Mexico: It's time for democracy to reach the judges

JUAN GARCIA

In the midst of the US and its allies' campaign to ask for "more democracy" in Venezuela, it has gone unnoticed how the US and Canada and their respective oligarchs They have demanded that the Mexican government stop a democratic reform, that of the Judiciary..

Citizens of Mexico, Spain and many other countries are told that we live in a “democracy.” It is obvious that democracy means popular power, something that does not fully exist in any contemporary state. Western countries adopted the system of separation of powers with popular election of legislative bodies, this is the model to which Salvador Allende called it “bourgeois institutionality””. Democracy is often confused with the political model born from the French Revolution. Bourgeois institutions are based on the free popular election of political officials. Although this rule is always fulfilled (theoretically) for parliamentarians and sometimes for members of the executive branch, there are few systems that establish a democratic system of election of judges and magistrates of the judicial branch. This is the main flaw of the theoretical model of bourgeois institutions, that one of the powers does not have democratic legitimacy. Theorists of the division of powers claim that the oath or promise of judges in which they commit to be subject to the constitution and the laws is sufficient. But only the most candid and innocent can be satisfied with this justification.

The fact that judges are excluded from democratic elections has also been justified by two arguments: Judges require legal training and also lifelong continuity in office to ensure their independence.

The fact is that the institution of the jury proves that it is possible to judge without legal training and without having to be a lifelong commitment. Furthermore, even accepting both arguments, nothing prevents popular choice from being limited to people with the legal training necessary to dispense justice.

This bourgeois distrust of the democratic election of the Judiciary is easily understood by reading the editorials, news and interviews in the media owned by the oligarchy. For example, Editorial from El País on September 13th “Reforming justice in Mexico”, which states:

"No one doubts that the judicial system needed a drastic reform. Distant, obsolete and with large veins of corruption, justice in Mexico suffers from a crisis of credibility. It is precisely this lack of confidence, widely extended among the popular classes, that has allowed López Obrador to carry out a such a radical project. And it has done so, although its critics find it hard to admit, through democratic means, both electoral and parliamentary. Something that, in this case, does not guarantee its success. The first effect of the measure has been generate uncertainty. The peso has depreciated and international investors' doubts persist, despite the Government's efforts to reassure them. It is a complex horizon where even The United States has expressed its concerns".

This editorial is one more of the Much opinion published against the democratization of justice.

It is clear that the oligarchs and the imperial authority are more comfortable with career judges. But curiously, many US states do elect their judges, prosecutors and even police commissioners by popular vote, but they do not like this formula to be applied in their “backyard”.

In Latin America, US interference in transformative processes has gone from being coups d'état led by the army to lawfare or the “legal” coup d’état successfully tested in Brazil, Peru, Paraguay, Bolivia, Honduras or Guatemala. We would say, being a bit cynical, that this change in US foreign policy is less aggressive towards the working classes because it is less bloody than when the repression and change of government were left to the armies. The repression experienced by Chile, Argentina, Paraguay or Brazil has no comparison with the lawfare through which “only” the president of the government is imprisoned and the “only” civilian victims are those of the repression against the legal coup, for example what happened in Peru.

But not only must we take into account the permeability of a large part of the judicial caste to pressures for the overthrow of left-wing governments, but the oligarchy is also interested in the ease with which judicial decisions are bought, without the scandalously unfair and illegal rulings implying any kind of sanction for prevaricating judges. This is especially striking in Mexico, where the judiciary has stood out in defense of the interests of capitalists against López Obrador's redistributive policies.

Legislation emanating from Mexico's democratic institutions has been halted by the Mexican judiciary, which has annulled up to seventy-four laws during this government under unspeakable pretexts and has favored tax evasion by Mexico's mega-rich.

And the most outrageously anti-democratic thing is the claim of the judiciary and the political right that the body that controls the judiciary in disciplinary matters, in the Kingdom of Spain the General Council of the Judiciary, be elected by the judges themselves.

If corporatism is a problem in general, in the case of the judiciary it is scandalous. That they themselves, without any external control, decide on disciplinary sanctions and promotions means shielding themselves from any democratic counterweight. Under the pretext of ensuring the independence of the judiciary, impunity and arbitrariness are being encouraged. The independence of judges is nothing more than the means to achieve impartiality. The latter is the principle that must govern the actions of the judiciary, something that is often forgotten and not required of judges who demonstrate their preferences for the most powerful.

A caste that necessarily comes from a wealthy middle class, in many cases children and grandchildren of other magistrates, cannot be democratic. The popular election of judges will make both lawfare and complicity with corruption and tax evasion difficult. And above all, there is no democracy when one of its three powers, the judiciary, lacks any kind of popular legitimacy.

Juan García He has a degree in Law and is an analyst in several international media. He is co-author of the book “Spanish governments against freedoms.”