During 2012, in the government transition period, the then-President elect Peña Nieto announced the presentation of several legislative initiatives on transparency, anti-corruption and government propaganda as top priorities. More than a year after the beginning of his tenure, only the IFAI reform was materialized – which was not short of controversy – while anti-corruption is currently stopped in Congress and government propaganda hasn’t even been drafted. Regarding the latter, given the current scandal of the publicity expenditure made by Chiapas Governor Manuel Velasco, the possibility of elaborating a law to regulate the matter has returned to the political sphere.
Although the intention of regulating the government propaganda is included within the 95 proposals of the Pact for Mexico, it has not been a priority. However, there are rumors about the possibility of the Executive Power to use its faculty of preferential initiative in the next legislative process as to boost the creation of an autonomous entity that would be responsible for the audit on the matter. It is worth asking if the creation of another regulation entity is really what is needed.
As of now, the actions of the Peña administration have answered to a centralizing logic. The eventual creation of an entity that would regulate the government propaganda could go further in the direction of political control, and not be in a genuine purpose of auditing. A biased agency would distort its pretended goals and could work as a mechanism to exercise a greater control on mass media and, mainly, the political aspirations of several public actors. Perhaps behind the intention of establishing a regulating entity there is a desire of preventing that some Governor may repeat the formula used by Peña to reach the Presidency. On the other hand, the cost-benefit relation should be reflected upon, especially considering that it is a tradition in Mexico to build giant bureaucratic entities that end up being “white elephants” more costly than the original issue to be resolved. What are the alternatives, then?
Certainly, the weak control over the government propaganda has allowed several Governors to position their image at nationwide levels, without having consequences that might prevent them from doing it again, besides from public disapproval – which, by the way, tends to fade away quickly. One of the first obstacles for regulating these expenses is the lack of incentives for stakeholders. On one hand, most of the mass media remain active (that is to say, are sustained by) thanks to the government contributions and, on the other hand, several stakeholders from the entire political spectrum have benefitted from this media exposition. Thereby, although the PAN faction in the Senate presented an initiative back in September on the matter, it had little relevance within the rest of the political forces and, even, with some members of the right-wing party itself.
What are the chances for a preferential initiative in the issue of government propaganda? Due to the large number of pending legislative issues that have come from the reforms issued in 2013 – and some other urgent matters due to the Constitutional deadlines established for the creation of secondary legislation (which are seldom complied) – appears to be quite complex. However, providing a proposal with a preferential initiative status might deviate the attention from concluding the secondary legislation of the energy, telecommunication and politic/electoral reforms. The media scandals such as the ones already addressed at the beginning of this text come and go, are frequent, have an expiration date and, even worse, end up answering to the logic of “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”. For that reason, there is a palpable risk of building useless and costly institutions in the heat of a juncture.
CIDAC
Comments