On 30 April, the ordinary sessions of the first year of the 62nd Legislature in Congress came to an end. Usually, the work balance in both Chambers is supported by counting the number of discussed, approved and enacted proposals. However, there are other factors to take into account when judging the Congressmen’s overall performance. This article will address two of these factors: the potential scope of reforms and the link between Congress and another major legislative actor, the Executive Power.
In qualitative terms, the usefulness of the reforms carried out is a better indicator that complements and gives a sort of meaning rather than just reading plain numbers. The subjective nature of this point has to be considered, particularly when the changes have not even begun or if their repercussions in the medium and long term are being estimated. Other possible scenario is that, once the law is enacted, its text and essence will be jeopardized by entering the most complex arena in legislative changes: reality. The verdict will turn out to more severe as results appear in time. As an example, some of the most representative products of the past two legislative sessions, have had great difficulties either being implemented – penal reform – or were just short-term palliatives – energy and tax reforms.
On the other hand, perhaps what was most interesting about the 62nd Legislature was the unique way in which it was linked with current President Enrique Peña Nieto, his predecessor Felipe Calderón and the Pact for Mexico. The former Head of State had an unprecedented activism in the last days of his administration via preferential initiatives (a concept that’s faded into oblivion). In both cases, the legislative agenda was established – or at least influenced – by the Executive Power. It is worth remembering that reforms to the Federal Labor Law and Government Accounts Law – the latter will become the first step in a series of modifications aimed at strengthening transparency on the use of public resources as well as to stabilize finances of government agencies – were initiatives that Congress was legally forced to rule and vote in a fixed deadline given its preferential treatment. Without the aforementioned mechanism it would have been nearly impossible for an outgoing President like Calderón to exert pressure on recently elected Congressmen and a new Head of State. In the case of Peña, the Pact for Mexico served as a more sophisticated (and efficient) mechanism than preferential initiative. Regardless of the restriction of the preferential initiative for not being able to include constitutional reforms and even though it did not set legal deadlines, the Pact managed to commit the opposition political forces to fulfill a scheduled agenda that succeeded in carrying out several reforms, such as education, telecommunications, the Amparo law, the Crime Victims law, to name a few. In short, the difference between Calderón and Peña is that the former pushed the agenda backed up only by a legal instrument while the latter preferred to use political negotiation and, thus, the construction of a greater legitimacy in his reform proposals. In any case, it is clear that legislation such as the labor reform came out in the last administration due to the decisive intervention of the former President.
Even when the Pact for Mexico stumbled in recent weeks due to the electoral environment, the signature of an addenda to the agreement on 7 May seems to have “restored peace” to its members. Nevertheless, the most complex tests are about to come in the second year of the 62nd Legislature: energy and tax reforms. Will the Pact continue to be efficient as a leading element on the materialization of the proposals by President Peña or some other mechanisms will have to come up after its eventual demise? In any case, the federal Government is set on carrying out its agenda and repeating the phrase “mission accomplished” along with Congress, with or without Pact (preferably with it). However the major pitfall will be the coming July elections, something that will undoubtedly tense the relations between political parties that are members of the Pact.
CIDAC
Comments