Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
In its print version of Sunday, November 3, the New York Times published an article and interview with Justice Juan Luis González Alcántara on his proposal to annul parts of the judicial reform approved in the Mexican Congress by the over-represented Morena majority.
The New York newspaper suggests that Justice González Alcántara’s proposal is a last attempt to find a middle ground between the proposal approved by Morena and those who consider that with what is proposed, the Judicial Branch loses all its independence and autonomy of action and decision. The proposal will preserve a certain degree of independence of the Judicial Branch by subjecting the contenders to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and some other high positions to popular vote. Still, as is currently the case, most judges and magistrates at different levels will continue to be appointed by the system of promotions based on professional qualifications of knowledge and merit.
ENG-nota-ejecutiva-sobre-proyecto-resolucion-ministro-instructorTo read the whole document, the controls for turning pages and zooming in or out are at the bottom left corner above.
In its article, the New York Times adds that the proposal faces a rough political environment in Mexico, where the ruling party equates any change with surrender. Mexico is governed by an ultra-nationalist left that believes in “all or nothing”.
“I extend my hand, opening the possibility of a negotiation, to reflect, an invitation to weigh the situation carefully,” said the Justice. Evidently, the Justice’s is a calm and responsible voice seeking positive solutions within the overwhelming maelstrom of sharp political statements that disregard any call for dialogue.
The blind ideologization of the debate was forceful when the President herself commented, with mockery and ridicule, on the resignation of eight Justices because, she said, “they want to retire with a bunch of money”. An analysis and commentary typical of political childishness, not of a person who pretends to be a beloved and respected leader of a country. And it is a small-minded comment in the face of the specter of a constitutional crisis. Moreover, she ignores or forgets that the resignation was a rule imposed by the constitutional reform passed by her party.
The New York Times article finds striking parallels between Mexico’s judicial reform and so-called constitutional supremacy with the reforms to Hungary’s constitutional system promoted by Viktor Orban, its Prime Minister. In his country, Orban promoted a constitutional reform that also prevented the judiciary from reviewing the constitutionality of reforms approved by the Hungarian parliament, which is precisely what has just been approved by the Morenist majority in the Mexican Congress.
The parallels between the authoritarian pretensions of the supposedly progressive Mexican leftists and the Hungarian extreme rightists do not go unnoticed. It should be remembered that Trump considers Orban his soul mate. Will Sheinbaum and AMLO also be the soul mates of Trump and Orban? It is in the management of power that extremes meet, touch, caress, and recognize each other as equals.
By the way, Orban is an avowed ally of Putin in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, while Mexico has been, at best, “neutral” in the face of that illegal and illegitimate war. And, as is well known, to be neutral in such a conflict is to endorse the aggressor.
The article concludes pessimistically, as has been the case with all its recent articles on Mexico. It considers Justice Gonzalez Alcantara’s proposal a reasonable and feasible solution to a looming constitutional crisis. However, it assumes that the President will be unable to find a favorable solution due to her total political dependence on AMLO, who demands the full implementation, without haggling, of his judicial reform.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: