Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
Juan Ramiro Robledo, a member of the Morenista Movement, said it clearly: ” Very soon, we will start the hearing forums. We are not going to debate; we are going to listen…” He clarified, in case his words were not understood, the following: “It is clear where things are headed.” That is to say, things are heading toward approval without debate of the initiative to reform the justice system in Mexico.
Morena does not discuss, debate, or listen because it prefers to impose its legislative measures. However, ignorance should not be the guide in Mexico. The idea of electing judges and magistrates has been promoted in countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Chile. In Bolivia, 60% of the people vote by annulling their vote because, they say, they do not know the nominees. And all the elected jurists are, without exception, characters with two characteristics in common: they are law graduates with little or no public prestige (prestigious people do not run because it is a stain on their career), and they are all militants of the party in power. With that, all is said and done.
At this time, I will not elaborate on the convenience of the reform project to the Judiciary proposed by Morena. There will be time to follow the tortuous route of “not discussing but listening” to opinions on the reform proposal. The President of the Constitutional Points Commission of the Chamber of Deputies affirms that he will “listen and hear (sic) what judges, ministers, bars and bar associations, academics want to say, we will hear their opinion and we will see the pertinence of some adaptation.” “The pertinence of some adaptation…” said the obscure legislator, undoubtedly aware that there is nothing to adapt because the project is already there and will remain that way. Otherwise, he would not have limited his comment with “things are clear where they are going”.
It should be noted that there have already been round tables of analysis on the reform of the Judicial Power in the Congress of the Union. Most participants rejected the election by popular vote of judges, magistrates, and Justices. That is why, although he claims that they will “hear” different opinions, they are replacing the public consultation with experts with the opinion poll that the party in power will apply to the “people” so that they can give their final opinion. This was announced by Claudia Sheinbaum, the scientist, environmentalist, university graduate, and Jew.
The case of Bolivia is the perfect example of “where things are going” in terms of “justice”. The reform proposal in Mexico places us in the prelude to a race where many aspirants will begin to declare their loyalty to Morena and López Obrador (not Sheinbaum), precisely for labor reasons. A clear example of an aspirant who sees a possible opening to access the Judiciary by way of “public declarations” of love for the 4th transformation is, for example, the recent article by Ana Laura Magaloni, who, in a small and apparently fortuitous slip, claims to have voted for Morena. Like her, we will hear many law graduates proclaiming their fidelity “to the system” and, obviously, aspirants to the judge, justice, or magistrate position. Basically, they will accept whatever is offered in a newly open labor market, where opportunism and the criteria of 90% loyalty and 10% efficiency will abound (Lenia Batres is an example of what is to come).
But the notion of “no dialogue” is essential at this moment. That phrase sums up the idea that permeates and defines the ending government of López Obrador and the one to come under the guidance of Sheinbaum. The narrative that there is no need to dialogue with anyone outside the sphere of the 4T has taken power. Are there six years to come of a country incapable of dialoguing with itself? Or, to put it another way, will it be six years without encounters between majorities and minorities in Mexico? From now on, I assure you that it will be not only a sad but tragic country. It also outlines a country in conflict with itself as long as this state of affairs persists.
The dialogue offered by the outgoing government and the incoming one will be between de facto and formal powers. Between Slim and his associates, drug trafficking, and the 4T, in its diverse modalities and expressions? Is that the idea of a country that will exist? Is that the idea of dialogue to solve the great national problems?
The Morenista deputy expresses that the maximum “democratic” effort that Morena will make will be to “listen” to opinions and then decide, within its four walls and with its illegally qualified majority, how to proceed and what to do according to its political and power interests. From now on, it is clear that this supposed model of the qualified majority that does not dialogue with anyone who is not friendly or devoted to the established power will lead the country to a dead end.
In times of modernity, when it is expected to assume that progress is forward, Mexico is moving backward, towards its own self-imposed Medieval times. It is moving towards a society with social and power structures that pretend to immobilize society. They would not say so, but they assume that a rigid society with no possibility of change and categorically rejecting alternation is feasible. A society without dialogue is a society without democracy and with severe limitations to individual and collective liberties.
According to Morena, we are living the end of history. They act as if there is nothing beyond them in the Mexican future. But they are wrong, as Francis Fukuyama was also wrong when he prematurely declared the end of history when the USSR imploded and Russia was created. To suppose that “today” is the end of history is a mistake because, in reality, it is only the beginning of something as ephemeral as the recent and remote past. The proof of their error is their ignorance in thinking that they are eternal and do not need to dialogue. And when their omnipotent fantasy collapses, will there be anyone to open new doors for them?
Finally, there will be no country for anyone if there is no dialogue.
[email protected]
@rpascoep
Further Reading: