Luis Rubio
In an old medieval tale,* famous in the world of lawyers, a king decides to expropriate a miller’s estate because it impairs the view from his palace. The miller goes to the higher court in Berlin, which rules in his favor and compels the king to compensate him. Hence the phrase “there are judges in Berlin.” In the current Mexican context, the three decisions of the electoral court handed out this week can only be described as historic. At the very least, they break with what seemed like an inevitable slide into chaos.
Two of the decisions were on the candidacies of two individuals to the governments of Guerrero and Michoacán, respectively, for not having complied with the requirement to deliver the expense accounts of their pre-campaigns on time. It might seem a trifling matter, but it is a requirement established in the law (which, incidentally, was reformed after the 2006 and 2012 presidential elections to meet the complaints -tantrums is a better word- of the current president), but Morena refused to accept the electoral authority’s decision (INE). After weeks of pulling and hauling – and several of the president’s morning rants saturated with the usual insults- the electoral tribunal, which up to now had seemed hopelessly intimidated and subdued by the president, ruled in favor of the INE’s decision.
The third decision is much more important because Morena, employing a series of tricks by exchanging deputies from that party for those of others outside its formal coalition after the 2018 election, ended with 367 members in congress, when the constitution establishes an absolute limit of 300 per party or coalition and a maximum over-representation of no more than 8% in the allocation of deputies by proportional representation. Had this rule (which is in the law) been respected in 2018, Morena would not have had the super-majority with which it had imposed one constitutional amendment after another, this without the slightest interest in building a consensus, which was the intention and spirit of the legislator when it limited the number of deputies per political party: so that they would have to negotiate amongst them.
Regardless of the (low) probability that Morena and its allies could repeat the electoral success of 2018 next June, the ruling is historic because it went against AMLO’s avowed preferences. Beyond the substance of these decisions (which is not exceptional), the court dared to challenge the president, a milestone in this administration, and hence its extraordinary significance.
The tribunal’s ruling on overrepresentation reaches the heart of the disagreement that has characterized Mexico in recent decades. Since the 1960s, the country has experienced a dispute over its future: some want to return to the revolutionary nationalism of the 1930s, others want a modern country, open to the world. The banks’ expropriation in 1982, a visceral decision that divided Mexicans, brought the two positions to the fore and inaugurated an era in which the constitution was repeatedly (and contradictorily) reformed without ever attempting to build a consensus to confer longevity to the reforms themselves. During the 1990s, reforms were agreed to by the PRI and the PAN, leaving the PRD out. The electoral reform of 1996 resulted from an agreement among the three political parties, but the implementing legislation did not enjoy PRD’s support. The reforms that followed, especially those of the Peña Nieto administration, alienated half the electorate, opening the door for the reversal López Obrador has now carried out. The point is that the political conflict is reflected in the way of legislating, especially on constitutional matters, sharpening the differences and polarizing the country. Instead of adding, the reforms have been imposed upon Mexicans that think differently, which leads to subtracting. López Obrador did not inaugurate this way of proceeding; he is only exacerbating it.
Under usual circumstances, the rulings of the electoral tribunal this week would have been normal, everyday decisions since they are not exceptional, nor do they break with great precedents. However, they constitute a true landmark that cannot be overlooked or minimized in the current context. In line with the professional and courageous way district judges have acted on the electricity law and, recently, on biometric data for the use of cell phones, the electoral court prevailed over the preferences of a president who did not spare threats or insults in his attempt to get away with his wishes.
The ball now falls on the Supreme Court of Justice court, which has dozens of pending issues, all of them burning and of the greatest importance. Hopefully, the ministers will get the obvious message that this week’s rulings entail. There are key issues pending before the Court regarding the freedoms of Mexicans, the worthiness of the constitution, individual rights, and countless injunctions, long frozen by orders of the man who should not be in charge of that branch of the government. Perhaps this is asking too much, given the way Zaldivar, the Supreme Court president, has done so far with the article relative to his permanence as president of the Court, but it certainly is not too much to ask for the citizenry.
Be that as it may, the National Electoral Institute and the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judicial Branch acted independently at a key moment for Mexico. One win after many losses…
* An excellent analysis of the story can be found in: Esteve Pardo, Jose, Hay Jueces en Berlin, Marcial Pons.
@lrubiof
A quick-translation of this article can be found at www.luisrubio.mx