Within the discussions between legislators and members of the Federal Audit Office (ASF) held at Congress, there was a renewed interest in accountability of both institutions and public servers. The presentation of conclusions from Congressmen to ASF’s auditor of Financial Compliance was rather articulate. For instance, the Mexican system has remarkable weaknesses such as the non-existence of a risk analysis within the federal public expenditure or the lack of a unified draft containing the reasonableness of the numbers in the public account. Likewise, the absence of a coordinating mechanism between the federation and states causes the lack of information about the status of resources that are allocated to state and municipal governments as well as the publication of each state’s public account. In the face of such challenging scenarios in the country as the implementation of the energy reform or the spending of 7.7 billion pesos for infrastructure expenses, it is essential to build a responsibilities-based system.
It is not surprising that Mexico is amongst the most corrupt nations worldwide. According to the 2013 Corruption Perceptions Index (published by the NGO Transparencia Mexicana), Mexico was ranked 106th out of 177 countries. The result is even more embarrassing when considering that for 2014, the country barely achieved the 79th position from a total amount of 99 nations that comprise the Rule of Law Index. With such a desolate outlook, what is needed to solve this problem? Will Mexico continue with everlasting diagnoses that “get their knickers in a twist” but never go to the bottom of the issue?
Indeed, corruption is a problem with so many aspects that it is necessary to address it from a multidimensional and coordinated focus that will allow the interaction of different entities that are in charge of tackling specialized angles. Countries like New Zealand have climbed up in the aforementioned rankings by relentlessly reforming their institutions. A firm proposal and a continuity that would outlast the current administration would be the main components in building a national responsibilities system (an idea supported by the Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE)) that would be delegated in different institutions – not just in an anticorruption body, as it is proposed in Congress (though it is currently postponed). The latter is essential in order to achieve goals such as continued evaluations based on data and objective information; determining budgets based on results, efficient prevention schemes; internal control systems to prevent frauds and corruption within the new State production companies (mainly PEMEX and the Federal Electricity Commission); effective sanctioning of criminal behavior; administrative coordination within the three levels of government and the three State powers; as well as adopting a professional career service that will enable the generation of professional technicians specialized in accountability.
This last point is crucial in order to have human capital that is able to occupy posts of the highest responsibility under high probity schemes so they may be able to reach the higher jobs through merit and internal elections. Likewise, the latter is fundamental as to guarantee a real autonomy of institutions and provide transparency, objectivity in the scheme of public finances, assessment of the performance of institutions and public officers, efficient monitoring and independent application of sanction and responsibility controls.
However, all these efforts require, in addition to skill, a political will of the highest level. It is up for the President and legislators to adopt the urgency of including in the structural reforms, their secondary legislation and, most importantly, in the operation rules (which could be labeled as “tertiary laws”) specific, clear and explicit accountability mechanisms as a condition sine qua non in order to have a true strengthening of the rule of law. This will be achieved not when it is established within the political discourse or a legal framework, but when changes become visible for citizens and investors alike. That way, it may be possible to overcome the national paradigm that always tries to blame Mexican culture for all bad things occurring in the country, especially corruption.
CIDAC
Comments