The question for the referendum proposed by the leader of the deputies of Morena, Ignacio Mier, is biased, convoluted and poorly written: “Does Mexico deserve or not, Mexican women, to make use of their right to participate in a procedure that modifies the procedure established in Constitutional 96 for the appointment of ministers?”. The wording is inept because it forces the participants to consult article 96 of the Constitution, when the wise people are not necessarily lawyers in law. He is biased in using the forms “deserves” and “make use of his right” to induce the response. It is captious since it is made to confuse and not to clarify. In addition, it is poorly drafted, when inviting to “participate in a procedure that modifies the procedure.”
Congressman Mier has been publicly proud that he does not have a bachelor’s degree. “I made a decision for consistency and congruence, which I do not recommend, but I did it,” he said on January 24. “I decided not to graduate because I considered that it was a fraud to what I believe, to what I think, at that time.” However, a decision cannot be made “for consistency” when it is not recommended to others. If Mier thinks that going to college or graduating is fraud, he should ask others, starting with his children, not to study or get a degree. Maybe they didn’t teach you the categorical imperative in school. When we see his convoluted question, we realize that he probably didn’t graduate because he didn’t have the ability to do so.
The deputy’s question, however, has not been written so that the people understand it: the addressee is the great voter. Mier seeks the candidacy of Brunette for the government of Puebla and wants to get along with the “Mr. President”, without whose blow this would be impossible. The question reflects what he thinks the president wants.
Yesterday, AMLO gave his blessing to the consultation: “I think that the consultation helps, you just have to see the legal procedure. People must be informed and we all have to participate in cleaning up, in moralizing, in purifying public life. It is a fact, it can be proven, that almost the entire judiciary, from top to bottom, is rotten.” The president even contributed his own question, also poorly worded: “Do you want them to elect [sic] to the judges, to the magistrates, to the ministers of the Court that form part of the judicial power? Yes or no? That’s where the question is, now vote”.
Many jurists have criticized the idea of electing the ministers of the Court by popular vote. Chilean José Miguel Vivanco, former director of Human Rights Watch for the Americas, noted on May 11: “Another nonsense of AMLO: that the magistrates of the Supreme Court be elected by universal suffrage, just like the rest of the politicians. That would be a direct hit to the waterline of judicial independence and the end of the rule of law.” The Mexican Diego Valdés has declared that electing ministers by popular vote would be a demagogic act. In Bolivia, where this has been done since 2009, popular participation has been very low.
López Obrador, however, wants to subjugate the only state power that does not dominate. He thinks that electing ministers by popular vote would give him the control he lacks. That is the purpose of the proposal. To help, Deputy Mier offers him his consultation with a biased, convoluted and poorly worded question.
Called
The new directors of the INE they rejected the precautionary measures against AMLO for calling his party to vote. The president said: “Do you want the corrupt to return? You already know who you are going to vote for. Do you want the transformation to continue? You know too.” But the new Litigation Unit did not consider it a call to vote.
#tricky #question