The National Election Institute (INE): is it really necessary?

share on:
political-analisis

Finally, the 2013 electoral process has concluded. There are still some pending challenges and many of the results aren’t yet definitive, however, it is possible to observe that PRI has maintained itself as an important force in all of the country’s states. Even though it lost some significant posts such as the Baja California governorship and at least 5 state capitals, opposition had an overall setback. In this context, both PAN and PRD have denounced several irregularities, claiming some sort of intervention by Governors. In theory, if these anomalies are proved to be true, there would be enough motives to walk away from the Pact for Mexico. As remembered, the essential motivations of the addendum referred to the misuse of programs and public resources with electoral means, from federal and local authorities. Having these kinds of suspicions is nothing new. In fact, there are several voices that claim that more control should be put into local electoral institutions and thereby, avoid governments from manipulating at will. This is how the proposal of creating a National Election Institute came to life, something that would act as a substitute for IFE as well as state electoral organizations. However, how convenient would it be to centralize the matter?

The high level of abstention present in the last elections – in Baja California the number was around 60% -, in addition to phenomenon like blank votes or nomination of imaginary candidates, as a protest to the party regime, certainly exhibit a general disappointment of citizens with the political system. The apathy of voters is barely a symptom that they don’t feel represented by politicians at all, they even describe the latter as corrupt, selfish and with little interest on solving the most urgent problems in the country. What should be done to enhance trust in institutions once again? As of now, parties don’t seem to bother asking the question and are focused on what they consider an unfair participation scheme. Certainly, solving this conflict is essential if a solid democracy is one of the goals. Nevertheless, if people start to think that elections are just a mere proceeding to legitimize an immovable political class that is only interested in its survival, democracy can never be truly consolidated. This is complicated when voters perceive their concerns to be further away from politicians’ true aims. The disappointment grows if they believe their decisions have little relevance and are decided by groups that are out of touch with their reality. This could have happened in Baja California, with growing rumors about an agreement between PRI and PAN, in which the former may have conceded the state’s governorship to the latter, in exchange of PAN’s allegiance to the Pact for Mexico. Regardless of what may or may not have happened, a scheme where the people’s will is of little importance when compared to agreements held would be a huge set-back. Democracy has the commitment of ensuring that authorities comply with their governed, not preserving their own privileges. This is complex when considering the existence of a federal pact, where the particular traits of every entity breathe life to the State. This is apparently not being respected, especially with the tendency of re-centralizing several of the government’s powers, from security and tax collecting to electoral matters.

The proposal of centralizing electoral matters using a National Election Institute could solve the problem of institutional co-optation from a local perspective, but would certainly weaken the institutional closeness with citizens. Besides, this initiative would be a sort of “shot in the foot” for opposition, due to the centralizing policies of the current government. The parties’ weakness in some states is not explained with the Governor’s power concentration but with their incapacity to create solid basis that would allow them to be competitive. Assuming that everything is more manageable when done from the political center, would have the potential of devastating the only way to fight the overwhelming impulse of federal government of controlling national politics: plurality.

CIDAC

share on:

Comments