Legislation of Mexico City’s political reform constitutes one of the pending issues in the recently concluded works of the ordinary session period in Congress. Regardless of some discomfort expressed by PRD, the issue was excluded from the political-electoral reform. No doubt, the aforementioned party’s members are the ones that have a greater interest in presenting the capital of the country with a new legal framework with management autonomy, especially on matters such as budget and use of public resources. Thus, the greatest defeat of PRD within the context of those reforms enshrined within the Pact for Mexico was not its null ability to stop the energy reform but the “freezing” of the political reform envisioned for Mexico City.
The most relevant matter of the reform will be to provide Mexico City with a greater political and administrative autonomy through the creation of a local political constitution. The aforementioned document would be written by a Constituent Assembly, a transitory entity, which would succeed the current Legislative Assembly (ALDF). Once the legislation has been issued, the text will define the shaping as well as the faculties enabled by the local Legislative Power, that is to say, if ALDF becomes a Congress with the same Constitutional faculties as the rest of the Mexican states or whether it will possess a special regime, perhaps delimited within the reform itself (just like it occurred with the transitory apparatus of the energy reform). This is precisely the matter of the Constitutional Assembly that is holding back Mexico City’s reform. Neither PRI nor PAN deem convenient a scenario where PRD would have an equivalent representation of the one the ALDF currently possess. PRI would ally itself with PAN in order to achieve a better position. They can do that due to their majority in the federal Congress, the entity which, in the end, still has the last word on the final fate of the city.
The current political organization of Mexico City constitutes a notorious control mechanism from the federal government over the left-wing political faction. On the other hand, although PAN has had the city’s reform on its agenda for quite some time, it is currently faced with the dilemma of backing up PRD in conditions that are not in favor with the party’s principles or leaving everything unchanged. PRI’s desire of winning back the capital also comes into the stage: it is an objective that, due to its complexity, can be paralleled to the motto made famous on the 2000 Presidential elections “taking PRI out of the Presidency”. All of the aforementioned reduces the possibilities that the reform might take place in the short term.
Nevertheless, it is well known that PRD members have not stood still. The unprecedented budget approved for Mexico City by Congress (156.837 billion pesos), where the so-called Capital Fund has been included as well as a first-time allocation for a left-wing administration of a Fund for Social Infrastructure Contributions (FAIS) is not negligible by any means. Without the political reform, PRD will keep on depending on the Legislative Power – that is to say, the Secretariat of Finance – as to determine significant elements such as the debt ceiling for the capital as well as the labeling of most of the budgetary allocations. This does not seem to disturb Mayor Miguel Ángel Mancera, who has not hesitated on exhibiting his close relationship with the federal government. That is not reprehensible. What is questionable is that this “strategy” has not been accompanied with a government program.
The structural programs of the city – water supply, lack of public transportation infrastructure, absence of an integral mobility program, predation of green areas, construction permits allocated with little or no sustainability criteria and, last but not least, public insecurity – remain adrift. With this on mind, what would be the real benefits – for the population, not PRD – of Mexico City gaining larger autonomy? With a government that doesn’t seem to have a clear path, the option is turning out to be more risky than desirable.
CIDAC
Comments