes impartiality, as decisions become conditional and influenced by external factors rather than merit and experience.
- What are the potential issues with criminal interests in candidate selection? Opening the process to public representation increases the likelihood of criminal interests and collusion influencing candidate selection, which can compromise the integrity of the judiciary.
- How can this new era contribute to a better justice system? Despite the challenges, this change presents an opportunity for genuine reforms that can lead to a more effective, efficient, professional, and transparent justice system, ultimately strengthening citizens’ rights to dignified, expedited, and high-quality justice.
