Law Enforcement Struggles to Keep Pace with Criminal Investigations
Wave Goodbye to Tradition, Here Comes a Gamble!
Brace yourselves, folks! Mexico is taking a big swing with their recent experiment: the direct election of judges.
Under the banner of democratic evolution - while fixing historical issues within the elitist judicial world - the measure promised to bring us closer to a justice system that resonates with the people. However, reality shows its cracks: candidates with questionable pasts, a lack of transparency, and a system that values speed and savings over institutional strength.
Justice isn’t built in a rush. This risky gambit, rather than a triumph of democracy, appears to be heading towards a cautionary tale instead.
An Empty Victory
The initial results of citizen involvement in judicial elections are unsettling: in practice, it was a nearly deserted affair. Only 13% of the voter roll participated, with some of those votes being null and others the result of good ol’ fashioned vote-buying.
The recent judicial election in Mexico was supposed to be a pivotal moment in our judicial system’s history. It was billed as "a mechanism to democratize access to judges", bring them closer to the people, and break down the traditional elites in the judicial powers. The supposed expectation of its proponents was that millions of citizens would participate in a process unparalleled on the world stage. But the reality was far different: participation was low, barely reaching the threshold for relevance.
This outcome raises some critical questions. In democratic terms, what does it mean to elect judges in a virtually abandoned election? What kind of mandate do these new judges receive when the majority of citizens, either explicitly or implicitly, choose not to participate?
According to the advocates of the judicial reform, it was precisely citizen involvement in judicial elections that was going to transform the judicial powers. If this factor is absent, then the theory that motivated the judicial reform remains void, huh?
The Inevitable Disappointment of Citizens
The first risk lays within: the already fragile confidence in our justice system will further weaken when citizens perceive that the judicial reform was not a genuine effort to improve and strengthen the administration of justice.
The judges who emerged victorious in the recently concluded contest do not enjoy widespread public backing, nor have they undergone rigorous and transparent professional evaluation processes. In many cases, their backgrounds, merits, or suitability remain unknown.
As a consequence, instead of approaching the citizenry, justice may become even more distant from the needs of victims and may be exposed to political or even criminal influences. The numerous problems facing the justice apparatus - such as the ineffectiveness of prosecutors, the low ratio of judges per inhabitant, the lack of a gender perspective in judicial proceedings that hinders women's access to justice, etc. - will not be resolved by this reform. Disappointment is inevitable when Mexican justice continues to fail to deliver and, rather, becomes more distant, slower, and unobtainable.
The second risk is external: Mexico's institutional image. Investors, international organizations, and allied governments, including the United States, which closely monitors our criminal policy, are scrutinizing the rule of law in our country. Witnessing judges being elected through a questionable process, marred by vote tampering, receiving no broad public backing, and failing to adhere to electoral integrity standards - for example, citizens counting votes at polling stations or unused ballots being disposed of to prevent their misuse - has fueled doubts about the strength of our institutions. This, in turn, threatens the credibility of the entire nation.
The government has yet to acknowledge the lack of participation or address other deficiencies in the elections that deserve attention. Acknowledging the problems presents an opportunity to strengthen the confidence of certain groups in the government of President Claudia Sheinbaum. Otherwise, the government sends the signal that its leadership does not respond to - or correct the course of - an obvious need, and in doing so, leaves it clear that the true objective of the judicial reform was not the democratization of justice through citizen participation in the election of judges, nor a democratic celebration to strengthen the social legitimacy of the Judicial Power, but to consolidate a new control mechanism over it.
The denial validates the arguments of those who opposed the reform. While the government’s strategy might generate short-term political gains, the institutional costs will be paid sooner or later.
A Chinese Key for the Administrators of Justice
The underlying question is troubling: Can judicial professionalism be traded for a hollow election? The answer is crystal clear: no. The independence, preparation, and integrity of judges cannot be improvised or legitimized through electoral processes, especially when those processes are obviously flawed. Justice needs solid foundations: transparent selection processes, objective evaluations of knowledge and abilities, public competitions, and effective accountability mechanisms.
What we are witnessing today is the risk of further eroding justice in the name of "democratization". At its core, the risk is the elimination of the separation of powers and a backdoor to the figure that enforces the law: the judge.
If we do not correct the course, we could be laying the foundations for more vulnerable, less professional, and even more distant judicial powers from the fundamental principles of the rule of law that our country needs. Today, justice is drifting, and with it, our rights.
Director of Mexico Evaluates
Join our channel Our website is now on WhatsApp! From your mobile device, stay informed about the most relevant news of the day, opinion pieces, entertainment, trends, and more.
- In light of the recent direct election of judges in Mexico, it appears that the initial promise of citizen involvement in shaping the justice system has fallen short, with only 13% of voters participating, raising questions about the legitimate mandate of newly-elected judges.
- The low turnout in the judicial elections and the lack of transparency in the process cast doubts on the separation of powers, potentially opening the door for political or criminal influences to creep into the judicial system, which could adversely impact the rule of law and further undermine public confidence in the justice system.
