Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
Everything is contained and said with the meaning of a single word. A thousand explanations can be given about the supposedly democratic nature of the constitutional reform, but everything is nullified by the word “supremacy”. The intention is to place one branch of government above another. There is no other possible explanation for using the word “supremacy”.
The fact of legislating such “supremacy” annuls, in fact, the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States (CPEUM) because it cancels the existence of the three independent and autonomous Powers of the State, which have the sublime capacity of being effective counterweights among themselves. That is why, within the framework of the Constitution, one of the Powers cannot dominate the other and much less determine or undermine its faculties. The Judicial Branch must be able to correct the other two Branches when they exceed their powers or decision-making capacities.
Article 41 of the CPEUM states: “The people exercise their sovereignty through the Powers of the Union”. The Powers of the Union are, with equal weight and independence, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The Constitution does not contemplate supremacy among the three Powers of the State under any concept.
Mexico’s Magna Carta contains two essential elements that must always be preserved at all costs. These are, on the one hand, individual guarantees and human rights, and on the other hand, the division of powers.
Congressman Monreal, leader of the majority in the Chamber of Deputies and supposed constitutionalist university professor, explained precisely and in all its forms the hidden intention of modifying the Constitution. The constitutional reform to grant “supremacy” to the decisions of the Legislative Branch over the Judicial Branch, in the matter of the power to review decisions of constitutional changes, has the sole purpose of preventing the Court from freezing the judicial reform. The proposal has this specific political objective: to prevent the Court from freezing the reform of the Judicial Branch.
Therefore, in exchange for achieving a circumstantial political objective, the legislative majority decided to dynamite the entire edifice of the right to the amparo trial in Mexico. With this action, one of the fundamental human rights existing in Mexico and a pillar of the justice system is attacked. What made the rule of law in Mexico admirable and recognized worldwide for its progressiveness is the amparo trial, which today is eliminated and destroys the essential value of legal protection in our country. The world looks at us with astonishment and sadness before such a setback.
How is it possible, international observers ask, that a supposed leftist government becomes reactionary and conservative, annulling the most sacred human right of its citizens? How did this unnatural process of these rulers, identified as supposed intellectuals and enlightened thinkers, annul the right to the amparo trial?
This is not the time to explain the complex political, ideological, and social process that led to the degradation of the political current that is now the majority (by the grace of corruption) in the legislative branch. What can be confirmed, given the irrefutable facts, is the fall of this political current into the abyss of authoritarianism and anti-democracy. Any argument serves as a disguise for the naked intentionality of appropriating power and using it as a battering ram to impose their ideas on a society with no shame and without distinction. No one dares to question the new truths that move and force society to subordination.
The French philosopher Voltaire slipped an idea that runs through our reality with astonishing and crude force: “The last degree of perversity is to make laws serve injustice”. This phrase of Voltaire’s paints Morena’s philosophy and praxis in exercising power. Voltaire founded his thoughts on religious tolerance and ideological freedom. He lived the prolegomena of the Enlightenment, and his philosophical thoughts reflected it. He preached the preeminence of human rights and freedom against dogmatism and fanaticism. The social premise was based on the idea that the law had to be equal for all. Life in common demanded a social pact of tolerance for different ideas.
With all this baggage of ideas, we get, courtesy of the 18th century, the best ideas to refute the intolerance and fanaticism of Morena in the 21st century. Voltaire understood the perversity of the human mind and of the institutions created by the actors of power to reproduce their regimes with intolerance and fanaticism. For this reason, Voltaire is a man of our era who raises the uncomfortable questions that the powerful do not want to hear, much less answer.
According to Voltaire and Freud, Morena’s perversity, in all its representations, is expressed in its willingness to destroy the scaffolding of legal protection for all Mexicans to take over the Mexican Judiciary and thus defend the legacy of the former President, a perverse polymorph.
The use of the word “supremacy” gives off a fascist whiff. The superior race was the foundation of Hitler’s Third Reich. His whole thesis for mobilizing the German people was based on the idea of their supremacy over other races. In Putin’s Russia, his ideologues repeat to the people his thesis about his superiority (supremacy) over other peoples “dragged down by weakness”, which justifies the dominance he intends over Ukraine and other countries to come. Trump worries about the contamination of the superior (supreme) blood of Americans (whites, although he hints at it but no longer says so) with the contamination of the blood of inferior peoples who “invade” his nation.
Supremacy thinking is everywhere, and now it turns out that Morena promotes those ideas. That is why behind the “naturalness” with which Morena releases its notion of supremacy lies an essentially authoritarian, intolerant, and anti-democratic notion.
The word supremacy they chose to “define” their action rather paints them in full body and reveals the profound weakness of their own strength. Faced with their own doubts about their legitimacy, they want to annul any possibility of social questioning of their decisions. What they promote is not designed to foster democracy but to silence possible criticism of their poor, even illegal, performance as rulers.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: