Mexico City.- Electing judges by popular vote is dangerous and provides an ideal gateway for interference by organized crime, warned Larry Diamond, a professor at Stanford University.
Invited by the INE to give a lecture entitled “Challenges of democracy in times of democratic setbacks,” he noted that there is a noticeable decline in democracy in Mexico.
He argued that the presidential and ruling party plans are “extremely dangerous” because they will result in a reduction in accountability and in the system’s ability to deliver justice and combat crime.
“I cannot imagine a worse way to elect judges than to have them elected by the people.
“The judiciary is not a representative entity, and to be subject to the same populist passions as legislators and leaders is to fail to understand the role of the judiciary in a high-quality democracy. It is to risk and undermine the independence of the judiciary, its integrity and its ability to do its job,” he said.
He said that candidates running in a campaign need resources to position themselves, and that money will come from crime and politicians, who they will later have to thank “with favors.”
“The danger to the autonomy of the Judiciary comes from the obvious dimensions of these electoral processes. If judges have to compete to be judges, magistrates or ministers of the Supreme Court, and then have the support of political parties, explicitly or implicitly, it would not even have to be a formal endorsement.
“So they will feel a certain obligation to the parties that helped them get elected: How can they be independent in their decisions? How can they achieve horizontal accountability if they arrived at this process like this?” he said.
He considered that there should be concern in Mexico about this proposal.
“Where are they going to get these resources? Well, they will probably get them from political parties, they could also get them from donors and wealthy businessmen, they could also get money from crime, right? They have a lot of money.
“Whoever the person, political party, their elites, business leaders or potential criminal gangs, they will be there. And how will they be able to give their independent rulings against someone who supported them financially during their campaign?” he questioned.
Diamond said that as a scholar of democracy he can affirm that most democracies do not elect judges by popular vote.
“It’s a very bad idea for judges, it’s a very bad idea for the separation of powers, it’s a very bad idea for democratic accountability, even if it comes from idealistic reasons,” he added.
Populism is a cause for concern
Without referring directly to Mexico, the professor said that populism is increasingly winning elections around the world, and with it, authoritarian visions of eliminating the separation of powers, autonomous organizations and undermining pluralism.
“We have levels of freedom and democracy that have been declining around the world. There has been a deterioration in the rule of law and the conditions that are so important to guarantee a rule of law, which is a strong structure of horizontal responsibility, separation of powers, checks and balances.
“We live in an era where populism has spread and populist parties and leaders have been winning in elections, eroding democratic norms and institutions,” he added.
He recalled that “populists” require concentrations of power, are hostile to existing institutions and want to make radical changes and are suspicious of political pluralism.
“They think the answer is to have one political party and one political leader and that this be the power to transform the political system in the name of the people,” he added, without mentioning President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
#Stanford #expert #warns #risk #popular #vote #judges
