By Ximena Céspedes*
A few months ago, when Congress approved the constitutional reform that transformed the way in which those who teach justice in Mexico are chosen, we knew that we were entering a new, complex and, without a doubt risky field.
Since then, many people and organizations ask ourselves an urgent question: how is an election watched when what is at stake is not a legislative position or mayor’s office, but the very integrity of our justice system? There are no easy answers to that question, but there are possible actions.
Since February 2024, some sectors of civil society began to build an answer. In my case, I joined the effort promoted by the employer Confederation of the Mexican Republic (Coparmex), not only as a vice president of democratic development, but as a citizen committed to democracy. The initiative combined legal analysis, public forums, the presentation of the friend of the court and, finally, a national electoral observation network.
Observing was the first step to understand. We did it knowing that no judicial election had taken place before in our country, and that this reform had long -range implications. Observation became a tool not only technical, but deeply political, the best sense of the word: a way of caring for public interest from citizens.
We design a platform called Electoral Viewer, we register before the INE and display observers throughout the country in coordination with the 71 business centers that make up the Confederation.
What is in dispute is not only who occupy judicial charges, but how they access them and what role citizens play in that process. The independence of the Judiciary – one of the pillars of any constitutional democracy – can be compromised when the rules of the game prioritize the popularity over the preparation, or when the selection mechanisms lack transparency, technical deliberation or substantive participation of society.
The reform proposed by the Government, which had as its purpose citizenize and clean corruption to the Judiciary, ended up being captured by the party in the government, subject to particular interests, with little transparency and multiple irregularities. In sum, all these elements are the components for a corruptible judiciary.
These are not abstract concerns. We saw them reflected at each stage of the process: from the integration of the evaluation committees to the lack of public information about the profiles and mechanisms that defined the candidacies. We also observed an extended use of instruments such as the “Tombola” – that is, the random assignment of candidacies – that, far from strengthening trust, deepened uncertainty.
When justice gets into play, there is no room for improvisation. The way in which the judges are designated cannot be treated with the same logic as a partisan contest. And yet that is precisely what began to happen. As a citizen, I am worried that this electoral experiment ends up weakening institutional counterweights instead of strengthening them.
There is another critical dimension: The capture of the Judiciary. When the election of judge is subject to the capacity to mobilize political actors, there is a real risk that those who access these positions do not do so for their merits or for their commitment to the Constitution, but for their proximity to those who hold power. That scenario is incompatible with the notion of impartial justice and represents a latent threat to the freedoms and rights of all.
Finally, there is the cultural effect. If we normalize that judges and ministers depend on applause, surveys or propaganda, we will have eroded the very essence of the Judiciary: their duty to decide according to law, even when that means going against the countercurrent. A popular judge is not always a fair judge. An independent judge is almost never popular. Justice does not need likes; You need clear guarantees, time and rules.
What lived so far should be the beginning of a broader conversation. It is not enough to have observed: now it is time to discuss, propose, correct. The observation report, which will be presented soon by Coparmex, will offer key data and analysis. But we can already affirm that this experience leaves urgent lessons for the redesign of the judicial model.
We have the responsibility of raising our voice. Not to defend privileges, but to protect principles. Justice is not chosen at random. And a country that does not take care of the way he names his judges, sooner or later faces a mirror that reflects impunity, arbitrariness or submission.
Today more than ever, observing is an act of hope. And shut up … it is simply not an option. #Opinioncoparmex
About the author:
*Ximena Céspedes is National Vice President of Democratic Development and Coparmex lobbying.
The opinions expressed are only the responsibility of their authors and are completely independent of the position and the editorial line of Forbes Mexico.
Follow business information and today in Forbes Mexico
