The electoral system that Mexico has works well, a reform is not necessary and even less so if it is intentional and rancorous, affirmed the president councilor of the INE, Lorenzo Córdova Vianello.
In interview with THE UNIVERSAL, Córdova Vianello agrees that the rules of the game be reviewed, only that it is necessary to note the time in which they are made. Today, he clarified, is not the best time to change what is there, it is inconvenient. But if it is going to be done, he stressed, it should not be done with political intent, much less out of resentment and animosity towards the current rules.
How is the organization of the mandate revocation consultation going?
—The revocation of the mandate is going very well from the point of view of the organization, once again we are having a great citizen response. Unfortunately, in the litigious dimension and in the strictly political dimension, something very unfortunate is happening, because never in the history of the electoral authority has an exercise been so contested, but above all, so contested as this one.
Also read: TEPJF confirms the invalidity of the “government propaganda” Decree
We are seeing a tendentious attitude, and today it is no longer casual, I dare say concerted, of systematically violating the rules of the game that the INE did not put in place, but rather that the ruling party put in place with its majority in the Constitution as in the law, that It is the context in which we are.
But fortunately the citizens, on April 10, will have all the mechanisms to be able to vote freely.
Who is the target: the INE or Lorenzo Córdova?
—At the INE we are not a counterpart to anyone, we are not a counterpart to the government, we are not a counterpart to the party. The INE is the arbiter of the contest and of the organization and function, that is why it is important not to fall into the game in which they want to make us fall, into the trap, to put it without half measures, in which they want to place the INE .
The INE is going to continue working for the citizens and without confronting any force or any political actor, that does not mean that the INE does not apply the law as some would like and it does not mean that it is going to let go of the lies that are being to continue explaining and denying that post-truth narrative loaded with fallacies.
Is all this in a logic of polarization?
—We live in a moment of polarization that is not alien to the rest of the democratic realities. I think we are seeing the attempt to build a narrative of disqualification of an institution that has exercised its autonomy and independence against any government and any political party, before, now and will continue to do so in the future, because that is what these autonomous decisions are.
It is curious how precisely today the Electoral Court is being disqualified, since it has been ratifying one after another all the decisions that we have made from the INE to organize the revocation of the mandate.
It is noteworthy that in the face of this annoyance, a refounding of the electoral system is being proposed, when coincidentally three years ago those who today disqualify it applauded the decision of that court, the very composition of the court, when it revoked, I think then they were wrong, that decision in which the INE sanctioned the party, today in government, for the reconstruction trust episode, the Electoral Court closed the investigation, shelved the issue and revoked the sanction that the INE had imposed, alleging lack of exhaustiveness in the investigation .
The court was applauded and today, they disqualify the same instance and with the same integration, I believe that there are more and more elements to understand that we are facing a disqualification strategy. I do not want to think that it is or that it is linked to the electoral reform proposal that is being spread more and more, although nobody knows the terms to which it refers.
What do you think of the electoral reform that the President intends to promote?
—Our electoral system works and very well. Not only has it allowed us democratic governance, it is also a point of reference in the world. Last year we organized the largest and most complex election in our history in a context of pandemic and unprecedented violence, and from the point of view of the organization, it was the best election we have ever had.
That there are those who do not like it, well, I understand it and it is worth it, it is always convenient to discuss the rules, but today, faced with the narrative that they want to sell that it is essential to carry out an electoral reform, I say it with all the letters: it is not necessary Can we go to 2024 with the current rules? Yes, without any problem.
Also read: Alejandro Gertz was envious because Federico was loved: Alejandra Cuevas in Con los de Casa
Not only is it not necessary, but it seems to me that this is not the best time to do it, it is inconvenient for two reasons: first, because for 40 years electoral reforms have always been requested by the opposition to solve a problem, never the party in government had asked for it and today the party in government is asking for it and it is not clear what the problem is that they want to solve.
It is good that the rules of the game are modified if three basic conditions are met that I believe an electoral reform must have: first, that it be the result of a broad consensus among all forces; second condition, that it be a reform to improve what we have, not to go backwards; third great point, that it be a reform that starts from an authentic diagnosis of the needs and problems that we have and not that it be a reform as a mere political intention and much less done, let’s put it that way, with rancor and animosity towards regarding the rules of the game that they have. If these three rules are met, welcome reform.
Does this proposal see political intent, resentment?
—I believe that there is an annoyance on the part of some political actors, on the part of the government, with an electoral system that guarantees autonomy and, therefore, the non-subordination of electoral institutions. I think the President said it in Querétaro, that there was a need for an electoral reform to have truly independent authorities and so that there are no longer electoral frauds, he said that the dead no longer vote.
If there were electoral fraud and the fraud in Mexico means that the governments in power manipulate the citizen’s decision, there would have been no alternation rates, that is the best proof that there is no fraud. The President said that the dead no longer vote, no, the dead no longer vote for a long time thanks to the INE voter registry, what we do have is fraudulent behavior by some political actors and in that sense the dead no longer vote , but they do sign citizen participation exercises, which speaks of players who are not willing to play according to the rules and that is called fraud, not only is it called cheating, it is fraud of the law, but that is not resolved with reforms elections, that is resolved by applying the law as the INE is doing and showing who is cheating the rules, who is playing outside the rules to try to make a profit.
Today, unfortunately, we live in times of cheating, but that is not resolved with electoral reforms, it is resolved with adherence to the law and making the principle of the rule of law valid.
What is the risk that from power an electoral reform is requested?
—That an electoral reform be carried out in accordance with the interests of those who are in power and that is not convenient, because the elections must be the mechanism through which the citizens with their vote decide who governs them and that can suppose that the party that is already in power or that eventually, if the citizens so wish, they can remove it.
Do OPLEs work?
“Of course they work. The local sphere is where we have experienced the highest rate of alternation. In 2015, it was the first local election concurrent with the federal one in which the INE participated in local elections under the new nationalized model, where the elections are jointly the responsibility of the INE and the OPLEs. From 2015 to date, the main beneficiary of the alternation produced by this national model is a party called Morena.