Over the last few days, the four commissioners working at the Federal Institute of Information Access and Data Protection (IFAI), Gerardo Laveaga (head of the organization), Maria Elena Pérez-Jaén, Sigrid Arzt and Ángel Trinidad, requested the Senate to be taken into account in the appointment of new members. According to the transparency reform issued on February 8, the current commissioners, if ratified, will remain at their posts until their previously appointed terms come to an end. Furthermore, the three additional commissioners (two posts that were created by the transparency reform and another one left empty after the departure of Jacqueline Peschard) ought to be appointed by two third parts of the Senate. Beyond who should be the individuals that will be appointed commissioners, the reform to the 6th Constitutional article still has issues to solve, especially those regarding regulation and autonomy, which will determine if the reform ends up on good intentions or whether it will truly advance towards a greater information access for Mexico. This matter also concerns the entities that would be provided with “Constitutional autonomy”, a new concept that is yet to be defined by secondary legislation.
The (temporary) persistence of the current commissioner (to be defined by the Senate on February 28, at most) would provide IFAI with continuity in its functions as well as an institutional stability that would help it to implement the reform in a less difficult way. In addition, as it was evident during the commissioner’s hearing at the Senate, it would enable the opportunity of taking advantage of its experience in issues of federal transparency with the aim of establishing a learning curve for its three new members. The aforementioned experienced is essential, especially when considering technical issues with important consequences as those undertaken within IFAI, even more so when considering the new powers and stakeholders that the transparency regulation will be subject to, such as political parties, unions and organizations receiving public funds.
Regardless of who might be part of IFAI, the next two years will be fundamental to determine the reform’s scope. It is in that period where its regulation will be set, including a new General Transparency Law, which will establish the harmonization of legal frameworks within the country and will set modifications to the judicial frameworks of 32 entities so they stay in the same line as the new transparency bill. Additionally, the setting of a General Archive Law that will be essential for public bodies to systematize, organize and provide information that is accessible and manageable for the general public is currently on the making. Guaranteeing information access goes beyond providing data or numbers; that information should be presented in a functional manner so it can be assimilated and may serve for the benefit of everyone, including political parties and unions, in addition to all those which benefit from public resources.
Lastly, the new IFAI autonomy (just like the rest of autonomous bodies, whether it is the Federal Institute of Telecommunications, the Federal Commission for Economic Competition, the National Electorate Institute or the National Institute of Statistics and Geography) should not result in a simulation that is subject to the will and interests of political parties. The mechanism for appointing commissioners follows the same path of cronyism that favors these parties and, thereby, limits the independent characteristics of the organization. One way to ensure that IFAI will possess a true autonomy is by enhancing the creation of a professional career service that will create specialized and qualified workers which may renew the Institute’s commissioners. Nevertheless, such a change would need a modification to the current law in order to appoint the commissioners as well as a true political will to create specific and capable bureaucracies that do not need the approval of the legislative power (as well as the party’s consensus). In that sense, the challenges for IFAI and Mexico’s transparency are varied because, although the Constitutional reform represented a step forward towards a greater information access, its reach and materialization will depend on what is defined in its day-to-day regulation and operations.
CIDAC
Comments