You don’t have to move to the INE.
The title of this article is the product of the advice of a teacher who told me: if the medicine is doing the patient good, even if you don’t understand him, don’t change the medicine. And that can be transferred to the electoral process, because for me the creation of the Federal Electoral Institute was a great advance, because it assured us that the country’s democratization process was going to be on the right track.
And so it happened, because there was a transition of command and party when Fox won the elections and the same thing happened with the current president López Obrador, who managed to have the majority and thanks to the Electoral Institute avoid the problems of illegal and incorrect intervention of parties politicians who did not allow alternation in power. In addition, this was transferred to the states and much greater, if not perfect, security was achieved than previously existed in the electoral processes.
The proposal to change the National Electoral Institute is very dangerous, because it alters the progressive rhythm of our democratization, which had been dominated by a single party that used presidential power to intervene in the elections, which prevented the voice of the citizens from being heard and rule by the people and for the people.
The President’s current proposal has some good points, because no institution should be subject to immobility, such as reviewing the financing of parties and the analysis of multi-member candidates, which Reyes Heroles designed to ensure that minorities also have a voice in Congress . And he succeeded, because gradually some opposition parties gained power, both at the federal and state levels. In other words, we have made democratic progress and it should not be risked for an interest that is presumed to have good intentions, but which is suspected of representing a return to a single party and perfect dictatorships, as the writer Mario Vargas Llosa pointed out.
Any change must come from conviction and not from interests that can damage what has represented, I repeat, a great advance in our country and we cannot, as with the Transparency Commission, return to the predominance of political groups in power that do not they do not listen to or share, with the opposition, decisions that alter national life.
That is why we must ensure the people clean, transparent elections and a system that allows democracy to be exercised, as it has been working, listening to the fundamental principles of characters from the Age of Enlightenment, such as Voltaire, Rousseau or social philosophers who applied the fundamental teaching which comes from the Greeks, where the majority people are responsible for choosing those who are going to govern the nation or the state.
I hope that all this is nothing more than an idea that can be corrected, listening to all the parties involved in the political processes and not depending on a single opinion that, however well-intentioned, may not convince and suffer popular rejection.
Descartes: I think, therefore I am… I think it is important to review and add positive things to the original idea. But in no way can we allow ourselves to go back to the past, when we are enjoying, with multiple examples, the popular awakening and thus there is more and more citizen participation and the government has the support of those who mostly voted for it.