The approval of a new law in Mexico’s Senate for the election of the judges, which was earlier passed in the lower chamber, has led to protests. According to multiple sources including the BBC and CNN, the reformation requires the judges to be elected by popular vote — rather than be appointed — in Mexico. Under the new system, judges, magistrates and, even, Supreme Court justices will have to stand for popular election. Protesters carried out demonstrations against the reform, which has the backing of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. But it remains doubtful whether the reformed law, which has led to one of Mexico’s biggest constitutional controversies in years, will bring positive outcomes.
It is pertinently notable that the election of judges may bring justice-based and other negative outcomes, though proponents including the running president say that the changes will make judges more accountable to the Mexican people and address nepotism and corruption. This may make the judiciary more politicized, reach decisions based on political considerations rather than the law, undermine the country’s system of checks and balances through strengthening the power of the governing party, Morena party, and undermine a defendant’s rights to a fair trial, leading to a lack of judicial impartiality and fairness. Moreover, it may not reduce corruption as is deemed by the supporters of the reform. Corruption is not reduced in Bolivia, where judges are elected at the federal level. Among others, it may erode public trust in the judiciary and undermine the credibility of court rulings.
Another relevant aspect is how much certainty there is for the ruling party, which dominates both the executive and legislative body, to benefit from the election of judges of the judiciary, rendered the checks on the presidential power of Mexico, in the long run. While this reformation may lead to government favorable verdicts many times and help pass various reforms of the government without significant hindrances from the judiciary, which halted some proposed changes of the previous government in the energy and security sector, the conflicts of interests of the judges may unsurprisingly lead to the decisions that may not align not only with legal principles but also with the government preferences on major issues including reforms always.
Reformation is not bad. It is needed to address various concerns within the existing laws. In judicial reformation, there are promising aspects too. Notably, judicial reform also allows cases involving organized crime to be heard by judges who do not have to reveal their identity. This can help protect the judges from threats from organized criminals and may lead to better outcomes in addressing organized crimes — a crucial problem in Mexico for decades that has been impacting the economy and other aspects. But because of potentially notable negative outcomes of the elections of judges, the concerns of protesters are not unseasoned.
It is desired that the protesters’ reasoned concerns be addressed. Given that the reform has already been signed into law, it has turned out to be difficult to do so. The good intentions of the government can help address the concerns. But a strong system of checks and balances is crucial to ensure impartiality and judicial independence. Among others, implementing strict ethical guidelines and promoting the professional commitment of judges and transparency in decision-making processes can help maintain judicial integrity, despite judges being elected by popular vote, and uphold justice.
Amir M Sayem
Chief Editor
Dhaka Opinion Magazine
