Electoral Justice and Democratic Governance in Mexico

Context

The Mexican political transition has singular characteristics in Latin America.  In effect, as opposed to most nations in the Continent, Mexico did not suffer military dictatorships and after the consolidation of the revolutionary regime, which was politically and socially inclusive but with authoritarian features, it held presidential elections with regularity.  However, those processes did not contemplate alternation in power as a horizon: the opposition did not have, in reality, any real possibility of winning the Presidency or to obtain governorships or parliamentary majorities.

Beyond the discussion on when the democratic transition began in Mexico, it is evident that the construction of impartial and independent electoral organizations without subordination to party actors as well the approval of complete, precise legislation with sufficient elements as to guarantee transparency in vote represented the pillars of said democratization.

The Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) the Electoral Tribunal Electoral of the Judiciary of the Federation (TEPJF) played a fundamental part in giving back to elections their first mission in a democracy: ensuring that popular will be expressed freely and be respected, allowing the citizens to choose their authorities from a pluralistic gamut of choices.  The year 2000 seemed to symbolize those advances, when for the first time in decades there was an alternation in the Presidency of the Republic.  Due to this internal acknowledgement, the two institutions won considerable prestige abroad; they were seen as institutions of good repute for their solidity, for their first-order role in the democratic game, and their moral or intellectual influence.

This successful model faced a severe crisis in the presidential election of 2006.  A very narrow result, a prolonged uncertainty over who would be the winner and sustained allegations of fraud damaged the image of both electoral organizations.  Very shortly afterward, there was a renovation of officials in the IFE and TEPJF, at the same time that an important electoral reform was approved that changed, from the roots up, access to the media during electoral campaigns, and with this, the cost of doing politics.

In spite of these evolutions, electoral institutions are now in a delicate situation.  According to data from the Latinobarómetro 2009, Mexicans show a tendency toward disenchantment with democracy.  On the other hand, according to leaderships consulted by the PAPEP, the role of the TEPJF generates mistrust and affects the certitude of political processes by issuing inconsistent rulings.  

In these conditions, presidential elections in 2012 present renewed challenges to the Tribunal. There are risks in the general scenario, linked to the deepening of democratic disenchantment and the influence of de-facto powers, but others are more specific, which concern the relations of the Tribunal with its regional courts, the IFE, political parties and the media.

In this manner, two dilemmas are present, that constitute the basis of the construction scheme for medium-term political scenarios:

1. The type of political context in which the next elections will be held.  Will there be elections of “low” or “high” intensity, in terms of the quality of the competition between actors, the degree of sociopolitical polarization and the level of citizen participation?

2. Political-institutional capabilities that the TEPJF may manage to consolidate, not only in election day but all along the electoral process, and especially in relation to the central political actors in these processes.  Definitively, will the “arbiter” be perceived as strong, impartial and accurate in its decisions or as weak, biased and erratic?